Steve_American wrote:@Truth To Power
You know that responding to PoD is useless if you are not responding to me.
I know that responding to both of you is useless, except for the potential instruction of other readers who may have some rudimentary competence in and respect for science, fact, and logic.
Also, none of the above sentences are more than vague re-assertions of your opinions. No evidence or arguments are provided there to support your assertions.
I've provided the evidence.
Finally, maybe you are the one who doesn't know IR saturation works.
You see, CO2 and H2O together do not absorb all the wavelengths of IR light/heat. There are other wavelengths. Adding more CO2 to the air could slow the ability of the energy to find a way around the absorbed sections of the IR part of the spectrum.
It indisputably does. Just not significantly
. You and PoD seem unable to absorb the latter word into your passive, let alone your active, vocabularies.
Besides which, you have never explained how absorbing and reradiating IR is the same as blocking IR.
Yes I have. Re-read the explanation of the blanket analogy. A blanket blocks IR heat loss from your body in much the same way GHGs block it from the earth's surface.
Angstrom's experiment ignored a lot of effects that are going on inside his tube of gas.
Because they are irrelevant. It also ignored the isotopic composition of air, the latent heat of vaporization of water, and countless other irrelevant factors, all for the same reason.
These things include --- changes in the temp of the gas, changes in the temp of the tube itself, the amount of IR being reradiated sideways into the walls of the tube, etc..
All of which are irrelevant to the fraction of IR making it through the tube.
The energy has to go somewhere. Angstrom only showed that it didn't change much as it went straight through the tube.
No, he showed that adding CO2 to standard atmospheric air did not appreciably change the amount
of IR getting through the tube, and no one has ever offered any credible empirical evidence to the contrary. Angstrom's result has never been refuted, and it never will be. The claims of refutation are just bald falsehoods.
OTOH, I have shown that even a very tiny change can be enough to change the temp of the Earth if it is added every day for decades. You have never addressed this claim either.
Sure I have. It's irrelevant, as Angstrom proved CO2 cannot have such an effect, and it would be false in any case, as I showed by the explanation of negative temperature feedback: if temperature rises, heat just radiates away faster.