And there will be lot more needless suffering and unhappiness if we don't do something about reducing the world's population and in consequence reducing the pollution of the biosphere.

David

Needless suffering is caused by human selfishness and excessive consumerism and materialism.
Europe's population is declining due to the very low birth rate of white local Europeans. Muslims are having the children. Bears and other animals are returning to many parts of Europe as population in towns declines. Avergae of one child per couple in Spain right now.
Lower population is not the answer to biosphere which is not endangered; and an increase in population doesn't cause increased suffering. Problem as always is corruption, lack of Judeao-Christian derived legal systems as we have in the West and in Commonwealth nations ( albeit currently being undermined since the 1970s with easy divroce laws, political correctness and other aberrations that actually increase suffering).

Bazz,

The IPCC is not insisting the science is settled. For anyone to suggest this (usually the media, AGW alarmists or miscreants) indicates lack of understanding of the IPCC process and denigrates all scientists in general and the scientific method in particular.

Science per se does not work by consensus; this too is widely misinterpreted.

As far as your requested graph goes, I am still perplexed as to what you want.

Ergo, what do you mean by, or define as, “radiation transmission”? Do you mean radiative forcing, or radiative properties of CO2, or climate sensitivity, or total radiation incoming to outgoing in W/m2, or GHG-e irradiation, or what?

And a straight line 0 to 1000 ppm [CO2]; when zero means the planet would be frozen and life as we know it would be non-existent; and 1000 is going to push humanity to the envelope? You want a point of no return somewhere on that straight line?

And “a straight line around 400 ppm” … then you “might believe in man caused global warming.” What the hell does that mean? And why is 400 ppm so important in determining whether you believe in global warming or not? Why not 500, or 600, or 700, or doubling from pre-industrial levels, or tripling?

Bazz, the science is telling us we have a problem – you don’t have to believe it and that’s ok, for whatever reason. But sheesh, why don’t you contribute more to non-scientific debate – you know, the subject of this article.

What do you think can or can’t be done in adapting to ‘climate change’? Are there better ways to manage energy and our finite resources?

Q&A, I suspect that you and I are wasting our time in this debate. The deniers are not interested in looking at the physical evidence which is confronting them. Real science has no meaning to them because they have no understanding of it, even in a peripheral sense.

Webby, the Lord looks after those who help themselves, so that if you have no desire to help the world overcome whatever are the consequences of AGW, then you will be the loser, despite your belief in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When your time finally comes, may your dear departed soul rest in peace, although I suspect that it will more than likely be a case of,

"Ashes to ashes,
Dust to dust,
If the white ants don't get you,
The Devil must."

David

VK3AUU

There is no point in worrying about "believers" unless their opinions are forced on the rest of us and I have long ago stopped worrying about them but have got on looking for solutions. They would also say there is no point in talking to you and I as long as our opinions are not forced on them.

This leads us into the prisoners dilemma or the tragedy of the commons. Fortunately there are cooperative solutions appearing where we can all agree to disagree but still change the way our economic systems operate to solve the greenhouse emissions problem.

Q&A & VK3AUU,
I will try and explain.
My understanding is that the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere
varies with the amount of CO2.

However this effect is not "linear", ie if you double the amount of
CO2 you do not double the greenhouse effect.
The effect follows a logarithmetic curve.

My reason for selecting 400 ppm is because I understand that we now
have something like 350 ppm in the atmosphere.

The curve will start off rising steeply and then curve over becoming
closer and closer to horizontal.

VK3AUU, the same as a time constant charge of a capacitor.

If 350 ppm is on the straight rising part of the curve, then a man
made increase in CO2 will have a proportional increase in greenhouse effect.

However, and this is the point, if 350ppm is on the part of the curve
that is becoming horizontal then an increase in CO2 has no detectable
effect on greenhouse effect.

Another way of explaining it is like this;
You have a thin mix of black paint.
You want to paint a clear piece of glass.
The first coat cuts back some light, the next cuts back more light.
The more coats you put on the more light that is cut back, but each
time there is less light cut out until finally it is totally black
and nor more light is cut out no matter how much paint is put on.

Thats the best I can do without drawing a graph.
It has been suggested to me that the atmosphere becomes "black" to
CO2, (the curve starts flattening) at 50 ppm then
man made CO2 cannot make global warming worse and any increase
thereafter MUST be natural.

If 50ppm is correct then it is impossible for man made warming to be
taking place, no ifs no buts, it is impossible.

Now this is what raised my question; is there a graph anywhere showing
the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere vs CO2 ppm ?

Whew, I can see why there is so much controversy about GW !

de Baz