[Madidus_Scientia]

The blue line is the energy we would get without an atmosphere, yellow line is what we get with it. Look at the combined efforts of carbon dioxide and water vapor: it keeps us cool!!
I think it will be difficult to get a more quantifiable result as this, unless somebody puts some money into some real research.

I didn't see the graph but it probably refers to energy recieved on the surface. So it would make sense that that would be less with an atmosphere because the atmosphere will absorb some of it. I think maybe the problem is you haven't got your head around the fact that the atmosphere is part of the planet too and if it's heated we all are.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

Ok, this graph also shows what I want to tell you:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png

Look carefully where CO2 absorbs. The only place where it matters for the greenhouse effect (i.e. warming) is at 14 um. But in this area water(g) is also still absorbing! You will note that in the picture of earth's radiation the presence of the carbon dioxide leads to a tiny small corner not being emitted by earth.
But the carbon dioxide is also absorbing at around 2 and between 4 and 5 um which is leading to some infra red from the sun being cut short, i.e. cooling. Again, if we have to weigh the cooling and warming against one another. Bearing in mind the overlapping area of the water,it looks pretty much even to me?

[Bored chemist]

Three points
First why don't you understand that when CO2 in the earth's atmosphere absorbs radiation from the sun it makes the world hotter? There is no cooling effect.Secondly, the graphs show the absorbtion by CO2 of radiation at about 4µm so your assertion that "The only place where it matters for the greenhouse effect (i.e. warming) is at 14 um." is false.
Also  the earth emits much more radiation than the sun at those wavelengths so it's also not true to say that "carbon dioxide is also absorbing at around 2 and between 4 and 5 um which is leading to some infra red from the sun being cut short, i.e. cooling"
Even if there were a cooling effect (and there's not) the fact is that the absorbtion near 2µ is small and the sun's emmision there is small so the overall effect is very small. Also as I said, near 4µ the earth is emitting a lot more than the sun so the effect is a clear "greenhouse" effect.

Bearing those in mind, brings me to the third point. I asked if you would check that what you are saying is factually correct before posting it.
You clearly have not done so.

I don't expect to hear about a cooling effect again.
If you persist in bringing up that discredited idea than it will be clear that you are trolling and I presume that you will be treated accordingly by the mods.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

At least our friend in Australia picked it up:

"I didn't see the graph but it probably refers to energy recieved on the surface. So it would make sense that that would be less with an atmosphere because the atmosphere will absorb some of it."

Look at the graphs! What is coming from the sun on earth compared to measured above earth's atmosphere from the sun is about 30% less. Unless you have other figures? If you look at the graphs, principally the gasses that cause this effect are ozone, oxygen,water and carbondixide.If this is not cooling, then what is? Please do explain this to me?
Second, at 4 um, the radiation from both the sun (= about 0.5%) and from earth appear to be very small, so it looks to me this cancels each other out. It may be that the two absorptions between 2 and 3 of the carbon dioxde look small, but the energy coming from the sun in that range is still about 5%. Also, I think there is some work done that shows that there is also some absorbtion of carbon dioxide in the UV-visible range. I am still looking for a 2nd source to confirm that.
Lastly, what is the point of having a science forum, if we agree which each other about everything? There is a difference between discussion and debate.
In the case above we will continue to have a debate (i.e. not ever agreeing) because it appears nobody has any real figures.How on earth can we have a Copenhagen summit about all of this if nobody did any real research?

[Madidus_Scientia]

But the carbon dioxide is also absorbing at around 2 and between 4 and 5 um which is leading to some infra red from the sun being cut short, i.e. cooling.

No.
Unless by "cut short" you mean absorbed and by cooling you mean warming.

I am also suspect of trolling since you continually refuse to understand the concept that when IR is absorbed the atmosphere is heated, there is no cooling effect. When the atmosphere is heated, the entire planet is. You keep pushing the misconception that absorption means "blocking", but the result of "blocking" is heat. How on earth do you interpret this as a cooling effect?

[Henry Pool (OP)]

I have a quote here from another expert in the field:
"Yes, that is correct. Light that is absorbed by gases is re-emitted in a random direction. "
"The amount of carbon dioxide is enough to absorb all the radiation in the bands where it absorbs within a few meters. So the only effect of an increase in CO2 is to move the location of absorption/re-emission closer to the source".

Tom Nelson

Are you sure about exactly what is the greenhouse effect? You are not answering the question that I asked in my previoos post?

[Madidus_Scientia]

Yes, i'm sure. Is this Tom Nelson you speak of trying to say that all the IR is absorbed within a few metres of atmosphere?

[Madidus_Scientia]

The first search result of "Tom Nelson" is his blog; "A personal blog that captures the latest headlines skeptical of the global warming debate with commentary."

And from his site:

About Me

Tom Nelson
    I have a Masters of Science degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering.

Last time I checked, a degree in electronics does not make you an expert on climate change. Please do not make false assertions.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

 I am sure you got the wrong Tom. Try to google "cold facts on global warming". I am sure Tom still believes that carbon dioxide is or could be a major cause for global warming. I did not try to influence his opinion but perhaps my questions may have puzzled him/ I would not know.

Why is that you people do not keep your mind open as to who what the final outcome is of an investigation? Is this all politics? Are you people that much influenced by politics? That really puzzles me.

This is what he said on my relevant questions:

Hi Henry,

Carbon dioxide does not absorb in the visible or near ultraviolet. In the far ultraviolet (below 190 nm), its absorption is swamped by the absorption by oxygen.

You are right, for those regions where CO2 and water both absorb, CO2 is insignificant because of its lower concentration.

Tom Nelson

Makes sense to me, does it not, what he said?
CO2 and O2, could be like sort of brother and sister.
Also, water and carbon dioxide could be like our father and mother
i.e.the source of life as we know it.

[Bored chemist]

I am getting tired of this.
I already pointed out , a propos of your assertion "Yes, that is correct. Light that is absorbed by gases is re-emitted in a random direction. "
 that, for that radiation to be re emitted it had to get absorbed in the first place and that as soon as it's absorbed the atmosphere is already hotter.
All this re-radiation can do is slightly reduce the amount of heating.

There is no cooling effect.

You are trolling.

And as for "Why is that you people do not keep your mind open as to who what the final outcome is of an investigation?"
Did you consider the fact that you keep saying things that are demonstrably false?
It's not that I don't have an open mind, it's just that, in order to change my opinion, you need to provide me with some evidence.
You haven't.
Instead you have put up all sorts of trash. I have repeatedlty asked you to verify things before posting the; you haven't.

To cut to the chase, telling fibs doesn't convince scientists of anything but your own foolishness.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

But you demonstrated again that you did not answer the question that was posted:
"Look at the graphs! What is coming from the sun on earth compared to measured above earth's atmosphere from the sun is about 30% less. Unless you have other figures? If you look at the graphs, principally the gasses that cause this effect are ozone, oxygen,water and carbondixide.If this is not cooling, then what is? Please do explain this to me?"

[Bored chemist]

But you demonstrated again that you did not answer the question that was posted:
"Look at the graphs! What is coming from the sun on earth compared to measured above earth's atmosphere from the sun is about 30% less. Unless you have other figures? If you look at the graphs, principally the gasses that cause this effect are ozone, oxygen,water and carbondixide.If this is not cooling, then what is? Please do explain this to me?"

You have been told the answer to that question a few times already. Why should I waste my time telling you again.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

So are we all agreed now that the ozone, oxygen, water vapor and carbon dioxide have a combined effect so that approximately 30% less heat from the sun hits the earth? (I am trying to avoid the word "cooling" now, otherwise I get into trouble)

The point now is to try and find out what portion of that 30% less heat (if we are all agreed on that figure) is due to carbon dioxide alone.
After that, we must try and find out exactly the warming effect of the carbon dioxide.

How would we do that? This brings me back to my final report again.

I think the only way to get this information is by experimentation in large specifically designed climatic chambers where we can play around with various atmospheric compositions and various energy sources..... 

[BenV]

So are we all agreed now that the ozone, oxygen, water vapor and carbon dioxide have a combined effect so that approximately 30% less heat from the sun hits the earth? (I am trying to avoid the word "cooling" now, otherwise I get into trouble)

It might be worth adding the words "warming the atmosphere in the process".

[Bored chemist]

"So are we all agreed now that the ozone, oxygen, water vapor and carbon dioxide have a combined effect so that approximately 30% less heat from the sun hits the earth?"

No, not unless you can tell us where else it might go.

The earth's atmosphere is part of the earth. (Did you think that it was part of venus or something?)

[Ethos]

The greatest amount of useless Co2 is being created by Al Gore everytime he opens his mouth!!!!!!!!

The "inconvenient truth" is a convenient misrepresentation manufactured by the Globalist agenda!

[Bored chemist]

quote author=Ethos link=topic=22348.msg280099#msg280099 date=1255989308]
The greatest amount of useless Co2 is being created by Al Gore everytime he opens his mouth!!!!!!!!

The "inconvenient truth" is a convenient misrepresentation manufactured by the Globalist agenda!
[/quote]
Since this is a science website I presume that you have evidence for that. Perhaps you might care to open another thread to discuss it.

[Ethos]

Since this is a science website I presume that you have evidence for that. Perhaps you might care to open another thread to discuss it.

Regarding which issue Sir? Whether Al Gore is responsible for the excess CO2 or, if the misrepresentation is due to the Globalist agenda?

[Bored chemist]

If either issue was on-topic then the distinction would matter.

[litespeed]

Bored,

The CO2 bandwagon has been getting noticeably lighter in recent years. One reason for this is the simple hysteria just LOOKS suspicious. ONLY 50 DAYS LEFT TO SAVE THE PLANET! I believe something like that was actually said by the highest official in one of the most advanced nations on earth just recently.

And then there are those heart rending photographs of the forlorn Polar Bear on a small ice berge. "There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545036/Polar-bears-thriving-as-the-Arctic-warms-up.html

And then there are the legions of Carbonistas are entirely unaware the climate has been both warmer and cooler in historical times then it is now. http://www.green-agenda.com/greenland.html

In fact, a period of global cooling about 4,000 years ago killed so many Egyptions through draught famine the entire society collapsed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/apocalypse_egypt_01.shtml#five [Warm is Good, Cold is Bad] is my general summation on climate.

So you see why there are many skeptics.