• alcedine@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    That’s the point, CO2 doesn’t store energy (well, it does a little, but not so much that it makes any difference). What it does is blocks the energy from leaving (until you reach a high altitude).

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      CO2 doesn’t store energy (well, it does a little, but not so much that it makes any difference).

      Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’

      https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

      https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-carbon-dioxide-has-such-outsized-influence-on-earths-climate-123064

      I understand there’s many dimensions and factors involved in the entire process, but it’s not a wrong interpretation to say it stores more energy, even if it’s just borrowing it for a moment. It acts like both a heat sink and a thermal blanket. While I’m not a climatologist, I have a pretty good grasp of physics so I’m guessing we’re just talking about pedantic or technical differences in description of the process… something that again, average layperson does NOT need to hear about, people can barely understand scientific concepts as it is.

      The slinky model makes good sense and it’s not wrong, it was described to me BY a scientist in RL, so I will keep using it.

      edit: I genuinely wish the scientific community could embrace being “not perfect” for like, just a week or something.