The sun is constant yet ocean temperatures increase and decrease. Why?

We are waiting for the official Co2 FRAUD analysis of oxygen isotopes in Antarctic Peninsula volcanic eruptions...

YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT RATIO IS. YOUR DATA IS DIRTY AND COMPROMISED BECAUSE OF IT.
The south pole is thermally isolated from warm marine currents because a continent is parked over it. The north pole is thermally isolated because a mostly land locked ocean is parked over it. So the south pole has a higher temperature threshold for glaciation than the north pole does. But the north pole has more surrounding land for glaciation to spread once it begins and that's why what happens in the northern hemisphere influences the climate of the planet more than what happens in the southern hemisphere.
 
Antarctica is a continent, a huge land mass that has accumulated its ice sheet over millions of years. The Arctic doesn’t have the same land mass and also is impacted by ocean currents and weather so there is much more fluctuation in the north.

Why are you asking about ice at the poles?


LOL!!!

So the AMOUNT OF ICE ON EARTH has NOTHING TO DO WITH Co2 or bullshit "greenhouse gasses," it is 100% about WHERE LAND IS NEAR THE POLES....

THANK YOU....

Earth today has 9 million cubic miles of ice. How much ice would it have it there was (little to) no land within 600 miles of a pole....???
 
What do you mean when you say IR does nothing? Are you claiming that the IR emitted by the earth does not have a warming effect?


Relatively to other gas molecules in the atmosphere, the claim that Co2 is a "heat trapping greenhouse gas" is complete bullshit with precisely ZERO ACTUAL DATA to support it.... only FUDGE of the satellite and balloon data.
 
at least youre admitting that the raw data you keep bringing up was inaccurate


Nice try liar. Not at all the case. The Co2 FRAUD claimed a "shade issue" that was CONSTANT. To correct a flat line of data for a "constant" distortion would simply move the whole FLAT LINE up or down, but your Co2 FRAUD heroes instead used that excuse to fudge a flat line into an upward slope, and THAT IS FRAUD, whether the data was subjected to the CONSTANT issue or not.
 
So yes, the data did need to be corrected.


Once again the Co2 FRAUD and its CHOSEN supporters insist, data does not matter, only fudge does...


There is NO ACTUAL DATA supporting the theory that adding Co2 to the atmosphere causes warming, NONE.
 
Vostock ice core data shows a 500 to 800 year lag from the time warming occurs, to the time CO2 increases.

Thus the CO2 increase we are witnessing today, is a result of the Medieval Warming Period.


The oxygen isotope bs again...

What caused those downward spikes in the Vostock "temp" data...???
 
The oxygen isotope bs again...

What caused those downward spikes in the Vostock "temp" data...???
Tell me again how air in melting ice increases atmospheric pressure and how you use hurricanes to measure ocean temperature. :lol:
 
You make these conversations harder than they need be by your rude and childish behavior.
When dealing with people like abu afak it's helpful to remember that with behaviors like that there's no way that they are professionals. At best they are low wage workers if even that.
You really know how to make friends and influence people. :rolleyes:

I suggest you study up on transactional analysis. It will help you learn how to converse like an adult instead of a spoiled brat who isn't getting her way.

Search results for query: afuk


  1. [IMG alt="ding"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/59/59921.jpg?1624675561[/IMG]

    Where is the Consensus survey

    I understand.
  2. [IMG alt="ding"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/59/59921.jpg?1624675561[/IMG]

    2020 Ties for Hottest Year on Record, NASA Says (Nullfying 10,000 "it's cold this morning" posts here)

    Exactly!!!
  3. [IMG alt="ding"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/59/59921.jpg?1624675561[/IMG]

    Growing Days..... Shorten again

    It's one Abu Afuk used and I used against him. Here's one from John Englander.
  4. [IMG alt="ding"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/59/59921.jpg?1624675561[/IMG]

    2021 State of The Climate Report: Empirical Observations Show No Sign of ‘Climate Crisis’ – ‘Snow Cover Stable, Sea Ice Levels Recovering, & No Change

    Again... the geologic record shows that as the planet got colder climate fluctuations increased in frequency and severity.
  5. [IMG alt="ding"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/59/59921.jpg?1624675561[/IMG]

    My Three Global Warming Fraud Websites

    I think you are abu afuk. I always thought abu was a chick too.
  6. [IMG alt="ding"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/59/59921.jpg?1624675561[/IMG]

    London has Warmest April day in nearly 70 years, as Enormous Heat Dome Consumes Europe

    Her writing style reminds me of abu afuk.
  7. [IMG alt="ding"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/59/59921.jpg?1624675561[/IMG]

    Warmers are Neurotic Basket Cases

    Actually the planet is 2C cooler with 120 ppm more CO2 than in the past. :)
  8. [IMG alt="ding"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/59/59921.jpg?1624675561[/IMG]

    The hockey stick was wrong

    abu afuk mad :lol:
  9. [IMG alt="ding"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/59/59921.jpg?1624675561[/IMG]

    A discussion on the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) and its consequences

    Crick can you please tell abu afuk how important this is to know?
  10. [IMG alt="ding"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/59/59921.jpg?1624675561[/IMG]

    How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

    That's just like abu afuk to argue against a PBS documentary on the science of earth's climate. He probably calls PBS climate deniers.
  11. [IMG alt="ding"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/59/59921.jpg?1624675561[/IMG]

    Greenland surface melt falls over a kilometer to the ice sheet base. Potential -> Kinetic > than 10 powerstations combined

    I already provided it to your superior in intellect, abu afuk. But let me provide it again because I am such a nice guy. Ice Cores
  12. [IMG alt="ding"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/59/59921.jpg?1624675561[/IMG]

    The hockey stick was wrong

    It's odd that abu afuk thinks it's funny I believe we are in an interglacial cycle and that the earth is warming but the overall trend is a cooling planet as evidenced by the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. That's mainstream science that is actually in a textbook...
  13. [IMG alt="ding"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/59/59921.jpg?1624675561[/IMG]

    Very warm, no modern day trees, no ice, high seas

    Actually it wasn't answered. The answer is that CO2 doesn't drive climate change. That's the answer.
  14. [IMG alt="ding"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/59/59921.jpg?1624675561[/IMG]

    A discussion on the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) and its consequences

    ...lot from people who don't understand science or how to use the reply button. My objective isn't to convince true believers like yourself, abu afuk and old rocks. My objective is to defeat you. So while it may be "bye" for you, every time I see one of your posts spouting nonsense, I'll be...
 
Last edited:
His claims and this section are not New to either of us you moron. They are 5+ years and counting.
Only you are new and have not done ANY serious googling/research.
I beat his BS/Lies on my First day here.
START USING GOOGLE AND GOOD SOURCES YOU LOW IQ LAZY MORON.
IT'S EASY TO FIND THE TRUTH
IE
MY POST #1
A SIMPLE QUESTION WITH HIGH QUALITY SOURCES.
EVER USE GOOGLE FOR ANYTHING BUT SNEAKERS?


How do we Know Humans are Causing Climate Change?


Then pick a link/any link: Yale, NASA, Columbia, etc, etc

(or you can just take Lying ConspiracYst ding's word)

EDIT

Look at ding scramble/PANIC/attempt to Bury below with NO CONTENT posts. No answers to his graph BS, etc, etc.
Unlike my posts with ie, relevant CO2 Concentration/CARBON CYCLE stats.
He also got refuted on the last page by me re IPCC. (and the one before it)
It's that way on every page, but morons like you just keep talking, not acknowledging/understanding as he just emptily BS his way to the next page.
Note Westwall got beat above and went away.

Ding just keeps posting emptily/endlessly -now 5 posts- saying Nothing on point below hoping some moron like you gets him off this page with replies.

`
Save your sanctimonious breath. I don’t need your advice on how to engage and I certainly don’t need you to show off examples of how you engaged with others. Nothing about how you’ve acted with me so far makes me respect your methods or opinions about anything.
 
Save your sanctimonious breath. I don’t need your advice on how to engage and I certainly don’t need you to show off examples of how you engaged with others. Nothing about how you’ve acted with me so far makes me respect your methods or opinions about anything.
So sorry, but you are beyond worthless as a poster here.
You have no info/knowledge, no links, and are subject to Ding's 100% wrong opinions and obvious and daily changing excuses for denying AGW. (and his other diversions/deflections.)
You have no ability to search for the simplest facts. (nor obviously ever even watched a good science show on the topic.. or the nightly news.. or temperature!)
So you are a tool for anyone with a 3 digit IQ... probably even a 90 IQ.
`
 
Last edited:
LOL!!!

So the AMOUNT OF ICE ON EARTH has NOTHING TO DO WITH Co2 or bullshit "greenhouse gasses," it is 100% about WHERE LAND IS NEAR THE POLES....

THANK YOU....

Earth today has 9 million cubic miles of ice. How much ice would it have it there was (little to) no land within 600 miles of a pole....???
Less
 
Relatively to other gas molecules in the atmosphere, the claim that Co2 is a "heat trapping greenhouse gas" is complete bullshit with precisely ZERO ACTUAL DATA to support it.... only FUDGE of the satellite and balloon data.
The understanding that carbon dioxide (COâ‚‚) absorbs and emits infrared (IR) radiation is based on several lines of scientific evidence and established principles in physics and chemistry. Here are the key points that explain how scientists know this:

### 1. Spectroscopy:
- Infrared Spectroscopy: Scientists use a technique called spectroscopy to study how gases absorb and emit light at different wavelengths. When IR radiation passes through a sample of COâ‚‚, specific wavelengths of that radiation are absorbed due to the vibrational transitions of COâ‚‚ molecules.
- Each molecule has a unique "fingerprint" of absorption that corresponds to the specific wavelengths of light it can absorb. For COâ‚‚, absorption occurs primarily in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum, particularly around wavelengths of approximately 4.3 micrometers and 15 micrometers.

### 2. Laboratory Experiments:
- Controlled laboratory experiments have been conducted to measure the absorption characteristics of COâ‚‚ and other greenhouse gases. These experiments confirm that COâ‚‚ can absorb IR radiation and subsequently re-emit it.

### 3. Theoretical Models:
- Radiative Transfer Models: Scientists use radiative transfer equations and models to predict how gases in the atmosphere interact with radiation. These models take into account the absorption and emission properties of different gases, including COâ‚‚.
- Climate models incorporate these principles to simulate how changes in COâ‚‚ concentrations affect the Earth's energy balance and climate.

### 4. Atmospheric Observations:
- Satellite Measurements: Satellites equipped with sensors can measure the spectral characteristics of the Earth's atmosphere. These measurements provide direct evidence of the absorption of IR radiation by greenhouse gases, including COâ‚‚.
- Data from satellites show changes in atmospheric composition and correlate them with temperature trends, supporting the understanding of COâ‚‚'s role in climate change.

### 5. Historical Data:
- Ice core samples provide historical data on COâ‚‚ concentrations and global temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years. This data shows a correlation between increased COâ‚‚ levels and higher global temperatures, consistent with the greenhouse effect.

### 6. The Greenhouse Effect:
- The mechanism of the greenhouse effect is well understood and supported by extensive research. When COâ‚‚ absorbs IR radiation emitted from the Earth's surface, it re-emits some of that energy back toward the surface, contributing to warming. This process has been validated through both experimental and observational studies.

### Conclusion:
In summary, the understanding that COâ‚‚ absorbs and emits infrared radiation is supported by a combination of experimental spectroscopy, laboratory studies, theoretical models, satellite observations, and historical climate data. These lines of evidence converge to confirm the role of COâ‚‚ as a greenhouse gas that contributes to the warming of the Earth's atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is a significant greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere, but its absorbent properties in terms of infrared (IR) radiation are part of a broader context that includes other greenhouse gases, particularly water vapor (H₂O) and methane (CH₄). Here’s a comparison of the absorbent properties of CO₂ relative to other atmospheric molecules:

### 1. Water Vapor (Hâ‚‚O):
- Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and is also the most effective at absorbing IR radiation. It covers a broad range of wavelengths and has strong absorption bands, particularly in the infrared region.
- Water vapor's capacity to absorb heat is much greater than that of COâ‚‚, particularly because it can exist in different phases (gas, liquid, solid) and contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect.

### 2. Methane (CHâ‚„):
- Methane is another potent greenhouse gas, though it is present in much lower concentrations than COâ‚‚. Methane is more effective at absorbing IR radiation than COâ‚‚, with a much stronger greenhouse effect per molecule.
- Methane has specific absorption bands that overlap with those of COâ‚‚, making it a very effective greenhouse gas despite its lower concentration.

### 3. Carbon Dioxide (COâ‚‚):
- COâ‚‚ has specific absorption bands, particularly around 4.3 micrometers and 15 micrometers in the infrared spectrum. While it is not as effective at absorbing IR radiation as water vapor or methane on a per-molecule basis, it plays a crucial role in the greenhouse effect due to its relatively high concentration and long atmospheric lifetime.
- CO₂ also contributes to the greenhouse effect by absorbing energy emitted by the Earth’s surface and re-emitting it back toward the surface, thereby warming the atmosphere.

### 4. Other Greenhouse Gases:
- Nitrous Oxide (Nâ‚‚O): Another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide is less abundant than COâ‚‚ but is effective at absorbing IR radiation. It has a significant warming potential.
- Ozone (O₃): Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs UV radiation and has some greenhouse gas properties in the troposphere, contributing to warming.

### 5. Overall Contribution:
- While COâ‚‚ is less effective at absorbing IR radiation on a per-molecule basis compared to water vapor and methane, its higher concentration in the atmosphere and its long-term stability make it a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect and climate change.
- The combined effects of all greenhouse gases are important for understanding the overall warming effect on the planet. Water vapor amplifies the effects of COâ‚‚ and other greenhouse gases through feedback mechanisms, making the overall impact of these gases more complex.

### Conclusion:
In summary, while COâ‚‚ is a key greenhouse gas, it is not the most effective absorber of infrared radiation when compared to water vapor and methane. However, its role in climate change is significant due to its concentration, long atmospheric lifetime, and the way it interacts with other greenhouse gases and climate systems.
 
Nice try liar. Not at all the case. The Co2 FRAUD claimed a "shade issue" that was CONSTANT. To correct a flat line of data for a "constant" distortion would simply move the whole FLAT LINE up or down, but your Co2 FRAUD heroes instead used that excuse to fudge a flat line into an upward slope, and THAT IS FRAUD, whether the data was subjected to the CONSTANT issue or not.
Or you just don’t understand the analysis and calculations they did. That’s where I’d put my money
 
Once again the Co2 FRAUD and its CHOSEN supporters insist, data does not matter, only fudge does...


There is NO ACTUAL DATA supporting the theory that adding Co2 to the atmosphere causes warming, NONE.
There’s plenty. Youre just too stubborn and hard headed to see it
 
So sorry, but you are beyond worthless as a poster here.
You have no info/knowledge, no links, and are subject to Ding's 100% wrong opinions and obvious and daily changing excuses for denying AGW. (and his other diversions/deflections.)
You have no ability to search for the simplest facts. (nor obviously ever even watched a good science show on the topic.. or the nightly news.. or temperature!)
So you are a tool for anyone with a 3 digit IQ... probably even a 90 IQ.
`
Your presumptivenss is amusing and your confidence in your inaccurate opinions is laughable
 


So LAND NEAR THE POLES is what determines Earth ICE content.

We agree.

So if LAND MOVES and EARTH ICE CONTENT is about LAND NEAR THE POLES and NOT Co2 or BOGUS GREENHOUSE GAS GLOBALONEY, how does Earth's climate actually change...




 
There’s plenty. Youre just too stubborn and hard headed to see it


LOL!!!

There are TWO and ONLY TWO measures of atmospheric temps, sorry...
 
Or you just don’t understand the analysis and calculations they did. That’s where I’d put my money


I understand and explain it perfectly. They fudged the fudge job. Their excuse for fudging does not correlate with their own fudge job to "correct."
 
The understanding that carbon dioxide (COâ‚‚) absorbs and emits infrared (IR) radiation is based on several lines of scientific evidence and established principles in physics and chemistry. Here are the key points that explain how scientists know this:

### 1. Spectroscopy:
- Infrared Spectroscopy: Scientists use a technique called spectroscopy to study how gases absorb and emit light at different wavelengths. When IR radiation passes through a sample of COâ‚‚, specific wavelengths of that radiation are absorbed due to the vibrational transitions of COâ‚‚ molecules.
- Each molecule has a unique "fingerprint" of absorption that corresponds to the specific wavelengths of light it can absorb. For COâ‚‚, absorption occurs primarily in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum, particularly around wavelengths of approximately 4.3 micrometers and 15 micrometers.

### 2. Laboratory Experiments:
- Controlled laboratory experiments have been conducted to measure the absorption characteristics of COâ‚‚ and other greenhouse gases. These experiments confirm that COâ‚‚ can absorb IR radiation and subsequently re-emit it.

### 3. Theoretical Models:
- Radiative Transfer Models: Scientists use radiative transfer equations and models to predict how gases in the atmosphere interact with radiation. These models take into account the absorption and emission properties of different gases, including COâ‚‚.
- Climate models incorporate these principles to simulate how changes in COâ‚‚ concentrations affect the Earth's energy balance and climate.

### 4. Atmospheric Observations:
- Satellite Measurements: Satellites equipped with sensors can measure the spectral characteristics of the Earth's atmosphere. These measurements provide direct evidence of the absorption of IR radiation by greenhouse gases, including COâ‚‚.
- Data from satellites show changes in atmospheric composition and correlate them with temperature trends, supporting the understanding of COâ‚‚'s role in climate change.

### 5. Historical Data:
- Ice core samples provide historical data on COâ‚‚ concentrations and global temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years. This data shows a correlation between increased COâ‚‚ levels and higher global temperatures, consistent with the greenhouse effect.

### 6. The Greenhouse Effect:
- The mechanism of the greenhouse effect is well understood and supported by extensive research. When COâ‚‚ absorbs IR radiation emitted from the Earth's surface, it re-emits some of that energy back toward the surface, contributing to warming. This process has been validated through both experimental and observational studies.

### Conclusion:
In summary, the understanding that COâ‚‚ absorbs and emits infrared radiation is supported by a combination of experimental spectroscopy, laboratory studies, theoretical models, satellite observations, and historical climate data. These lines of evidence converge to confirm the role of COâ‚‚ as a greenhouse gas that contributes to the warming of the Earth's atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is a significant greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere, but its absorbent properties in terms of infrared (IR) radiation are part of a broader context that includes other greenhouse gases, particularly water vapor (H₂O) and methane (CH₄). Here’s a comparison of the absorbent properties of CO₂ relative to other atmospheric molecules:

### 1. Water Vapor (Hâ‚‚O):
- Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and is also the most effective at absorbing IR radiation. It covers a broad range of wavelengths and has strong absorption bands, particularly in the infrared region.
- Water vapor's capacity to absorb heat is much greater than that of COâ‚‚, particularly because it can exist in different phases (gas, liquid, solid) and contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect.

### 2. Methane (CHâ‚„):
- Methane is another potent greenhouse gas, though it is present in much lower concentrations than COâ‚‚. Methane is more effective at absorbing IR radiation than COâ‚‚, with a much stronger greenhouse effect per molecule.
- Methane has specific absorption bands that overlap with those of COâ‚‚, making it a very effective greenhouse gas despite its lower concentration.

### 3. Carbon Dioxide (COâ‚‚):
- COâ‚‚ has specific absorption bands, particularly around 4.3 micrometers and 15 micrometers in the infrared spectrum. While it is not as effective at absorbing IR radiation as water vapor or methane on a per-molecule basis, it plays a crucial role in the greenhouse effect due to its relatively high concentration and long atmospheric lifetime.
- CO₂ also contributes to the greenhouse effect by absorbing energy emitted by the Earth’s surface and re-emitting it back toward the surface, thereby warming the atmosphere.

### 4. Other Greenhouse Gases:
- Nitrous Oxide (Nâ‚‚O): Another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide is less abundant than COâ‚‚ but is effective at absorbing IR radiation. It has a significant warming potential.
- Ozone (O₃): Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs UV radiation and has some greenhouse gas properties in the troposphere, contributing to warming.

### 5. Overall Contribution:
- While COâ‚‚ is less effective at absorbing IR radiation on a per-molecule basis compared to water vapor and methane, its higher concentration in the atmosphere and its long-term stability make it a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect and climate change.
- The combined effects of all greenhouse gases are important for understanding the overall warming effect on the planet. Water vapor amplifies the effects of COâ‚‚ and other greenhouse gases through feedback mechanisms, making the overall impact of these gases more complex.

### Conclusion:
In summary, while COâ‚‚ is a key greenhouse gas, it is not the most effective absorber of infrared radiation when compared to water vapor and methane. However, its role in climate change is significant due to its concentration, long atmospheric lifetime, and the way it interacts with other greenhouse gases and climate systems.




And every syllable in that is completely blown out of the water by the truth that


GREENLAND FROZE WHILE NORTH AMERICA THAWED


 
The understanding that carbon dioxide (COâ‚‚) absorbs and emits infrared (IR) radiation is based on several lines of scientific evidence and established principles in physics and chemistry. Here are the key points that explain how scientists know this:

### 1. Spectroscopy:
- Infrared Spectroscopy: Scientists use a technique called spectroscopy to study how gases absorb and emit light at different wavelengths. When IR radiation passes through a sample of COâ‚‚, specific wavelengths of that radiation are absorbed due to the vibrational transitions of COâ‚‚ molecules.
- Each molecule has a unique "fingerprint" of absorption that corresponds to the specific wavelengths of light it can absorb. For COâ‚‚, absorption occurs primarily in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum, particularly around wavelengths of approximately 4.3 micrometers and 15 micrometers.

### 2. Laboratory Experiments:
- Controlled laboratory experiments have been conducted to measure the absorption characteristics of COâ‚‚ and other greenhouse gases. These experiments confirm that COâ‚‚ can absorb IR radiation and subsequently re-emit it.

### 3. Theoretical Models:
- Radiative Transfer Models: Scientists use radiative transfer equations and models to predict how gases in the atmosphere interact with radiation. These models take into account the absorption and emission properties of different gases, including COâ‚‚.
- Climate models incorporate these principles to simulate how changes in COâ‚‚ concentrations affect the Earth's energy balance and climate.

### 4. Atmospheric Observations:
- Satellite Measurements: Satellites equipped with sensors can measure the spectral characteristics of the Earth's atmosphere. These measurements provide direct evidence of the absorption of IR radiation by greenhouse gases, including COâ‚‚.
- Data from satellites show changes in atmospheric composition and correlate them with temperature trends, supporting the understanding of COâ‚‚'s role in climate change.

### 5. Historical Data:
- Ice core samples provide historical data on COâ‚‚ concentrations and global temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years. This data shows a correlation between increased COâ‚‚ levels and higher global temperatures, consistent with the greenhouse effect.

### 6. The Greenhouse Effect:
- The mechanism of the greenhouse effect is well understood and supported by extensive research. When COâ‚‚ absorbs IR radiation emitted from the Earth's surface, it re-emits some of that energy back toward the surface, contributing to warming. This process has been validated through both experimental and observational studies.

### Conclusion:
In summary, the understanding that COâ‚‚ absorbs and emits infrared radiation is supported by a combination of experimental spectroscopy, laboratory studies, theoretical models, satellite observations, and historical climate data. These lines of evidence converge to confirm the role of COâ‚‚ as a greenhouse gas that contributes to the warming of the Earth's atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is a significant greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere, but its absorbent properties in terms of infrared (IR) radiation are part of a broader context that includes other greenhouse gases, particularly water vapor (H₂O) and methane (CH₄). Here’s a comparison of the absorbent properties of CO₂ relative to other atmospheric molecules:

### 1. Water Vapor (Hâ‚‚O):
- Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and is also the most effective at absorbing IR radiation. It covers a broad range of wavelengths and has strong absorption bands, particularly in the infrared region.
- Water vapor's capacity to absorb heat is much greater than that of COâ‚‚, particularly because it can exist in different phases (gas, liquid, solid) and contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect.

### 2. Methane (CHâ‚„):
- Methane is another potent greenhouse gas, though it is present in much lower concentrations than COâ‚‚. Methane is more effective at absorbing IR radiation than COâ‚‚, with a much stronger greenhouse effect per molecule.
- Methane has specific absorption bands that overlap with those of COâ‚‚, making it a very effective greenhouse gas despite its lower concentration.

### 3. Carbon Dioxide (COâ‚‚):
- COâ‚‚ has specific absorption bands, particularly around 4.3 micrometers and 15 micrometers in the infrared spectrum. While it is not as effective at absorbing IR radiation as water vapor or methane on a per-molecule basis, it plays a crucial role in the greenhouse effect due to its relatively high concentration and long atmospheric lifetime.
- CO₂ also contributes to the greenhouse effect by absorbing energy emitted by the Earth’s surface and re-emitting it back toward the surface, thereby warming the atmosphere.

### 4. Other Greenhouse Gases:
- Nitrous Oxide (Nâ‚‚O): Another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide is less abundant than COâ‚‚ but is effective at absorbing IR radiation. It has a significant warming potential.
- Ozone (O₃): Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs UV radiation and has some greenhouse gas properties in the troposphere, contributing to warming.

### 5. Overall Contribution:
- While COâ‚‚ is less effective at absorbing IR radiation on a per-molecule basis compared to water vapor and methane, its higher concentration in the atmosphere and its long-term stability make it a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect and climate change.
- The combined effects of all greenhouse gases are important for understanding the overall warming effect on the planet. Water vapor amplifies the effects of COâ‚‚ and other greenhouse gases through feedback mechanisms, making the overall impact of these gases more complex.

### Conclusion:
In summary, while COâ‚‚ is a key greenhouse gas, it is not the most effective absorber of infrared radiation when compared to water vapor and methane. However, its role in climate change is significant due to its concentration, long atmospheric lifetime, and the way it interacts with other greenhouse gases and climate systems.
CO2 is NOT a key greenhouse gas. It is an extremely minor players, as are the others because their concentration levels in the atmosphere are so miniscule.

Water vapor, on the other hand, IS the dominant GHG in the atmosphere.
 
Back
Top Bottom