No, CO2 is not more efficient than O2 at retaining heat.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
If CO2 shines IR down, a lot of IR get intercepted by CO2 below rather than by ground. When O2 absorbs heat from ground by conduction, then shine IR down, and all of that IR get absorbed by ground none of that IR get intercepted by O2 below. So ground gets heated more efficiently at night by O2 compared to by CO2. So O2 is arguably a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2.

Wake wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
If CO2 shines IR down, a lot of IR get intercepted by CO2 below rather than by ground. When O2 absorbs heat from ground by conduction, then shine IR down, and all of that IR get absorbed by ground none of that IR get intercepted by O2 below. So ground gets heated more efficiently at night by O2 compared to by CO2. So O2 is arguably a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2.

Whatever you've written here doesn't make sense. Most of the energy in sunlight is in the visible spectrum. There is some in the upper and middle IR bands but only the lower part of the middle band can be absorbed by CO2. This is mostly trapped in the Tropopause and the small amount of energy in the very narrow band never makes it any further.

Wake wrote:
The rest of the Sun's energy shows upon the Earth and heats it.

Wake wrote:
Some of it is absorbed in the O2, O3 and N2 of the atmosphere but not much since they too have very narrow absorption bands.

Wake wrote:
The Earth is heated and hence emits energy. Since this is very low energy it emits in mostly the lower IR bands.

Wake wrote:
CO2 can absorb some of this but actually a large portion of it is absorbed by the humidity in the atmosphere and the water droplets in the clouds.

Wake wrote:
This warms these gases and liquids which causes them to rise through convection.

Wake wrote:
Also O2 and N2 are heated manually by the warmed Earth and they too rise though the process of convection.

Wake wrote:
Part of the energy is also radiated off of the surface and never gets trapped on the way to outer space.

Wake wrote:
Radiation occurs at the speed of light (or nearly so since SOL is in a vacuum and through matter it is slower) while convection occurs very slowly.

Wake wrote:
Because of the slower speed of convection this allows the Earth to heat to a higher level than would be the case without an atmosphere

Wake wrote:
when all energy would be released though radiation only.

Wake wrote:
This is demonstrated by the inner planets -

Wake wrote:
while Mercury is closest to the Sun, all of it's atmosphere was boiled off almost as the planet formed. Venus on the other hand, is further away, receives less energy and maintained what became a very heavy atmosphere and is the hottest of all the planets due to the extremely slow release of energy almost entirely due to convection.

Wake wrote:
Venus is not "that hot" because it's atmosphere is composed of CO2 but because it's atmosphere is so thick and traps radiation converting it to heat through conduction leading to the slow processes of convection, condensation and radiation.

Wake wrote:
None of this is a mystery and there is no new science here.

Wake wrote:
This has all been described and proven in the 18th century.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's not directional, the molecules radiate in all directions. Greenhouse is misleading BS. The IPCC only point out the parts that are convenient for the agenda, and ignore the rest, lie by omission. Every atmospheric molecule does basically the same thing, some are more active than others. None of these molecules are locked into a single position, they are all moving around. Heat rises, so warmer molecules would tend to move fasted, away from the surface, carrying away heat. Consider that it's generally warmer during the day, unless the Canadians attack us with an arctic wave of cold wind (bastards). After the sunset, temperatures start to drop, and much cooler by morning. A lot of the heat from the previous day went some place, most definitely not back down to the surface.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's not directional, the molecules radiate in all directions. Greenhouse is misleading BS. The IPCC only point out the parts that are convenient for the agenda, and ignore the rest, lie by omission. Every atmospheric molecule does basically the same thing, some are more active than others. None of these molecules are locked into a single position, they are all moving around. Heat rises, so warmer molecules would tend to move fasted, away from the surface, carrying away heat. Consider that it's generally warmer during the day, unless the Canadians attack us with an arctic wave of cold wind (bastards). After the sunset, temperatures start to drop, and much cooler by morning. A lot of the heat from the previous day went some place, most definitely not back down to the surface.

It actually IS somewhat directional. No molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the molecule already has. Heat flows from hot to cold only. It never flows backwards or 'uphill'.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's not directional, the molecules radiate in all directions. Greenhouse is misleading BS. The IPCC only point out the parts that are convenient for the agenda, and ignore the rest, lie by omission. Every atmospheric molecule does basically the same thing, some are more active than others. None of these molecules are locked into a single position, they are all moving around. Heat rises, so warmer molecules would tend to move fasted, away from the surface, carrying away heat. Consider that it's generally warmer during the day, unless the Canadians attack us with an arctic wave of cold wind (bastards). After the sunset, temperatures start to drop, and much cooler by morning. A lot of the heat from the previous day went some place, most definitely not back down to the surface.

It actually IS somewhat directional. No molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the molecule already has. Heat flows from hot to cold only. It never flows backwards or 'uphill'.

More ignorance from the science denier -

Wake wrote:
photons carry energy and not heat.

Wake wrote:
Whether or not a photon can be absorbed by a gas is dependent upon the specific heat capacity of the molecule

Wake wrote:
and not the "heat" of a photon.

Wake wrote:
When you deny science you speak from a position of ignorance and you indeed are parked right in the middle of that position.

Wake wrote:
And more denial of science from Nightmare. It don't exist cause he say it ain't.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
And more denial of science from Nightmare. It don't exist cause he say it ain't.

Insult fallacy. Void argument fallacy. No argument presented.

Try making an actual argument, Wake.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
And more denial of science from Nightmare. It don't exist cause he say it ain't.

Insult fallacy. Void argument fallacy. No argument presented.

Try making an actual argument, Wake.

You cannot argue with a fool. You are far too practiced in the art if ignorance.

Wake wrote:
Tell us again that the science of spectroscopy doesn't exist.

Wake wrote:
That entire sciences don't exist because you say it is so.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
And more denial of science from Nightmare. It don't exist cause he say it ain't.

Insult fallacy. Void argument fallacy. No argument presented.

Try making an actual argument, Wake.

You cannot argue with a fool. You are far too practiced in the art if ignorance.

...the usual insult fallacies...

Wake wrote:
Tell us again that the science of spectroscopy doesn't exist.

It does, Wake. You just don't know a whole lot about it.

Wake wrote:
That entire sciences don't exist because you say it is so.

Never said so, Wake.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
And more denial of science from Nightmare. It don't exist cause he say it ain't.

Insult fallacy. Void argument fallacy. No argument presented.

Try making an actual argument, Wake.

You cannot argue with a fool. You are far too practiced in the art if ignorance.

...the usual insult fallacies...

Wake wrote:
Tell us again that the science of spectroscopy doesn't exist.

It does, Wake. You just don't know a whole lot about it.

Wake wrote:
That entire sciences don't exist because you say it is so.

Never said so, Wake.

So you admit you were lying when you said that no records of past climate can exist?