Government Shill #2 wrote:

Of course putting more CO2 into the atmosphere traps more rays, making the
planet warmer. That's what the whole debate is about. What a maroon!

I was under the impression that CO2 in the atmosphere was at 'saturation level'
for that effect anyway ( it only captures certain wavelengths and can't capture
them any more than it is already ), so adding more is redundant other than aiding
crop growth.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

" There is general agreement that the Earth is naturally warmed to some extent by
atmospheric gases, principally water vapor, in what is often called a "greenhouse
effect". The Earth absorbs enough radiation from the sun to raise its temperature
by 0.5 degrees per day, but is theoretically capable of emitting sufficient
long-wave radiation to cool itself by 5 times this amount. The Earth maintains
its energy balance in part by absorption of the outgoing longwave radiation in
the atmosphere, which causes warming.

On this basis, it has been estimated that the current level of warming is on the
order of 33 degrees C [1]. That is to say, in the absence of so-called greenhouse
gases, the Earth would be 33 degrees cooler than it is today, or about 255 K
(-0.4° F) [2]. Of these greenhouse gases, water is by far the most important.
Although estimates of the contribution from water vapor vary widely, many sources
place it between 90 and 95% of the warming effect, or about 30-31 of the 33
degrees [3]. Carbon dioxide, although present in much lower concentrations than
water, absorbs more infrared radiation than water on a per-molecule basis and
contributes about 84% of the total non-water greenhouse gas equivalents [4], or
about 4.2-8.4% of the total greenhouse gas effect. "


" What does 'saturation' mean?

Many people seem to be confused about the "saturation" argument. It's easy to
calculate, using the known extinction coefficients [10], that 99% of the
radiation in the CO2 absorption bands is absorbed within only a few tens to
hundreds of meters of the source. These coefficients are derived from
measurements in modern, high-resolution spectrometers. But strong absorption is
also found even with older, lower-resolution instruments. So what does this mean?
Is the global warming theory false? Or should older measurements not be trusted?
Here is what it means:
The "saturation" argument does not mean that global warming doesn't occur. What
saturation tells us is that exponentially higher levels of CO2 would be needed to
produce a linear increase in absorption, and hence temperature. This is basic
physics. Beer's law has not been repealed.

Some people have gotten the idea that water vapor, which is mainly present at
lower altitudes, is somehow necessary for the CO2 to absorb infrared radiation,
and that therefore at higher altitudes, CO2 is not anywhere near saturation. This
is not true. The presence or absence of water vapor has no bearing on whether
radiation is absorbed by CO2. That is because, for all practical purposes, the
absorption bands of H2O and CO2 important for warming are different. (If they
weren't, CO2 absorption would be so insignificant compared to water vapor that it
wouldn't be a potential problem, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.) "

Graham