Arguing semantics? Potential energy and kinetic energy? You're saying the same things I'm saying with different words. Why? Is there some point to what you're doing?
CO2 STOPS heat from being radiated into space as it would if the gas were not there. You made all sorts of claims before that this didn't work that way. That the sun didn't work that way. So I explained it to you. And now you're saying the same things I said in different words.
Ok, Venus. Light DOES get through the clouds.
That's a picture of the surface of Venus. I don't know where you get your ideas that it's dark there, but it's not.
It's quite bright.
The temperature on Venus is fueled by the sun...
You see, the atmosphere began to warm up because of all that input of solar energy. Temperatures started to increase.
Higher temperatures meant the atmosphere would be capable of holding more water vapor. And if there were oceans the water begin to evaporate.
Water vapor--a greenhouse gas--absorbs heat energy--->leading to an increase in atmospheric water vapor--->leading to an increase in atmospheric temperature.
This increase in atmospheric temperature leads to the atmosphere being able to hold more water vapor--->oceans evaporate.
And so on.....--->Runaway Greenhouse.
The system would stabilize once all of the surface water was absorbed and the temperature was very high.
This scenario is in fact what has happened to Venus.
Oh, and Venus does NOT always face the same way. It rotates, just slowly.
And since you pointed out that greenhouse gases ABSORB heat earlier, shouldn't you have taken that into account later?
Man, you make up more crazy shit...