Yes. Now look at the graph again and the text.
"The bottom panel shows the difference of 1997 minus 1970."

https://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/321/Harries_Spectrum_2001.pdf

here is the image as presented.



Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 11^th, 2017 at 11:10am:


Now note the difference in brightness (temp) for the upper bound of CO2. It is essentially flat. Argue that.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 11^th, 2017 at 11:05am:


No. The axis says there is very little change above or below zero for the upper bound CO2.

What the figure above shows, of course, is that there are fewer photons of IR reach space from the surface of the earth. This means that, in effect, the black body radiation, the brightness, decreases. That occurs at the positions in the spectrum related to each greenhouse gas.

The fewer the IR photons that make it out to space the hotter the globe gets.

That is what the writers of the Harries et al paper concluded.

Oh, and the brightness temperature was not absolute, that ∆ indicates change. The apparent brightness of the earth decreased because more IR photons are blocked from escaping to space.

What Lees wrote was amusing but irrelevant.

There is a clear exposition of the facts in the Harries et al paper here:
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effe...

There are two GHGs more potent than CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) and these gases are being released in bigger and bigger quantities as the frozen tundra at both poles melts. So much for a pause in the warming!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 11^th, 2017 at 1:47pm:



Which is like a grey body because not all incoming radiation is emitted. That is the definition of "black body radiation"

Big drop in brightness temperature for CO2, even more for methane. Where the hell do you get your crap from?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 11^th, 2017 at 5:14pm:


Jeez. Look at the y-axis. Denominated in Kelvin. +4 to -6 K. The DIFFERENCE in brightness between 1970 and 1997 for CO2 is running along the zero line.

It is not the shortest CO2 wavenumber on the graph.


Have a look at this paper page 6.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.2072/pdf

Published 2013

CO2 is in the 600-900 wavenumber band.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 11^th, 2017 at 5:50pm:


You like seeing things not in evidence.

We see a zero trend around the 600-900 wavenumber.

lee wrote on Jul 11^th, 2017 at 6:36pm:

Wow, taking the stupid pills—or hitting the bottle—early tonight.

There is a decrease in IR photons up until the 780 wavelength.

This is TRULY desperate, Lees!

Big drop in IR photons reaching space in the 600–780 wavelength.

Stop*taking*the*stupid*pills*