What happens is that the center of the CO2 bands (Gaussian/Lorentzian in shape) are saturated (in Earths atmosphere), but with increasing concentration the _width_ of the absorbing CO2 bands increases, with the edges of the band rising – hence more IR is returned to the surface.

As a mental picture, think of a Gaussian clipped to a maximum value. With each doubling of the Gaussian, the clipped/blocked section gets wider and wider.

Is that information correct?

On the meaning of feedback parameter, transient climate response, and the greenhouse effect: Basic considerations and the discussion of uncertainties

Gerhard Kramm1 and Ralph Dlugi2
1University of Alaska Fairbanks, Geophysical Institute, 903 Koyukuk Drive, P.O. Box 757320,
Fairbanks, AK 99775-7320, USA
2Arbeitsgruppe Atmosphärische Prozesse (AGAP), Gernotstraße, D-80804 Munich, Germany

Abstract
In this paper we discuss the meaning of feedback parameter, greenhouse effect and transient
climate response usually related to the globally averaged energy balance model of Schneider and
Mass. After scrutinizing this model and the corresponding planetary radiation balance we state
that (a) the this globally averaged energy balance model is flawed by unsuitable physical
considerations, (b) the planetary radiation balance for an Earth in the absence of an atmosphere is
fraught by the inappropriate assumption of a uniform surface temperature, the so-called radiative
equilibrium temperature of about 255 K, and (c) the effect of the radiative anthropogenic forcing,
considered as a perturbation to the natural system, is much smaller than the uncertainty involved
in the solution of the model of Schneider and Mass. This uncertainty is mainly related to the
empirical constants suggested by various authors and used for predicting the emission of infrared
radiation by the Earth’s skin. Furthermore, after inserting the absorption of solar radiation by
atmospheric constituents and the exchange of sensible and latent heat between the Earth and the
atmosphere into the model of Schneider and Mass the surface temperatures become appreciably
lesser than the radiative equilibrium temperature. Moreover, neither the model of Schneider and
Mass nor the Dines-type two-layer energy balance model for the Earth-atmosphere system, both
contain the planetary radiation balance for an Earth in the absence of an atmosphere as an
2 asymptotic solution, do not provide evidence for the existence of the so-called atmospheric
greenhouse effect if realistic empirical data are used.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.0883.pdf

“If their argument were correct, there would be no point in wearing a jacket on a cold day — how can a jacket, which is cooler than you are, keep you warm?”

I can’t believe that anyone who claims to be physicist can spout such nonsense:

a) a jacket works primarily by preventing heat loss to the atmosphere via conduction and convection.

b) a jacket also prevents evaporative cooling due to sweating.

c) layered clothing is is more effective than a single layer of the same insulating ability.

The real proof of your ignorance is the fact that people can easily tolerate still-air temperatures below 0C. This means radiative heat loss is far less than convection and conduction.

Comment On “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”, by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith and Jörg Zimmermann, pp 1309-1332, doi:10.1142/S021797921005555X

Is now available to freely download

Reply To “Comment On ‘Falsification Of The Atmospheric Co2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics’ By Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore

(www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/gerlich-reply-to-halpern.pdf)

The temperature profile of the troposphere can be explained by the Kinetic Theory of Gases in a Gravitational Field.
No reference whatsoever need be paid to radiative gases for the basic profile.
However some gases like H2O vapour and CO2 have a radiative effect.
Water vapour is by far the most important of the radiative gases.
But the important additional physical effects H2O bring are evaporation and condensation in phase change.
The role of the trace gas CO2 is very minor.
I have calculated for the world average H2O/co2 radiation split is 90% due to H2O and 10% due to co2.
When moist air is included it modifies the profile to some extent but the major effect on the lapse rate is still Gravitational compression.
On a cloudy night temperatures do not fall as low as on a clear night.
Why is this?
You will say this effect is backradiation.
But consider this;
the clouds contain condensing water vapour.
The release of 2,300,000J per kilogram of H2O vapour keeps the temperature of the clouds at a high value.
Now the convection currents of air (the main method of heat transfer in the atmosphere ) will be much weaker if there is little temperature difference between the Earth surface and the clouds.
The insulating properties of the night sky is improved by the presence of the clouds.
Now add in if the radiative contribution to and from the clouds you have the picture we can all recognise.
It is important to separate the important from the less important factors affecting heat transfer in the atmosphere.

An object A (at some temperature) with an 80% emissivity/absorptivity at 10um is struck by a 10um photon. What’s the chance of absorption? Hint – perhaps 80%? Note, photons don’t carry identity cards showing where they came from, unlike people in Arizona.

Now, perhaps that photon came from an object 10 deg. warmer than A. Or perhaps it came from an object 10 deg. cooler than A (fewer photons, but still some)? Does that unidentified 10 um photon add to the energy in A? Hint – Yes, first law of thermodynamics. Objects at any temperature radiating photons may have those photons absorbed by another object, since PHOTONS DON’T CARE WHERE THEY CAME FROM.

Does A radiate thermal energy at a rate determined by (- E = emissivity x sigma x T^4)? Hint – Yes. At the wavelengths determined by the emissivity spectra of the object. Objects of lower emissivity lose heat through thermal radiation slower than a black body, not a contradiction, not an issue in any manner whatsoever.

Readers (other than Bryan) – always make certain you follow the science. Bryan – get a clue. I’m outta here.

You seem to be fascinated by the G&T paper unfortunately you do not seem to have read or understood the paper.

SOD says above ….

So, for example, again and again Bryan happily brings up the “problem” with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. For newcomers, this law is the equation that links radiated energy with the 4th power of temperature.

- E = emissivity x sigma x T^4

Well, all Gerlich and Tscheuschner did there was to point out that this calculation of energy radiated from a surface is the total “hemispherical emissive power” – all of the energy radiated from a surface in all directions.

Bryan responds

Here SOD implies that G&T are quite happy to use the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Yet on page 12 we find
…that validity definitely does not cover the atmospheric problem…..
On page 21
….The T^4 law will no longer hold if one integrates only over a filtered spectrum…
…and so on.

SOD should stop making silly remarks that can so easily be exposed.
My advice to him is to read and consider carefully the G&T paper before making any further ill considered comments.

Will SOD thank me for my well meaning advice?
Wait and see!

I have just returned from a nice holiday in Ireland.
You might find yourself quite at home there.
In Ireland many people believe in Fairies Leprechauns and Banshees.
Your belief in the fairy tale of man made global warming(see post 110) might fit in quite well.

Why don’t you tell the readers of this forum of how you claimed G&T were misleading people by using the traditional definition of infra red radiation?
What happened when I proved that SOD was totally out of order by showing him that the G&T definition was almost identical to the Wikipedia definition?
Well instead of thanking me for reducing his considerable store of ignorance he conceded the point, but with sarcasm.
I am ever hope full that by pointing people in the right direction they will thank me for my efforts like polite people should.
For SODs benefit he might like to look up the experimental proof of the zeroth law of thermodynamics.
For years most people took this for granted but for SOD it might come as a revelation that the introduction to the vicinity of two objects at thermal equilibrium by a third object at the same temperature does not lead to a temperature gain/or loss of the original two.