*sigh* we can't see IR. I never said we saw any IR emissions. I choose glass because it is a material that is transpartent in the visible spectrum AND we regularly make it hot enough that the thermal radiation is also in the visible spectrum.
That means it is an easyily found example of a volume being simultaneously: transparent to thermal radiation and emitting thermal radiation.
That is analogous to an IR transparent atmosphere emitting IR thermal radiation.
There is no 'thermal radiation'. Thermal energy is not light.
Here you can easily see the metal rod inside the glass. The glass is transparent, but the glass is also glowing. If it was all from the surface of the glass, then we could not see the metal rod occluding the far side of the glowing glass.
Glass does absorb infrared light, like every substance.
It doesn't matter how poorly it conducts. The point is that it has an insulative effect that is not due to IR opacity. To predict how much for that effect would take a lot of math and a system without chaos demon molecules like water constantly phase changing.
Glass is a lousy thermal insulator. Ever feel a cold window in winter?
If you spun the glass into fibers, than use those fibers to trap air, you can make a thermal insulator (it's the trapped air that's key). This is a common type of house and building insulation. Of course, this is packaged glass slivers, so wear gloves and a mask when handling it.
Without quantifying this IR irrespective insulative effect you cannot subtract it from your presumed greenhouse effect to come to "greenhouse causes 30C difference". Maybe it's 15C. Maybe it's only 5C.
ZERO. It's ZERO. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
If you put a blanket on a rock, it will not make the rock warmer. House insulation will not heat the house.
In this hypothetical the atmosphere is IR transparent, so no it isn't happening. It's just emission.
The atmosphere absorbs infrared light just like everything does. Big deal.
ALL substances radiate light due to their temperature.
I was not describing the greenhouse effect. I was describing the insulation that atmosphere provides even if there was no greenhouse effect (no IR absorbing gasses).
The atmosphere is not insulation. You cannot trap light, heat, or thermal energy (there is always heat).
Human emissions of carbon dioxide are from buried carbon, carbon we 'dug up'. That is the carbon you would compare the atmospheric carbon to.
Carbon dioxide is not carbon. There is on identifier on carbon dioxide or carbon.
Bicarbonate is not very fixed.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
A perturbation in pH or temperature and it would dissolve carbon dioxide into the ocean, changing potentially changing isotope ratios with ancient sources of carbon.
Carbon dioxide has no identifier. Learn what an isotope is.
I'm saying it's a mess can't be simplified away. There is not enough data to say where the recently added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere came from.
There is NO DATA. Carbon dioxide has no identifier.
This is an assertion, not an argument.
Correct. The Church of Global Warming simply asserts:
1. That Earth is 'warming' (it is not possible to measure the temperature of Earth).
2. That a Magick Holy Gas is somehow adding energy to Earth and raising it's temperature (it is not possible to create energy out of nothing).
3. That a Magick Holy Gas is somehow able to trap light (it is not possible to trap light, and this ignores the Stefan-Boltzmann law).
4. That a Magick Holy Gas is somehow trapping heat (which is not possible, since heat is not energy and cannot be put in a container).
5. That a Magick Holy Gas is somehow heating the warmer surface beneath it (which is not possible, since you cannot heat anything that is warmer than what you are heating it with!).
That is irrelevant. The behavior of water in the atmosphere is chaotic due to chaotic winds and water phase changes. When you refer to "excess" it's pretty much a meaningless concept.
Irrelevant. No gas or vapor has the capability to heat the Earth.
It can be added quickly and removed quickly but you have no way to determine what equilibrium is supposed to be or whether that is shifting. Indeed temperature changes are most likely the primary factor in changes in humidity.
Humidity cannot heat the Earth. It is not possible to measure the global humidity of Earth.
It's a differential equation,
It is NO equation. No gas or vapor has the capability to heat the Earth.
a big complicated one, even more complicated than carbon dioxide. What we can say for sure is the smallest perturbations of the water cycle are orders of magnitude larger than the largest perturbations in the carbon dioxide concentration.
Irrelevant. No gas or vapor can heat the Earth.
Good, then addressing your original statements is sufficient.
I doubt it.
For example I was able to debunk your conclusion about the scale of the greenhouse effect (+30C) without knowing how climate sensitivity is defined. Therefore if one cannot talk about climate without using climate sensitivity then I have used climate sensitivity without knowing the label for the concept.
Climate has no sensitivity. Climate has no temperature either. Climate cannot change.
I don't know that it has a measurable impact.
ZERO. Nada. None. Nan. Phero. Zip. Nil.
There are many layers of scale insignificance which would make it plausible that the warming effect is insignificant or perhaps even eclipsed by the cooling effect.
There is NO 'warming effect' or 'cooling effect'. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing or destroy energy into nothing.
