re: #242 AJStrata

Ludwig Von Beck,

Yes, CO2 is a GHG. But hopefully you know it represents only 3% of the GHG’s. So increasing it to 3.5% is not going to do squat globally.

For those interested, the idea of GHG’s actually storing heat in any amount necessary to increase temps was debunked.

That kind of debunking is pretty useless, since it is not claimed that GHG’s “store heat”. Put most simply, GHGs absorb infrared radiation (different gases absorb different wavelengths) emitted from the sun-warmed earth, and then re-emit them in an isotropic fashion. That radiation, without the interference of the GHG, would have escaped the earth to space. If absorbed by a GHG molecule there’s a slightly smaller than 50% chance (based on the molecule’s altitude) that the energy will be re-emitted in the direction of the surface again, and a nonzero percentage that it will encounter another GHG in whatever direction it is re-emitted.

The entire Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper is geared toward proving that GHGs do not create a “greenhouse” effect. While it is unfortunate that the term greenhouse was used long ago to describe the atmospheric phenomenon, 115 pages is not needed to say so. G&T nowhere challenge successfully the basic physics of absorption and re-emission that drives the “heat trapping” effects of GHGs.