Global Warming Skeptics

Full Version: What is the greenhouse effect ???
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Hi All,
As always, considered comments and constructive critism of the attached pdf is invited.
I have my copy thank you. Very comprehensive and very familiar. Well, I do read this blog. Wink

From my personal experience this level of information is quite daunting to the unititiated. For somebody who is already 'onside' this is interesting and informative. Good luck. All this hard work deserves reward.

You won't find me on facebook. I closed my account over a year ago after many 'friend' (?) requests from Nigeria. A country I've never been to.
Thank you Richard111.
The only reply to date I have had anywhere to the pdf.
So, that is 100% positive feedback...LOL.

My father said to me (well, he shouted in exasperation really) several years back,
"If you want a career son, conform."

He is right of course, but, I have not listened...
Hi All,
To say I am very pleased, and a little surprised, is rather an understatement.


WOW! Way to go! Told you hard work brings rewards. Cool

Cool I wonder, does it mean I am getting bigger down under....Big Grin
(08-17-2012, 11:19 AM)Derek Wrote: [ -> ]Cool I wonder, does it mean I am getting bigger down under....Big Grin


(08-17-2012, 11:19 AM)Derek Wrote: [ -> ]Cool I wonder, does it mean I am getting bigger down under....Big Grin

pleased to see you getting coverage Big Grin

Hi All,
Please excuse me whilst I compile Part 3 online. The links may well need reordering as I add more.
One day I may learn how to add a link to a word in a word document, but untill then, well, I am stuck using this method..
As always comments / suggestions welcome.

What is AGW "theory"? Hansen 1988, computer climate models and K&T.
Hansen 1988 in my one assumption essay.
at the Heartland 2009 conference Professor Gray described how the Charney Report of 1979 stated that a change of temperature, caused a change of moisture content of the atmosphere, and this caused a change of Outgoing Longwave Radiation (heat).
Insert Figure 15
Figure 15. The very influential NAS report of 1979 which deduced that any warming of the globe would occur with near constant relative humidity (RH). Global warming consequently is thought to cause an increase in atmospheric water vapor (q) and a decrease in OLR. This assumption appears valid in the lower troposphere but not for the upper troposphere. Although temperature increase may cause precipitable water to increase in the troposphere, it does not mean that upper tropospheric water vapor will necessarily increase.

In fact the Charney report quantified the effect as follows, a doubling of CO2 (in the atmosphere) will cause a temperature change of 4.5 degrees celsius, a combined figure of 2.8125. Seemingly in broad agreement with Arrhenius‟s 1897 paper. Climate modellers, most notably James Hansen of NASA, interpreted from this report that the “theory” that a change of CO2 caused a change of temperature, which caused a change of water vapour content of the atmosphere, that caused an increased change in OLR (heat) was generally accepted. These steps were assumed to be a positive feedback mechanism, the “blanket” that we are making thicker and is warming the planet as such. From the very early models as figure 7 (and description taken from Professor Gray‟s presentation) shows, the models produce a very specific pattern of heating in the atmosphere, a “fingerprint” of man‟s influence upon the global climate, as modelled...

The Charney report and the early climate models have both accepted the assumption that the upper troposphere water vapour content behaves exactly the same as at nearer ground level. There is a large difference between the upper and lower troposphere, namely the depth of atmosphere underneath it, and how much colder it is at the tropopause altitude. At ground level obviously there is no atmosphere below the air, at the tropopause there is approximately 12 kilometers depending upon latitude. Is there really any surprise that the moisture content of the air reacts differently from ground level to the upper troposphere.

James Hansen in particular in constructing his climate model increased the warming factor of water vapour to nearer (and well above originally) 3.5. He produced figures stating what he had done, but nobody challenged them.

A further quote from William M Gray‟s 2009 presentation explains Hansen‟s and most GCMs mistakes, still present today as Figures 8 and 9 earlier showed, the AGW “theory” distinctive warming pattern still persists in models to this day..

Hansen’s early GISS model assumed that a doubling of CO2 would cause the upper tropospheric RH not just to stay constant but to actually increase. His assumed upper tropospheric increase of water vapour (q) for a doubling of CO2 led to a water vapour increase (Δq) in the upper troposphere of as much as an extremely unlikely 50 percent. These large vapor increases caused Hansen to require that his model have a tropical (30oN-30oS) upper tropospheric warming for a doubling of CO2 of as much as 7oC (Figure 10). A 7oC warming at the upper level emission level is equivalent to a 23 W/m2 enhancement of OLR for a doubling of CO2 forcing of only 3.7 W/m2. No wonder Hansen got such high values of global warming for a doubling of CO2. This logically followed from his extremely high and unrealistic water vapor assumptions.

In order to obtain the global balance of incoming and outgoing radiation for his assumed high values of upper tropospheric water vapor it was necessary for Hansen to unrealistically raise his model’s upper tropospheric temperatures to obtain the amounts of OLR (or σT4) to space that would accomplish net radiation balance. It is amazing that Hansen’s high water vapor increase and massively high upper tropospheric temperature rise assumptions for a doubling of CO2 were not immediately challenged.

It was these large amounts of warming resulting from his model’s gross over-estimate of water vapor which Hansen presented to a US Senate Committee hearing at the request of then Senator Al Gore during the hot summer of 1988. The media and much of the general public accepted it all. The environmentalists salivated. Hansen had secured his place in the sun. History will reverse such adulation when his warming predictions are inevitable proven to be wrong.

Not only have Hansen’s extreme and unrealistically high values of upper tropospheric moisture and temperature changes (for a doubling of CO2) not been challenged, they were instead closely emulated by most of the other prominent early GCM groups of NOAA-GFDL (Figure 11), NCAR (Figure 12) and the British Met Service (Figure 13). They all followed suit and incorporated unrealistically high amounts of upper tropospheric water vapor and, as a result, obtained unrealistically high values of global upper and surface temperature just as Hansen had. The fact that most of the (assumed independent) GCMs produced similar warming results were used as verification of each model’s results. But this was untrue. All the modelers were wrong in the same direction and in the same way.

Consequently Hansen‟s models produced a strong warming response to increasing CO2 levels (regardless of the source of CO2 incidentally, whether it be natural or human emitted). These early models in particular were seen by many as over-simplified, totally unrealistic, run away models. They were. Today‟s models fair little better, the current vogue appears to be modelers altering aerosols to get the desired results from the models. That is not modeling, that is not projecting, that is simply fixing the result. It will not work in the real world‟s climate needless to say. The use of aerosol “fudge factors” was shown beyond reasonable doubt by Dr. Richard S. Courtney in his 1999 paper, Courtney RS, An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK‟s Hadley Centre‟, Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999, as mentioned earlier.
From a historical perspective it is worth repeating his own words regarding what the paper shows.

" My 1999 paper reports that the Hadley Centre GCM showed an unrealistic high warming trend over the twentieth century, and a cooling effect was added to overcome this drift. The cooling was assumed to be a result of anthropogenic aerosol.

So, cooling was input to the GCM to match the geographical distribution of the aerosol. And the total magnitude of the cooling was input to correct for the model drift: this was reasonable because the actual magnitude of the aerosol cooling effect is not known.

This was a reasonable model test. If the drift were a result of aerosol cooling then the geographical pattern of warming over the twentieth century indicated by the model would match observations.

However, the output of this model test provided a pattern of geographic variation in the warming that was very different from observations; e.g. the model predicted most cooling where most warming was observed.

This proved that the aerosol cooling was not the cause – or at least not the major cause – of the model drift.

The Hadley Centre overcame this unfortunate result by reporting the agreement of the global average temperature rise with observations. But THIS AGREEMENT WAS FIXED AS AN INPUT TO THE TEST! It was fixed by adjusting the degree of input cooling to make it fit!

However, this use of supposed ‘aerosol cooling’ to compensate for the model drift means that any input reduction to anthropogenic aerosol cooling must result in the model providing drift which is wrongly indicated as global warming.

In any other branch of science this 'aerosol cooling' fix would be considered to be incompetence at best and fraud at worst.

Importantly, this one fact alone proves - beyond any possibility of doubt - that the climate models provide incorrect indications of global warming. My paper reported this in 1999, and no subsequent dispute of it has been published.

K&T is AGW "theory".
K&T as of 2008 -
Earth’s global energy budget (2008)
Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo and Jeffrey Kiehl
National Center for Atmospheric Research
P.O. Box 3000
Boulder, CO 80307-3000


by Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, and Jeffrey Kiehl
AFFILIATIONS: Trenberth, Fasullo, and Kiehl—National Center
for Atmospheric Research,* Boulder, Colorado
*The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by
the National Science Foundation
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Kevin E. Trenberth, National
Center for Atmospheric Research; P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO
The abstract for this article can be found in this issue, following the
table of contents.
In final form 29 July 2008
©2009 American Meteorological Society

My plots that show K&T 2009 GH effect = 33.753k. When "shape" is used to confuse the issue, but in fact, the plots show that,
the surface is warmed from 161 by 333 = 494. So, 161 = -42.31C to 494 = 32.37C, or a 74.68k surface warming GH "effect".
The atmosphere is depicted as being warmed from 78 to (17+80+356) 531 = -80.56C to 37.93C, or a 118.49k warming "effect".
The atmosphere is depicted as warming the surface by 333 = 161 + 333 = 494 = 74.68k "effect".

GH "theory" states the atmosphere to surface warming "effect" is from 240 up to 480 = 48k, and the atmosphere is warmed from absolute zero to -18C by 240, a 255k atmospheric warming "effect".

Take your pick, the GH "effect" is according to the "theory" 48k at the surface and 255k in the atmosphere, yet, according to AGW "theory" the "effect" is, 33.753K if confusing shape of emitter and receiver, 74.68k at the surface, AND, 118.49k in the atmosphere.
Surely, they can not all be correct........LOL. Maybe I misunderstand.....But, GH "theory" and AGW "theory" are quite different.

K&T 2009 aka AGW "theory".
[Image: 2009KT.jpg]

Early K&T.
[Image: EarlyKT.jpg]

NASA / Gavin Schidt version.
[Image: NASA.jpg]

Carl Brehmer - "greenhouse effect" research.
"greenhouse effect" research

Greenhouse in a bottle reconsidered
Greenhouse in a bottle reconsidered
Shows temp. rise is due to rigidly contained mass. What would methane do??? Dodgy very flammable, but
what about gases of differing weights, does the ideal gas law predict the amount of temp rise, obviously yes. Therefore proven misinterpretation.

Water Vapor Feedback - Is it positive or negative?
From jungles to deserts, it is why plants transpire, dogs pant, we sweat, clothes dry, etc, etc, etc,
water vapour is beyond doubt a negative feedback.

Lord Monckton - Greenhouse warming? What greenhouse warming???
Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?
Written by Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monkton of Brenchley
Wednesday, 22 August 2007 08:39
His plot shows a negative feedback, a cool area in the middle, just where one would expect it.
Others have described this very area and why.

From my How do we, and how should we,
view earth’s climate system?
A basic thermodynamics approach to the study of earth’s climate system.
Heat pipes.
Greenhouse effect “theory” as presently taught.
(admittedly not one of my snappier titles for an essay...LOL)
as attached to this post as Derek - Oceans, Thermodynamics, Heat pipes and GH theory. Version 7,
which is the basis of The solar and geothermal powered refrigerator called Earth - forum review.

Maths does not determine the physics, maths can ONLY describe the physics
when applied in
the correct, and accurate physical manner to a given situation.

Emitted IR is the result of the temperature of the object in question,
due to the main / most powerful cooling or warming processes involved.
Which does not mean necessarily IR is THE cause,
or even particularly important in explaining why
the object is the temperature it is.

It is of little surprise then that in climate science heat pipes have been the central feature of several similar suggested hypothesises, most notably by,

Willis Eschenbach
THE Thunderstorm thermostat hypothesis:
How clouds and thunderstorms control the earth's teperature

as discussed at length at Watts Up With That? Blog of Antony Watts.

Dr. Richard Lindzen
Does the earth have an adaptive Infrared iris?

Noor Van Andel, as mentioned earlier in this piece.
CO2 and climate change

But all trip over themselves to accomodate GH "theory", and not openly question it, WHEN they show water vapour IS a negative feedback.

The power of latent heat losses is all too commonly overlooked, or not realised.
1 - Home experiment to illustrate the cooling power of latent heat.
The oily tray experient results also show how much conduction of sensible heat to air is overestimated.

Brego made a major contribution, AND brought Segelstein back into the discussion / subject area.
Water is the refrigerant of the troposphere.

The height of the tropopause and how it is known to lower over convective cells, and along mild latitude cold fronts is a BIG CLUE, most seem to have missed.
A critical and mostly overlooked issue - Condensation of water vapour
Posts 1 and 8 in particular.

Post 1
I think the subject area of the effects of water vapour condensation and A. M. Makarieva (and co authors) contribution to it deserves a thread.

In this thread I wrote,

Condensation of water vapour also is a major concern for modelling in regard of air masses going up and down mountains.
This subject is both massive and fraut with uncertainties which has been covered in some depth at Jeff Ids the Air Vent blog recently.
As a one stop link this recent post is as good a "starter" as I am aware of at present.
Update on Winds paper
Posted by Jeff Id on March 13, 2011

Obviously I will have to go over the whole area again and try to dissemble some of the "nuggets" that are relevant here.
The paper in question is titled,

Where do winds come from?
A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences
atmospheric pressure and dynamics.
A. M. Makarieva, V. G. Gorshkov, D. Sheil, A. D. Nobre, and B.-L. Li.

(I certainly find the Air Vent threads and comments a little easier to read...)

Post 8
" Atmospheric circulations are negative feedbacks.
The hotter the surface the more circulation occurs.
It doesn't matter whether it is a change in air density from heating or changes in water vapour content, or anything else,
it is redistribution of energy by convention.
It works by moving heat energy up from the warm surface into the cold stratosphere.
There the excess heat is radiated to space.

I am going to develop this as a "clouds in the troposphere project",
my reasons why will hopefully become obvious, if they are not already.
Firstly I will keep some useful links below.
1000 feet = 304.8m, or 0.3048kilometers. - Excellent diagram re tropopause height / latitude.

Some of the main cloud types and altitudes / latitude.
"types" of cloud.
1) High = Cirrus, Cirrostratus, and Cirrocumulus clouds.
High clouds are made of ice crystals due to the cold air in the upper sky.
The base of a high cloud above the surface can be anywhere from
6000-18000m in the tropics (mid latitudes 5000-13000m) to 3000-8000m in the polar regions.

2) Middle = Altostratus and Altocumulus clouds.
Middle clouds are made of ice crystals and water droplets.
The base of a middle cloud above the surface can be anywhere from 2000-8000m in the tropics (mid latitudes 2000-7000m) to 2000-4000m in the polar regions.

3) Low = Stratus, Stratocumulus, and Nimbostratus clouds.
Low clouds consist of water droplets.
The base of a low cloud is from the ground surface to 2000m (all latitudes).

4) Clouds with vertical growth = cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds.
These clouds grow high up into the atmosphere rather than spreading across the sky.
They span all levels of the troposphere (surface to 13000m) and can even rise up into the stratosphere.
Thunderstorms form when very warm, moist air rises into cold air.
As this humid air rises, water vapor condenses, forming huge cumulonimbus clouds.
Over 40,000 thunderstorms occur throughout the world each day.
Ordinary thunderstorms, cumulonimbus clouds can grow up to 12000 meters high.
Severe thunderstorms can last several hours and can grow 18000 meters high.

Tropopause height.
See here, and attached pdf to this post.
The troposphere boundary with the stratosphere is called the tropopause.

Height of tropopause, 7 to 20 km (4 to 12 miles, or 23,000 to 65,000 feet) above sea level.
The height of the tropopause depends on latitude, season, and whether it is day or night.
Near the equator, the tropopause is about 20 km (12 miles or 65,000 feet) above sea level.
In winter near the poles the tropopause is much lower. It is about 7 km (4 miles or 23,000 feet) high.
The top of the troposphere is quite cold. The temperature there is around -55° C (-64° F)!

The height of the tropopause depends on the location, notably the latitude,
It also depends on the season. Thus, it is about 16 km high over Australia at year-end, and between 12 - 16 km at midyear

The tropopause height does not gradually drop from low to high latitudes.
Rather, it drops rapidly in the area of the subtropical and polar front jets
This is because thunderstorms mix the tropospheric air at a moist adiabatic lapse rate.
In the upper troposphere, this lapse rate is essentially the same as the dry adiabatic rate of 10K/km.

Therefore, in areas where (or at times when) the tropopause is exceptionally high, the tropopause temperature is also very low, sometimes below -80 C.
This explains the paradox that tropopause temperatures are lowest where the surface temperatures are highest.

Later additions -
Short Term Variations in Tropopause Height over the Winter MONEX area - Richard H Johnson 1986
Excerpts from 8. Discussion,
" Rather than rise during a period of deep convective activity, the tropopause in the region of the convection is observed to descend by 1.5 kms with an associated 5-10 degrees C warming in the lower stratosphere. "
" If deep convective activity is correlated with lower-tropopause heights (by whatever mechanism) over a large scale area and a one-week time scale then the findings of this study may have broader implications. "
" Finally it may also be noted that at most of the stations included in the tropical tropopause study of Reid and Gage (1981)*, the minimum tropopause height occurs during the seasonal period of maximum precipitation (or deep convection) at the stations. Thus, the modulating effects of deep convection (or dynamical processes manifested by an increase in deep convective activity) on tropopause height may be also evident on seasonal time scales. "

* = Reid, G. C. and K. S. Gage, 1981: On the annual variation in height of the tropical tropopause. J. Amos. Sci., 38, 1928-1938.
Behind a paywall...

And again...behind a pay wall
" The height of the tropopause at tropical Pacific stations shows a marked annual variation, together with a secular variation in the annual average values. Previous authors have commented on the positive correlation between the annual average height and the sunspot number. The existence of this correlation is confirmed for the period 1952‐73, and a mechanism to relate solar activity to tropical tropopause height is proposed. The mechanism, which is a simple extension of one that will be discussed in detail elsewhere, explains the annual variation in tropopause height as a response to the annual variation in surface insolation and hence in the intensity of tropical cumulus convection and of the ascending branch of the Hadley cell. The correlation with the sunspot cycle can be explained if the solar “constant” undergoes a fractional increase of about 0.5% from solar minimum to solar maximum. "

Polar and subtropical jet streams.
The polar jet stream (flows from west to east at average speeds, depending on the time of year, between 110 to 185 kilometers per hour, but can be as high as 300kph) is at an altitude of about 10 kilometers.
Its air flow is intensified by the strong temperature and pressure gradient that develops when cold air from the poles meets warm air from the tropics.

The subtropical jet stream (with a rarely achieved maximum of, 270kph) is located approximately 13 kilometers above the subtropical high pressure zone.
The reason for its formation is similar to the polar jet stream. However, the subtropical jet stream is weaker.
Its slower wind speeds are the result of a weaker latitudinal temperature and pressure gradient.

It turns out that the subtropical jet is stronger during winter than summer
despite the greater poleward extent of the upper branch of the summer hemisphere's Hadley circulation.
Intense solar heating over the land masses in the northern hemisphere's subtropical region upsets the apple cart of the Hadley circulation.
In a nutshell, it basically gets much hotter at latitudes near 30 degrees north (mostly over land) than over equatorial regions,
thereby reversing the typical north-south temperature gradient.

In other words the polar front jet stream is stronger and more consistent than the subtropical front jet stream because of
the greater heating of the greater land mass of the Northern hemisphere in summer months.
Whilst the polar front jet stream has a more consistent and constant temperature difference.

Diurnal bulge
What is the shape of earth's atmospheric diurnal bulge?
NASA have known of it for many, many years..Since at least 1960...
The Shape and Location of the Diurnal Bulge in the Upper Atmosphere
Authors: Jacchia, L. G. & Slowey, J.
Journal: SAO Special Report #207 (1966)

Salby lecture
Professor Salby in his own words has sat on it for a year. He can not get the paper published. BUT IT WILL HAVE TO BE PUBLISHED.
Sydney Institute lecture: Professor Murry Salby Aug 3, 2011
anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic, is in fantasia”.
Prof Murry Salby

Thread at Jo Nova's blog,
Blockbuster: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels — not humans

Notes to be expanded upon later...
Gravity, is it the 3rd energy input to earth's climate system?
Obviously solar IR is one, easily quantifiable, and geothermal inputs is a second very difficult to quantify input, therefore gravity is a third input.
gravity field + amount of atmosphere = pressure, causes friction, produces heat.

What would happen if the AMOUNT of earth's astmsphere was doubled to surface pressure and the depth of the atmosphere overall? What would happen if the AMOUNT of atmosphere was increased by a factor of ten?

Convection is the vertical displacement of the lighter at a rate determined by gravity.

In space, zero gravity, container with gas in, compress, heats up then cools, THAT is the THE POINT, in space you would have to constantly keep making the container smaller to maintain the pressure, or rather temperature, untill a final very small size reached.
This size of container would be the amount of mass that produced that temperature by it's own gravity / friction. Put another way, there is no such thing as absolute zero for any mass, as any mass has it's own gravity.

Earth - water vapourisation, has to overcome surface tension. AND, vapour carries thermal heat too, ie, warms bathroom, but gains potential energy before condensing. Heavy at surface, light when convected, heavy again when it condenses, ALL IN A GRAVITY FIELD.

Gravity effects have to be included, that is why "we" can not fathom condensation of H2O in the atmosphere (ie, clouds) at present, must include both potential and kinetic energies.

There is no approach to understanding earth's climate system at present, that I am aware of, that includes the effects of gravity.
(08-26-2012, 01:30 AM)Derek Wrote: [ -> ]There is no approach to understanding earth's climate system at present, that I am aware of, that includes the effects of gravity.

Quite amazing really. We wouldn't HAVE an atmosphere if there was no gravity.
(p.s. don't forget molecular escape velocity. Too much air temperature and gas molecules start heading for Andromeda.)

Richard111 can you expand upon your ps please. It is something I have not considered.
(08-26-2012, 11:33 PM)Derek Wrote: [ -> ]Richard111 can you expand upon your ps please. It is something I have not considered.

Hmm.. try search term 'molecular escape velocity', but first have a look at this 4 page pdf:

This is something that bothered me since I first learnt that 99.9% of any volume of air next to me is 'empty space', the same 'empty space' as between the galaxies.
This is why LWIR, in fact almost any electromagnetic radiation, can escape to space so easily through clear skies. Not much in the way really.
Now clouds! Like outside my window right now. A huge sheet of liquid particulate matter. So dense you can't tell where the sun is right now. Just a dull grey light everywhere. And it's raining.
In simple words, Greenhouse effect is when the Earth becomes a greenhouse with Sun's UV rays entering through the ruptured Ozone layer.

A greenhouse is a mirrored glasshouse that allows maximum sunlight to enter the room and keep the place warm.
Similarly, the sun's UV rays keep entering the atmosphere, making the climate warm.
Big Grin  "Mirrored glasshouse" ?????

EricRomm most people have now realised a greenhouse is warmer than it's surroundings for the same solar input, because it physically traps heat. ie, reduces sensible and latent heat losses from the warmed surface. 

In simple words, the hotter greenhouse surface radiates more than its cooler surrounding, therefore whatever is cooling the surroundings, that is not cooling the inside of the greenhouse is a far more powerful cooling mechanism/s. 

The inside of the greenhouse is warmer, NOT due to increased heating, but due to reduced cooling.
(08-18-2016, 12:13 AM)EricRomm Wrote: [ -> ]In simple words, Greenhouse effect is when the Earth becomes a greenhouse with Sun's UV rays entering through the ruptured Ozone layer.

A greenhouse is a mirrored glasshouse that allows maximum sunlight to enter the room and keep the place warm.
Similarly, the sun's UV rays keep entering the atmosphere, making the climate warm.

The Ozone layer is NOT ruptured since it is still there,continually being created by incoming sunlight striking O2.Most significant depletion occurs at the poles due to weather and lack of solar input.A temporary phenomenon that quickly reestablish itself when the Polar Vortex breaks up and the Solar input comes back.

You make it seem a lot of UV rays reach the planets surface,when in reality very little does. UVA is the only one of the class reaching the surface in any significant amount and that represents only a small portion of the INCOMING Solar energy,while UVB just a dribble reach the surface,UVC NONE reach the surface.

The ozone layer and its effect on ultraviolet light


VISIBLE LIGHT is the dominant incoming solar energy flow reaching the planets surface,how come you left that out?

Here is a simple chart showing the overwhelming dominance of incoming VL reaching the planets surface:

[Image: 800px-Solar_spectrum_en.svg.png]


The chart itself make clear CO2 absorbs very little Incoming IR from the sun.