Aeno Arrak's comment

[Sunsettommy]

From HERE

Arno Arrak says:
December 18, 2011 at 2:54 pm

What a waste of time and effort. Carbon dioxide sensitivity is simply zero, no matter how you slice it. It follows from Ferenc Miscolczi’s work on absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere. Using NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 he was able to show that the transmittance of the atmosphere to outgoing IR has been constant for the last 61 years. During that same time period the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent. This means that he addition of this amount of carbon dioxide to air had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. This is an empirical observation, not derived from any theory. Time to put away those nineteenth century calculations by Arrhenius and Tyndall and listen to what nature tells us about infrared absorption by the atmosphere. First of all, with no absorption from added carbon dioxide there can be no enhanced greenhouse effect, hence sensitivity is zero. This result does not mean that there is no theory, however. There is one, and it is this Miskolczi theory that nature follows, not something from the nineteenth century that IPCC is still pushing. This Miskolczi theory sets a cap on the total absorption of IR by the atmosphere so that if any greenhouse gas should increase this increase is compensated for by reduction of water vapor in the air. This is possible because unlike other gases there is an infinite supply of it from the ocean. According to this, adding more carbon dioxide simply lowers the amount of water vapor in the air and keeps the total absorption unchanged. Miskolczi’s observations of the NOAA weather balloon data are only possible if this is what actually happens. Note that this is the exact reverse of what IPCC climate models assume. That carbon dioxide which was added to air did not miraculously disappear and does absorb but this absorption is compensated for by the reduction of water vapor in the air that automatically takes place. Miskolczi also calculated the theoretical value of the required cap to atmospheric absorptivity and found that it must have an optical thickness of 1.86 in the infrared. This corresponds to a 15 percent transmittance for outgoing infrared radiation by the atmosphere. Next, using seven subsets of the NOAA database to calculate separate values for this optical thickness he found them all to come very close to the theoretical value of 1.86. This result was reported to the EGU meeting in Vienna last April. All I can say is, why are these guys still babbling about sensitivity?

[Richard111]

Very, very interesting. But as always I have questions. He mentions "15 percent transmittance for outgoing infrared radiation" but makes no mention of transmittance for INCOMING infrared radiation especially as H2O and CO2 are far more active in the near infrared regions, i.e. above 5 microns. Day time and night time energy transfer through the atmosphere are not the same because the available bands of energy are very different.

And this; "adding more carbon dioxide simply lowers the amount of water vapor in the air and keeps the total absorption unchanged" which, he claims, is an automatic process?

I find that as hard to swallow as the claims for "backradiation" from "greenhouse gases" but I look forward to any varifiable explanation. My reasoning points to a lowering of "total absorption" if water vapor reduces as H2O is far more active in the IR bands than CO2.