So much wrong in there Nev.
But let’s just start with one thing. Which version of CO2 warming are you arguing today?This is the problem with followers of Skeptical Science like you. Every time someone pushes back, you change masks. CO2 has more versions than a dodgy climate model with a tuning knob.
So let’s lay out two of the most common versions of the “CO2 heats Earth” narrative.
Version 1: Surface heating/back radiation.
CO2 “traps” IR at the surface and sends photons back down. This supposedly warms the surface like a thermal blanket. Venus is always dragged out here despite being a completely different system with 90-bar pressure and a negligible lapse in IR transmission after 1 meter.
Version 2: Emission height theory.
CO2 doesn’t warm the surface directly. Instead, it causes radiative cooling higher up, and the increased “opacity” means photons escape from a colder altitude (the so-called Effective Emission Height, eeH. But you knew that LOL. Not I bet.). So that makes the surface indirectly warmer because the system needs to radiate from a higher Temperature to match outgoing flux.
So which is it, Nev? Version 1 or Version 2?
Because they don’t work together—they contradict.
You can’t have both. If you prefer a different version then fine. Explain it. The link you provided is not an explanation. It is a statement. That is not science. That is your Mummy telling the Tooth AFairy is going to visit you tonight when you are sleep mate.
Take your time. I’ll wait. Because unless you’re willing to pick a model and defend it, I am discussing with an imbecile full of contradictions.
