Hasbeen

To add to Aidan comment:

"Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating."

From:

http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

A simple experiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY

A more sophisticated experiment:

http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/1906/how-co2-traps-sun39s-warmth

The eleven year ARM research program was conducted in the natural environment:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

Quote:

"Based on an analysis of data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's CarbonTracker system, the scientists linked this upswing in CO2-attributed radiative forcing to fossil fuel emissions and fires."

Hasbeen,

"Aidan due to the nature of the planet, a sphere, a higher percentage of any emitted radiation will be directed to space, rather than towards the planet."
That much is true, although the difference is very small as the radius of the planet is huge compared to the thickness of the atmosphere.

"The more often it is absorbed, the more quickly this happens."
FALSE. More of the radiation that CO2 absorbs comes from the ground (due to it being heated by shorter wavelength radiation from the sun) than direct from the sun. Though the amount of incoming radiation in the CO2 absorption range is not trivial, it's much less than the ground emits.

"The [proportion reradiated out into space] increases with increasing altitude."
Only slightly. And if you want to include slight effects, you should also consider twilight, when the sun is not shining on the ground but the radiation reaches it indirectly.

"Although a large majority [of incoming radiation] is not in the absorption range of CO2, a fair amount is, almost enough to saturate the CO2 capacity by itself."
First you claim there's already so much CO2 in the atmosphere that "already has excess capacity to do so. That is, there is no more of those wavelengths available to be absorbed." Now just a day later you try to claim almost the opposite: there's so little CO2 in the atmosphere that it scarcely has any capacity left to absorb any more radiation of the right wavelength than what comes directly from the sun. Make your mind up!

"I say COULD as some studies have found a corresponding reduction in water vapour with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere,"
What studies have made this extraordinary finding? If they exist I'm surprised I've not heard of them, as it's the kind of thing I'd expect the climate change deniers to be trumpetting from the rooftops!

Hasbeen (continued)

"One other point Aidan, you can't transfer heat from a cooler body to a hotter body,
On average this is true, and hot things will cool down while cold things will warm up. However at the molecular and atomic level, where heat is movement, there are often small transfers of energy from cooler to hotter.

"another fact ignored by the scam merchants."
Irrelevant trivia can be safely ignored by everyone. The trouble is you've failed to spot who the real scam merchants are.

The flea says:”Dr Roy Spencer and Dr Christie have indicated that for February 2016 there has been a jump in temperature of 0.83 C”. The flea gives no reference for this statement.

The flea again:” You display the denier trick of making a statement without providing a reference.”
So why did the flea use what he baselessly and dishonestly refers to as “the denier trick” ?
It becomes clear if we look at what Spencer and Christy in fact said, which is:” there was +0.38 C warming from December to January."
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
The flea is simply lying again, and seems to think that if he gives no reference, no-one will check his false, dishonest contribution.
As I have pointed out previously, his lies and dishonesty make him unfit to participate in discussion on this forum. His uncivil and dishonest use of the term “denier” is disgraceful. He is unable to put forward any science to show any measurable human effect on climate, so there is no science to be denied by these figments of his distorted and rancid imagination.

Leo

You continue with your humour.

You really ought to check Dr Spencer's blog before making statements.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-feb-2016-0-83-deg-c-new-record/