BeesKnee5 wrote:Those two charts are from the same research paper.
Which claims they mean something they do not mean.
Being at ground level does not change where the absorption bands are, the density changes the width of the band.
Proving me right and you wrong: at ground level, the only level that matters, H2O completely dominates CO2, and CO2 can therefore have only very little effect on surface temperatures.
You have proved no one wrong other than to show you haven't a clue about what Angstrom did in his experiment ( clue, he did not test at the density of gasses at ground level)
Irrelevant. Any modern lab can do the experiments and confirm that Angstrom was effectively correct -- additional CO2 has very little effect on IR absorption in a realistic ground-level atmosphere -- and Arrhenius was wrong.
Further to this my investigations have thrown up some further flaws in Angstroms experiment. Firstly he didn't even do the experiment himself and his assistant got the measurements wrong.
'Koch had only a thermocouple to measure heat across the entire infrared spectrum. He accurately reported that about 10% of the radiation from a 100°C black body was absorbed in his tube, and that at lower pressure at most 9.6% was absorbed.
Repeats of this experiment have shown that about 9% is absorbed making the difference caused by a reduction of CO2 far more significant.'
What nonsense. Such experiments demonstrate conclusively that in a realistic ground-level atmosphere, even doubling CO2 from the pre-industrial (LIA) level will have almost no effect on total IR absorption or back radiation because the absorption spectrum is already saturated.
Still want to hang your hat on an experiment that had no way of knowing what was absorbed by CO2 and what was absorbed by H2O and was clearly not accurate enough to get the measurement right when compared to today's equipment?
Absolutely. It's a trivial experiment to replicate with modern equipment, so any errors by Angstrom or his lab assistants are irrelevant. The deceitful way the paper you have quoted presented the data confirms that they decided they had to obscure, distort, and conceal the facts because they disproved anti-CO2 hysteria.
You are now arguing with the world renowned source for the spectroscopy of molecules, that is how far your delusion has taken you.
What fact of molecular spectroscopy do you falsely claim I am disputing?
Does your window look out on the Chukchi sea?
Why the Chukchi Sea, particularly? Oh, wait a minute, that's right: weather variation has simply moved the ice to different areas, so the total is no longer below the 2012 record:http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
So all your Chicken Little doomsaying again comes to naught.