This thread got off to a bad start by Aitch's use of the word "energy."
As purportedly applied to physics and science, "energy" is the most misused word in English. Especially to new-age and alternative medicine types, it means almost anything and everything. In fact, most people don't really know what they mean when using the term.
To refer to Global warming as being the consequence of "excess energy in the atmosphere" is nonsensical, and that should have been clarified in this thread before there was any further discussion. This is particularly evident when you remember that, as Einstein demonstrated, energy and matter are ultimately interchangeable. Does our atmosphere have too much matter? It doesn't make sense.
The base cause of global warming is, simply, that because of the accumulation of above-normal greenhouse gases (primarily CO2), our atmosphere is retaining more energy in the particular form that is otherwise known as "heat." Heat is a very specific form of energy, and it's heat in particular that must be addressed in any intelligent discussion of global warming. In other words, don't use the (in this context stupid) term "energy;" use the much more specific word "heat."
As for any notion of pulling excess "heat" from our atmosphere by shining lasers into space, that's uber stupid (sorry to be rude, Aitch, but it is).
To analyze, yes, a laser shining into space is sending "energy" outward and away from earth (in this case in the form of light). But that would not provide our atmosphere even a nano-calorie of cooling benefit -- unless the energy was pulled, in the first place, from atmospheric heat. Presently we have no technology that pulls energy from the atmosphere, as heat, on anything approaching an industrial scale (it might be argued that wind mills do this, but in fact they are capturing kinetic energy, which is related to heat only indirectly).
This means, to power those lasers of yours, you'd not only NOT be pulling heat from the atmosphere, worse still, you be using greenhouse-gas-producing fossil fuels, thereby increasing the very global warming you'd hoped to reduce. Indeed, even if you powered the lasers with non-greenhouse-gas-producing sources, you'd still be pushing other uses away from those sources, which in turn would be pushed to fossil-fuel use, and still you'd be pulling no heat from the atmosphere. As I said, it was a very dumb idea.
Indeed, it's dummer still (this on a smaller scale), since the laser light, as it strikes various molecules in the air (on its way from earth's surface and out to space) it going to heat some of them, thereby pumping more heat into the atmosphere -- again the opposite of your objective.
The problem is not too much energy. It's the wrong kinds of energy in the wrong places, and not enough of the kinds we want where we want it. Indeed, if we had more non-polluting work-types of energy (the kinds that turn motors and make lights illuminate) available where we want it, we could stop emitting greenhouse gases for our energy needs, and kiss global warming (except those parts that are already inevitable) goodbye.
Again, any notion of "too much energy" is just stupid, and this points to a final fault with your notion. If we did have a good, industrial-scale method of pulling heat (as work-available energy) from the atmosphere, the very LAST THING we'd want to do with that energy is throw it away by beaming it out to space. On the contrary, we'd be most anxious to use it as a NEW ENERGY SOURCE, to power our motors, light our spaces, run our computers, so on and etc -- in particular, to use this new source in preference to fossil fuels.
Your thinking was way wacky, Aitch.
.