[Godstud]

@Pants-of-dog Strawman. You did not answer the questions I asked. Try again.

[Pants-of-dog]

I literally just answered the questions.

Maybe the point behind these questions can be clarified and that underlying claim can be addressed.

[Godstud]

No. You did not answer the questions I made. You made vague references to not being able to answer the questions.

Try again:

So @Pants-of-dog At what point does the temperature level out in relation to CO2, or is that something you don't know and make assumptions about?

So what level of CO2 is ideal for the Earth?

[ingliz]

@Godstud

Wrong question.

The right question is, 'What level of CO2 is ideal for humanity?'

The Earth doesn't give a fuck. It's a rock.

[Pants-of-dog]

At what point does the temperature level out in relation to CO2,

No one claimed it does. Perhaps temperature never levels out in relation to CO2,

So what level of CO2 is ideal for the Earth?[/i]

“Ideal” is a subjective notion. The Earth is not a caring thing with a mind. It does not care about subjective notions.

[Godstud]

No one claimed it does. Perhaps temperature never levels out in relation to CO2,

So you don't know. That invalidates most of the CO2 claims regarding climate change, then. It's all, "We don't know.".

So much for your advanced "Science".

[Pants-of-dog]

@Godstud

How does my lack of knowledge about some fact disprove, for example, how sea level rise is making coastal areas and countries uninhabitable?

[Truth To Power]

And why did it not result in any significant increase in IR absorption?

Because the water vapor and CO2 already present in typical sea-level air absorb it all already. I have already explained this to you, multiple times, in clear, simple, grammatical English.

[Truth To Power]

No one claimed it does.

I do.

Perhaps temperature never levels out in relation to CO2,

It does in the sense that the effect of adding CO2 is much less than the variability caused by other factors, and is therefore undetectable. In the limit, adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases surface temperature purely by increasing surface atmospheric pressure.

“Ideal” is a subjective notion. The Earth is not a caring thing with a mind. It does not care about subjective notions.

IMO he was asking about your subjective notions, and those of other nonscientists who claim there is "too much" CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Truth To Power]

The right question is, 'What level of CO2 is ideal for humanity?'

And the right answer is, "Almost certainly more than we could plausibly add to the atmosphere by using fossil fuels."

[Truth To Power]

How does my lack of knowledge about some fact disprove, for example, how sea level rise is making coastal areas and countries uninhabitable?

Your lack of knowledge is what makes you believe that sea level rise, which has been going on for thousands of years, would somehow stop if people didn't use fossil fuels.

[Pants-of-dog]

Because the water vapor and CO2 already present in typical sea-level air absorb it all already. .

So the water vapour and CO2 absorb infrared radiation.

Why do they stop absorbing it?

[Truth To Power]

And Earth has no ideal temperature.

Then on what basis do you claim CO2 will increase it "too much"?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Please clarify why water vapour and CO2 no longer absorb infrared radiation. Thanks.

[Truth To Power]

So the water vapour and CO2 absorb infrared radiation.

Why do they stop absorbing it?

They don't. They just can't absorb any more IR radiation than all the IR radiation in the relevant wavelengths, which is already being absorbed before it reaches them. It's like adding a blanket to a bed that already has 20 blankets on it: it's not that any additional blankets behave differently from the existing ones; they just stop making you any warmer.

[Pants-of-dog]

They don't. They just can't absorb any more IR radiation than all the IR radiation in the relevant wavelengths, which is already being absorbed before it reaches them. It's like adding a blanket to a bed that already has 20 blankets on it: it's not that any additional blankets behave differently from the existing ones; they just stop making you any warmer.

This is a different claim from the one you previously made.

First you claimed that the CO2 and water vapour stopped absorbing infrared radiation.

Now you are claiming that CO2 and water vapour stop receiving infrared radiation.

If this is the case, the we seem to be departing from what the lab experiment says.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Please clarify why water vapour and CO2 no longer absorb infrared radiation. Thanks.

They can't absorb IR radiation that doesn't reach them because it has already been absorbed by the water vapor and CO2 already present in typical sea-level atmospheric air. I'm not sure which part of that you are having so much trouble understanding.

[Pants-of-dog]

They can't absorb IR radiation that doesn't reach them because it has already been absorbed by the water vapor and CO2 already present in typical sea-level atmospheric air. I'm not sure which part of that you are having so much trouble understanding.

Again, you seem to be making an error or something is unckear.

We were talking about the air at the surface of the Earth.

You claimed the CO2 and water vapour in the air at the surface of the planet only absorbed a certain amount of infrared radiation and then stopped.

Now you are claiming that the CO2 and water vapour in the air at the surface of the planet stops receiving radiation because the water vapour and CO2 already present in typical sea-level atmospheric air has already absorbed it and is therefore blocking new radiation from coming in.

But that seems to be saying that sea level air is being blocked by sea level air.

[Truth To Power]

This is a different claim from the one you previously made.

No. It is only different from the claim you falsely claim I made. That is why you did not -- and will not -- actually quote me making it.

First you claimed that the CO2 and water vapour stopped absorbing infrared radiation.

No, I did not, which is why you resolutely decline to quote me saying so.

Now you are claiming that CO2 and water vapour stop receiving infrared radiation.

They certainly can't absorb IR radiation they do not receive.

I'm not sure what part of that you are having so much difficulty understanding.

If this is the case, the we seem to be departing from what the lab experiment says.

No. You are merely departing from what I said.

As is your wont.

[Pants-of-dog]

No. It is only different from the claim you falsely claim I made. That is why you did not -- and will not -- actually quote me making it.

No, I did not, which is why you resolutely decline to quote me saying so.

They certainly can't absorb IR radiation they do not receive.

I'm not sure what part of that you are having so much difficulty understanding.

No. You are merely departing from what I said.

As is your wont.

Then assume I misunderstood.

Please clarify exactly how this lab experiment disproved ACC.