This guy online is a climate change denier and he made some argument that is very simplistic but he claims is proof that it"s "all a hoax.". I'm skeptical of his claim but wanted to get a second opinion if I may about what he said since I'm not that knowledgeable in this field. What do you think about this?
It is incorrect, the article.
In order for co2 to cause "warming", it must have a valid mechanism whereby co2 can absorb electromagnetic energy (and it does just that is not the only factor alone) transform that energy into kinetic energy (because that is the only way that co2 can transfer energy to molecules that do not interact with frequencies that co2 can potentially re emit).
Therefore for 98% of the atmosphere to receive enough energy to alter the 98% of the atmosphere's kinetic energy (this is in reference to anhydrous air, we will make reference to the condensing greenhouse gas, h20, later) it must be in sufficient amounts (intensity) to overcome the non-greenhouse gases specific heat capacities (specific heat capacity is a empirical evidence of the molecule's property that describes the amount of energy required to alter it's kinetic energy, it is a macro level coefficient used in thermodynamics and can be referenced in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics).
Co2 to co2 molecule energy transfer is essentially zero percent in the most dense portion of the atmosphere, the troposphere, as analysis with the most prominent infrared electromagnetic energy band (15 micrometer) photon is used for analysis, the radius of the co2 molecule and correct application of the Inverse Square Law.
Okay, if 100% of the 15 micrometer wavelength photon being absorbed by the co2 molecule and transformed into kinetic energy it is only 15% of the amount of energy required to alter the kinetic energy of the surrounding 2432 molecules of nitrogen, oxygen and argon to raise the kinetic energy of those molecules to a detectable threshold of 0.01 degrees Celsius.
And since in the atmosphere, only one photon can interact with one molecule per interaction and since the electrons will immediately seek their lowest energy level, their ground state, the interaction is nanoseconds in it's time.
Water vapor is capable of absorbing infrared radiation from co2 but again it must be in sufficient amounts to alter its kinetic energy. Since co2's specific heat capacity is .8 and water's is 4 (units left out for simplicity), co2 must emit greater than 4x the energy to alter the kinetic energy of the electrons of the water molecule to be transformed into kinetic energy to warm the surrounding molecules and this potential is if we ignore atmospheric convection, which thunderheads make it clear does occur.
Furthermore, h20 interacts with electromagnetic radiation with almost all of the same wavelengths that co2 does (exception being 4.3 micrometers) and we know that water vapor ranges from 0 (essentially the same as co2) to 4 (100x that of co2)percent of the atmospheric mass and thus is massively more significant in the potential to alter the atmospheric kinetic energy.
So demonstrate to all of us using valid scientific mechanisms how the greenhouse effect theory of noncondensing greenhouse gases can be valid.
And the article he's refuting is from skepticalscience.com
What are your thoughts?