Why is water less of a concern as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide?

Neither of them is a concern except to the global Marxist-run U.N. IPCC octopus of kept scientists, academics, journalists, politicians, and bankers, who are desperately trying to push over the fake physics hoax that there are such things as greenhouses gases and only they can save us from them after giving them hundreds of trillions of dollars.

After trying in vain for 30+ years to frame atmospheric CO2 as a greenhouse gas to stir alarm and panic to make useful idiots who will gladly sacrifice all their fossil fuel wealth and lifestyle to them, the IPCC lie machine has started hedging their bets by trying to frame atmospheric H2O too.

This is hilarious, because H2O is Nature’s refrigerator, cooling the Earth, not warming it.

If it weren’t for the water (71% of surface area), the land would probably be all desert and practically unlivable. Either way, CO2 has nothing to do with weather or climate, and its only purpose is to feed plant photosynthesis that anchors the chain of all life, autotrophs and heterotrophs.

What role is played by water vapor in the radiation balance of the atmosphere?

Is it true that CO emissions are not nearly as harmful to the environment as scientists once thought they were?

Even more funny if it weren’t so sad, there are no such things as greenhouse gases that block infrared heat radiation from Earth’s surface and use it to heat the atmosphere and even reheat the surface with its own heat.

Ever see a hot air balloon? You fill it with hot air, making it buoyant, then let it go and it rises toward space until it cools back down and falls. When it returns all the original heat has been dissipated by entropy into the Heat Death of the Universe. It’s called convection, the main process cooling Earth’s surface of the heat deposited daily by solar radiation, which is the only thing that warms Earth’s surface, after which the atmosphere merely helps cool it. When the solar radiation hits surface water, some of it evaporates after sucking large amounts of heat.

Earth’s atmosphere is not a greenhouse but a giant chimney, so open your mind and shake off their spell.

After convection/evaporation, the only Earth surface cooling process remaining is thermal radiation, which since the Earth’s surface is a black body follows the Planck black body radiation curve of emitted power vs. wavelength, in which the peak power wavelength is inversely proportional to absolute temperature T, decreasing with increasing T. The IPCC big lie here is to lead you to believe that just because the surfaces of the Sun and Earth are black bodies, so is atmospheric CO2.

Zonk! Moose hockey detector went off! No atmospheric gas absorbs or emits any radiation, much less at all wavelengths like black bodies. Instead, only gas molecules that can form electric dipoles can absorb photons one at a time into their vibrational and rotational energy modes, then reemit them at the same or longer wavelength.

But the wavelength peak of Planck black body radiation is proportional to the reciprocal of wavelength, so that means that the photons are reemited at the same or colder temperatures as the ones absorbed. Worse, Planck black body radiation has a total power over all wavelengths proportional to the 4th power of the temperature in Kelvin (known as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law), whereas gas photon radiation is monochromatic and not dependent on gas temperature as long as it doesn’t get so hot that it ionizes and turns into plasma like on the Sun.

Worse, a photon emitted by one CO2 molecule is easily absorbed by another CO2 molecule, repeatedly, until some remaining fraction finally is repelled by the much hotter surface and ends up heating nothing before entropy disperses it harmlessly.

So atmospheric CO2 radiation hitting the surface from all the miles of Earth's atmosphere is on the order of a few watts per square meter, while the original solar radiation maxes at about one thousand watts per square meter. That dinky 15 micron radiation is going to raise global temperatures? Really? Pfft! I smell some methane :)

Speaking of few watts per square meter, solid dry ice radiates a total of about 80 watts per square meter, way more than atmospheric CO2. See this online Stefan Boltzmann Law calculator:

Stefan Boltzmann Law Calculator

I’m not framing the IPCC unless they’re framing themselves.

Here’s an example of their endless lies that all aim to make atmospheric CO2 seem like a dragon in the sky when it’s really a unicorn that doesn’t exist:

"Averaged over the entire Earth surface, the incoming solar energy amounts to 341.3 Watts per square metre (W/m²), most of it being visible light. Of this incoming energy, 102 W/m² get directly reflected back into space. White surfaces like clouds have a higher reflectivity, scientists speak of high albedo. The same can be said about the polar ice caps which are efficient reflectors. In short, the darker a surface, the lower the reflectivity, thus the albedo. Hence, 161 W/m² get absorbed by the surface and most of it is transformed from visible light into heat, or infrared radiation, for example an asphalt street in summer absorbs light efficiently and can get really hot as result of the transformation into long-wave or infrared radiation. Gases, dust, and aerosols within the atmosphere absorb the remaining 78 W/m². Looking at the outgoing energy flows, a warm surface creates thermals which transport 17 W/m² back into the atmosphere while the evapotranspiration of water from the surface transports another 80 W/m² into the atmosphere. Together, they amount to 97 W/m², so it would perhaps make sense to think that there is only a maximum of 64 W/m² left to be emitted as infrared radiation. However, the surface radiation amounts to a total of 396 W/m², which is almost 2.5 times the incoming solar radiation."

2.5 more radiation hits the Earth's surface than came in from the Sun? Here's the fake physics big lie, palmed off like indisputable scientific fact, complete with their usual 3-decimal place accuracy:

" This is where the greenhouse effect comes into play: a significant amount of energy is essentially trapped in the atmosphere. Certain greenhouse gases such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides, and even some hydrofluorocarbons are absorbing and re-emitting infrared radiation. So they reflect a total of 333 W/m² of energy, in the form of heat, back to Earth’s surface. " - Earth’s Radiation Balance - ClimaTalk - Climate is Talking

Reflect energy in the form of heat? This bucket of mental manure stinks. Their hand-waving is like showing a color film in black and white and describing flowers. yet true believers in the IPCC regularly swallow it and think it's pure ambrosia.

Maybe the IPCC’s biggest lie is that any amount of atmospheric radiation at any wavelength absorbed by Earth’s surface automatically raises its temperature by the 4th root of the power by inverting the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Even leftists would call this the tail wagging the dog, because only solar radiation from the super-hot Sun (5500C) can raise Earth’s surface temperature at all, and usually to a maximum of about +50C after all the cooling processes, so dinky weak frigid CO2 15 micron radiation can’t raise the surface temperature at all, or above -80C, as demanded by the Second Law of Thermodynamics that says that a colder body can’t raise the temperature of a hotter body by any means, including radiation, which applies in the small and the large because the atmosphere’s temperature is always lower than the surface’s since it is composed of heat radiated or convected away from it.

In fact the air temperature systematically drops 18.8F per mile (9.8C per km) with height via the thermodynamic lapse rate based on dissipation of heat energy via conversion to work to expand against the decreasing pressure, soon dropping below 0C, the temperature of ice. So what heat is trapped up there? It would all be swamped out.

The IPCC must think people have the word DUMB-SS stamped on their foreheads to make them think that the ironclad Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn’t apply with CO2.

‘Back to CO2’s thermal radiation.

Can you heat your kitchen in the winter with a big block of dry ice? No way. Its thermal radiation is virtually indistinguishable from that from atmospheric CO2, which is at a wavelength of 15 microns, whose Planck black body radiation temperature is -80C, a little colder than dry ice and can't melt an ice cube. For the IPCC to claim that CO2's thermal radiation keeps the Earth from freezing, and threatens climate Armageddon is a candidate for greatest fake physics hoax in history after the flat Earth theory.

Want proof that the IPCC is lying to your face to get what they want? Here’s a graph straight from IPCC main org. NASA showing that almost all upgoing thermal radiation from the Earth in the wavelength range of 8–13 microns is transmitted to the top of the atmosphere. What they don’t tell you is that that range covers all normal Earth surface temperatures, namely, +89C to -50C. The absorption/scattering levels for water vapor and CO2 are way colder or hotter than that, hence irrelevant. The blip for methane is close to 8 microns hence is too hot. There is another small blip around 9 microns (+48C) for oxygen/ozone, but that’s up in the stratosphere, outside the troposphere where weather happens.

No wonder that the IPCC avoids discussions of thermal physics and instead churns out boatloads of the best fake “global average temperature” (GAT) money can buy. No surprise, GAT is itself a nonphysical statistic cooked up in computers only they control, which they can make come out any way they want after it’s analyzed and seen to be pure fart gas meant to be used like the old Soviet Five-Year Plans to announce harvests that never happened.

Watch the IPCC wave their hands in the air when an intelligent novice questions why a total GAT increase of 1.8F (1.1C) since 1880 means anything, when nothing in Nature can even detect it since daily temperatures swing by tens of F?

A global warming of 1.8° F (1° C) seems small, so why is this change in global temperature a concern?

When you have the time, study my deep analysis of GAT that exposes it as a Marxist unicorn:

What Is the Use of Global Temperature If It Really Doesn't Exist?

A real physical statistic would be yearly maximum temperature, which doesn’t go up even by fractions of 0.1C like GAT can be made to do, and won’t sell their scam. Even funnier if it weren’t so harmful, they’ve been trying to push over carbon tax credits to punish people for their CO2 emissions, but they can never push over a tax on the oceans.

What is the effect of carbon tax on global warming?

So “greenhouse gases” are only a concern to the IPCC because they wish to use them as dummy corporations to destroy capitalism (economic freedom) by fooling government leaders into dismantling the fossil fuel industry that it underpins, and replace it with a Marxist police state where “everybody owns nothing and is happy”, like the slaves in “Gone With the Wind” owned nothing and were happy. In reality the elite leftist super-billionaires who pull the strings will own everything and everybody.

Is climate change irreversible and inevitable?

How long would the Earth take to cool to preindustrial average temperature if we remove all the extra greenhouse gases we added since the preindustrial era using CCS?

Is global warming a significant threat to capitalism?

What if the Earth’s temperature was 27 degrees Celsius?

What proof do we have CO2 is a greenhouse gas?