Technical Note: On the Experimental Confirmation from Space of the Spectral Signature of CO2 Growth
Abstract. We present conclusive experimental confirmation from space that the observed impact of CO2 growth on longwave spectral radiances follows theory, both in the troposphere and stratosphere, and that these results are independent of CO2 uncertainties. We refine the methodology used in a previous study on the direct measurement of the impact of increased atmospheric CO2 on the spectra of Earth's longwave radiation by addressing three critical issues and as such provide a definitive experimental confirmation from space of the impact of CO2 growth on longwave spectral radiances. In our study, we (i) use temperature profiles retrieved from microwave radiances for our analogue methodology, clearly illustrating the independence of our approach from any role that the longwave spectral radiances may play in the retrieval of the analogue temperature profiles; (ii) show that the effect of the uncertainties due to CO2 spatial and temporal variability when estimating theoretical spectral radiances is small (often imperceptible) and has no meaningful impact on the interpretation of the results; (iii) show that the CO2 growth spectral signature in the stratosphere can be captured by using a slight variant of the method that allows to conclusively detect the more challenging stratospheric signature. By addressing these three critical issues, refining our methodology and extending the initial study, our current results conclusively confirm a critical theoretical foundation of the science of global warming.
This "technical note" aims to provide further support to an idea of observationally verifying CO2 forcing, by providing sensitivity tests to address several potential issues. While this idea is potentially a brilliant one, this note, as well as the original paper, is a bit too concise and doesn't include sufficient information for understanding or reproducing the results.
L76: It is stated that the "cloud-cleared" radiances are used. Aren't these radiances computed by a radiation model with assumed CO2 concentrations? Had this been the case, is the test not circular?
Fig 2/3: what is the CO2 change prescribed in "theory"? And what is the corresponding CO2 change in the "observations"? As the forcing magnitude scales with CO2 concentration, if no assurance is exerted to make them agree, is it a fortunate coincidence that the means of the "observations" and the "theory" agree? Note there is substantial uncertainty in the observation (shown by the blue shading) - what explains this?
L64: Very little information is provided about the reference and analogue profiles. There is no illustration of them (even though new profiles are supposedly used in this note), neither is the spatial and time statistics of their geolocation information provided. And it is unclear whether or how their means are constrained to be the same (or close enough).
L193: unclear how and why the filtering is done. What "difference"?