the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
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.
- Preprint
(908 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1013', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Jul 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1013', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Aug 2026
The current study builds upon the authors’ previous study (Teixeira et al., 2024), which developed a novel method that makes use of analogue temperature and water vapour profiles. The current study confirms the spectral absorption due to increasing CO2 and demonstrates intriguing results from extracting the CO2 growth spectral signature in the stratosphere. This paper is within the scope of the ACP journal and the developed method is promising in terms of advancing our understanding of the radiative impact of increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) using satellite observations. I have the following comments and suggestions for the authors to consider.
Further descriptions of the technical workflow are needed in either the main text or the supplementary materials. I think a general technical workflow diagram would be helpful for reproducing the results described here. In particular, (1) Line 62: 'a set of 1000 randomly selected temperature and water vapour reference profiles over ocean'. Please consider showing the map of the locations of these 1000 profiles either in the main text or in the supplementary materials. Also, examples of analogue profiles would help with understanding. (2) In line 118, 'To address these issues, a variant of the approach for sampling the analogues was developed.' The subsequent descriptions are difficult to follow. Could you please explain why 1,000 close analogues with positive values and 1,000 with negative values are needed? Please also provide statistics on these 2,000 analogue profiles. For example, what are the mean and standard deviation of the difference in T and H2O? After these selections, what did you do to extract the stratospheric information? Some intermediate results would help to illustrate your methods more clearly.
Over the 680-780 cm-1 spectral region, some other compounds are also absorbing (please refer to Fig. 3 of https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/9/6041/2009/, Clerbaux et al. 2009), such as O3. We know O3 are also changing over the years, will that affect the results here?
Line 64: Analogues with thresholds of 1.4 k for T and 1.4 g/kg for H2O. Can you justify the selection of these two thresholds? Do you have an estimate of the corresponding radiance error, and how does that compare to the spectral difference from increasing CO2 as shown in Figures 2 and 3? In other words, are these two thresholds small enough?
In theory, variations in ocean surface emissivity may contribute to outgoing infrared radiation, but ocean surface emissivity should be relatively stable over the open ocean. However, in coastal areas where the ocean is close to land, I assume the emissivity may change over the years. Could the authors provide some discussion on the emissivity aspect?
Line 9: 'CO2 uncertainties': do you mean uncertainties in satellite observations or RT simulations?
Line 38: 'provide' -> 'provides'.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1013-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 110 | 39 | 18 | 167 | 13 | 18 |
- HTML: 110
- PDF: 39
- XML: 18
- Total: 167
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
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"?