The explanation that Carbon Dioxide absorbs only a narrow spectrum kind of explains the Princeton Physicist who said that we are in a dearth of carbon dioxide, compared to history. And that you won’t get much more global warning from additional carbon dioxide.
He compared it to painting a barn red. After the first coat or second coat, you don’t get much redder from additional coats. He said, the earth is already “red”, so to speak.
“The explanation that Carbon Dioxide absorbs only a narrow spectrum kind of explains the Princeton Physicist who said that we are in a dearth of carbon dioxide, compared to history. And that you won’t get much more global warning from additional carbon dioxide.
He compared it to painting a barn red. After the first coat or second coat, you don’t get much redder from additional coats. He said, the earth is already “red”, so to speak.”
It’s true. Each additional Co2 molecule added to the atmosphere has less warming effect than previous ones.
That’s why the warmists always measure warming by a “doubling of atmospheric Co2”.
Ex.: We’re almost double the amount of Co2 from 200 years ago (went from ~200ppm to now, ~400ppm) and we got about ~1C warming.
To get another 1C degree warming we’d have to double 400ppm to 800ppm. So Co2 now (and in the future) is kind of like the Dollar, it ain’t worth as much.
Of course the warmists have (without any evidence) added in an additional, yet to be found, 3C warming from “net positive feedbacks”.
Hence all the hysteria.