The greenhouse theory is often presented simplistically. Infrared light energy leaves the surface of the earth heading for space but, if it’s in a certain wavelength band, it may react with greenhouse gas molecules en route. If so, the reaction radiates heat in all directions, and some heads downwards – back to the surface. Then, it’s deja vu all over again.

To see what happens next, go to The Decreasing Influence of Carbon Dioxide, on this very blog.

The Royal Society says the “extra [greenhouse] gas concentrations will trap an increased amount of [energy]” equal to about 1.5W/m2. Is that when the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs are 280ppm CO2E or 450ppm? Or any other concentration?

How much “extra gas concentration” is required for 1.5W/m2? The amount accrued since 1950? The amount expected this year? The cumulative amount predicted for 2100? Is this the extra warming that will occur by the time the saturation point of CO2 is reached?

Prof Hunter is not clear whether his radiation measure includes all the feedbacks or ignores them. I suppose any discussion of the earth’s ‘carbon sensitivity’ would immediately disprove his contention that it is all “simple physics”.

What is “outgoing solar radiation”? If the Royal Society means visible sunlight which is reflected off clouds, or snow, or other reflective material at the earth’s surface, then this doesn’t enter into the earth’s energy budget at all. This is a big part of Al Gore’s scary scenario – the Arctic ice cap stops reflecting sunlight into space, so the oceans heat up. But the Royal Society make the albedo (reflection) effect sound like a bad thing.

Is this just a chemistry academic making bitchy comments implying that other science disciplines are “simple”?