> >If no energy was transferred out then the temp. increase rate would > >be > >several degrees/ month instead of several degrees/century. > > >That's not the case, however. Instead all that green and other > >visible light coming in [near the peak] gets reradiated at the longer > >wavelengths where the CO2 can block that [much greater] energy > >leaving > >than what it blocks coming in.
> I think you are out of your class with this, > if no energy were radiated out by the atmosphere, > the temperature would probably rise quite a bit > more than several degrees the first month.
Have you done _any_ research or any calculations?
If so, then present the numbers. It would help explain AGW to deniers.
If you don't have any numbers then answer this question:
How many scientists do you know that don't rely on applied math before they make conclusions?
> And while water vapor may absorb solar > IR incoming, chances are CO2 does not in > any measurable amount.
It's certainly measurable which is proven by the chart. It just isn't nearly as much as the reradiated IR trapped by the CO2.