The Climate Chicken Littles like to cite their "radiative imbalance" which they say is caused by the greenhouse gas effect with just 10 meters of air & CO2, but
always lump it with water vapor as "total greenhouse gas effect" in W/m^2 and never CO2 by itself, which would then have to be in
Watts per m^2 and per µm....not just watts/m^2
The only part of the spectrum that matters if CO2 is the culprit would be the 15 µm band....and that`s the problem which is being glossed over.
CO2 is in fact the predominant IR absorbing gas at that particular wavelength, but it also does not care from where the IR came from and absorbs as much 15 µm IR coming from the sun and preventing it to warm the ground as it does to 1/2 of the 15 µm IR the ground radiates up.
So the question is, does a 288 deg K object radiate more IR at that wavelength than the sun radiates down at 5800 deg K.
And the answer is of course not...
So if the CO2 absorption "radiative imbalance" is cancelled out at that particular (15 µm) band, why is there a "greenhouse gas effect" at all?
It is a fact that SW light
which does reach the ground through all that CO2 and is not reflected is down-converted to LW.
..which is then partially absorbed by the
entire mixture of "green house gasses":
To which I reply f@<& that,.... show me the CO2 specific
watts per m^2 per µm for the CO2 without lumping it with water vapor as a "greenhouse gas" effect in watts per m^2.
It`s not as if that could not be measured...and it has been:
[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=+4]The Climate Catastrophe
[/SIZE][SIZE=+3]- A Spectroscopic Artifact?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]by
[SIZE=+1]Dr. Heinz Hug[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]Crucial is the
relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band alone (as IPCC does) we get[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva](9.79
[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 1.11
[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) / 0.5171 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] = 0.17 %[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva] Conclusions[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]It is hardly to be expected that for CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]The
radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][14][/SIZE] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band as observed from satellite measurements
[SIZE=-1](Hanel et al., 1971)[/SIZE] and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] - and not 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE].[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.[/FONT]
The amount of IR "back radiation"
which can be solely attributed to CO2 is miniscule.
The guys that got hosed by that Apache pilot, who had no trouble seeing their body-IR through a mile of air with 380 ppm CO2 found out the hard way that this thin 15 µm CO2 band offered no more shielding than a hydro-wire does during a down pour
