How does shortening the absorption distance of CO2 increase temperature?

Question

This is a rhetorical question, folks. Shortening the distance CO2 absorbs to extinction (increasing CO2) does NOT MAKE HEAT STAY IN THE ATMOSPHERE LONGER (increase temp). If it does, boy you better show how.

Bob, Dana1981, Dr. Blob consider this your undergrad course. I will ready my red marker for your tests. If you link to non-primary sources or attempt "death by needless detail" you will lose points.

Answer 1

There isn't a single primary reference one could cite for you that gives you what you are looking for (leaving aside the issue of whether you would believe it if there were).  However, this is the best discussion of the evolution of the theoretical understanding there is:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.h...

There are many primary references therein.

Edit:  The link above *directly* answers your question.  You didn't read it thoroughly.  Skeptics will never begin to convince technically literate that their arguments have any merit unless they at least attempt to completely understand the theory.  From the above link:

But would adding carbon dioxide in the upper layers of the air significantly change the surface temperature? Only detailed computations, point by point across the infrared spectrum and layer by layer up through the atmosphere, could answer that question. By 1956, such computations could be carried out thanks to the increasing power of digital computers. The physicist Gilbert N. Plass took up the challenge of calculating the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere, nailing down the likelihood that adding more CO2 would increase the interference with infrared radiation.(26) Going beyond this qualitative result, Plass announced that human activity would raise the average global temperature "at the rate of 1.1 degree C per century."

It is unfortunate that you don't understand radiative transfer through inhomogeneous atmospheres.  But just because you choose to remain uninformed does not negate the fact that adding CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere affects longwave radiative transfer.

edit2:  The change in outgoing longwave radiation has been measured:

Title: Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

Author(s): Harries JE, Brindley HE, Sagoo PJ, Bantges RJ

Source: NATURE Volume: 410 Issue: 6826 Pages: 355-357 Published: MAR 15 2001

Answer 2

Here was an interesting article providing some details

http://nov55.com/ntyg.html

Note: Bubba claims that it didn't consider the energy re-radiating away from the source but I suspect he didn't read the article.  It said:

"The assumption of some persons is that shorter distances mean the heat stays in the atmosphere longer before escaping into space. Supposedly, the radiation will be re-emitted and re-absorbed more often, when distances are shorter. But they err in two ways. One is in not taking into account the convection which removes the relevance of short distances. The other is in assuming the direction is toward space.

When radiation is re-emitted in the atmosphere, it moves in all directions. The energy does not move closer to space, because it is not directional. The only way heat can move toward the outer atmosphere is through convectional currents." etc  

It goes on to elaborate more.

Note to Ken: I suspect I wasn't graded a D because I didn't make any claims about anything.  The bitterness is palpable.

Answer 3

CO2 absorb NIR and IR bands from the black body within a certain distance of than body.  However, thermal radiation is also re-radiated by the atmosphere and absorb by gases further away from the body until it eventually is re-radiated back into space.  

Increasing the concentration increases the amount of CO2 throughout the air column and marginally increases the amount of heat it holds before re-radiating into space.  Not a linear relationship (doubling CO2 does not double the amount of heat).

Answer 4

I don't think you're supposed to question it.  That would make you a "denier" and thought criminal.

Answer 5

Read this!

http://nov55.com/ntyg.html

Answer 6

And your "qualifications" for grading such an answer would be what? Without knowing that, it's impossible to know what level of detail would suffice to get a good grade.

How come you haven't graded Jim Z with a D yet? Clearly his source is nothing more than a personal blog by someone with no climate science experience or relevant education. No credible science course would accept that as a source ;-)

Edit:

Jim - "bitterness"?  LMAO.  Are you a little over-sensitive or what? I sometimes find your position amusing, but certainly don't have any bitterness or animosity toward you :-)

Answer 7

Give me a break dude.  What qualifies you to grade others on their understanding of atmospheric physics?  Considering the grades you've handed out so far - nothing.  Jim z "gets a B+ b/c his link is directly relevant" while you give bubba and gcnp lower grades even though they have answered the question accurately?

BS.  If you're going to act condescending, at least learn the basic science first.