Truth To Power wrote:But his calculations were far more accurate than Arrhenius's, because he accounted for the saturation of absorption bands by water vapor. He was correct that additional CO2 will therefore have a very modest effect.
This is simply untrue for four reasons.
Firstly as already mentioned Angstrom assumed the absorption wavelength was unaffected by increasing density.
The reason you are failing to understand this is significant is because the graph has a logarithmic scale and so what looks like a relatively small band is highly significant.
Secondly by assuming the chemical composition is unchanged as you rise through the atmosphere when in fact water vapour reduces faster and the upper troposphere and stratosphere are much drier than at ground level leaving an even larger area of the spectrum available for CO2 absorption of energy.
Thirdly the two spectrums do not wholly overlap as you have claimed, the spectrum of water has gaps in it at wavelengths that CO2 is active.
And finally the spectrum isn't saturated at higher levels, if it was then heat wouldn't be able to reach the surface and be reflected out into space.
That will be news to the Koreans....
Would that be the North or south Koreans. Unless I assume you visited 70 years ago.
.
Which is irrelevant, as wind does not blow only over land borders. Duh.
Yes, and in northern China, millions of people still heat their homes with very dirty coal furnaces or even fireplaces that turn the air brown.
Thus proving me right and yourself wrong.
Just what do you think soot is?
No. The ultimate in cherry picking is pretending that arctic sea ice was never previously below the high level at the end of the 1940-1970 cooling trend that marks the beginning of modern satellite observations.
Let's get this right, I have never pretended that August and September 2012 wasn't below any other recorded years low.
By cherry picking those two months when the ice was hit by an exceptional weather pattern and ignoring every other month/ year and day since you show an inability to understand the data and the trend.
Sea Ice extent now 955,000 km2 lower than 2012 and still you think 2012 marks a low water point. Utterly bizarre.
So, like the 1940s.
Want to show evidence of this.
.
The burden of proof is on the positive claim. I don't have to prove there is no climate crisis or climate emergency. YOU have to prove there IS one. And you can't, because there self-evidently isn't.
I provide the evidence there is available, if you want to be taken seriously then I suggest you do the same.
So, like the 1940s.
I'll await the evidence to support this claim
This sort of variation has happened many times. Nothing whatever to do with CO2.
I suggest you read the title of the images and then come back with evidence to disprove it.
So it will take 30 years before you will accept that you are wrong?? Superhuman artificial intelligence (SAI) is almost certain to prove it long before that.
A BOE is not the point at which something is proven true or false. If ice continues to melt at an increased rate and trend lower over time then it is evidence of warming.
.
No. I'm just denying that a record that at the high point of a cycle is evidence of a one-way downtrend.
Yes and supposedly your uptrend started three years ago. Where is it today?
.
Modern records that conveniently begin at a cyclical high.
They begin when satelites became powerful enough to record and transmit data electronically but we have data going back further and it doesn't help your case