On a spectral line near 700 wavenumber (14.3 µm) there is indeed quite a reduction in radiation expected to be caused by an increase in CO2.
The following chart (data via the Modtran simulator) shows a deepening of the groove that appears around 700 to 770 wavenumber with surface temperature kept constant and atmospheric carbon dioxide increased from 150 to 1000 ppm.
|Modtran simulation of earth spectral radiance of tropical atmosphere from 70 km looking down with carbon dioxide varying from 150 to 1000 ppm. Water vapour = 0. No clouds or rain.|
Here's the same graph as above in blink-gif form. The orange window is 12.5 µm to 10.5 µm:
There have been and are satellites that measure in a greater spectral range such as IRIS, IMG and AIRS. But in the case of the first two these measurements occurred over a shorter period of time such as months or days.
The monitoring of OLR since 1974 in the 12.5 µm to 10.5 µm range by NOAA satellites are over a period of several decades and are more continuous in nature and hence useful for a longer term comparison with CO2.
|Observations like the 19-year warming pause expose the weakness of the AGW theory.|
|The Y-axis scale on the left is from Climate4you.com. The similar scale on the right is from my attempted reproduction of the data [1, 2] on Matlab. (Source. More climate4you.com graphs here.)|
It doesn't matter if this is an underestimate of the warming, because this amount of climate sensitivity is already enough to cancel the curtailing effect of CO2 in the measured range. The point being that in the case with warming, my claim is wrong: OLR should actually increase in the 12.5 µm to 10.5 µm range.
Here's a table I made in an Excel spreadsheet to deduce the temperature offset I should input to Modtran to account for the expected warming – the last line in red.
|Excel worksheets 1, 2|
|(Graph with all six CO2 levels here.)|
|I hand drew the spray painted bit before the year 1969 as a simplification|
We should according to AGW theory see that with the temperature kept constant, increasing CO2 should increase the curtailing effect.
It could be argued that the slight reduction in OLR the last 6 years or so is evidence of such a curtailment. But the fact that OLR has on the whole been rising the last 19 years is evidence that OLR varies naturally and is not tied to the CO2 rise nor to the curtailment in OLR expected in AGW theory.
The CO2 curtailment signal should be increasing with time, reflecting the slightly exponential shape of the Keeling Curve. But when this exponential shape is compared to the 160-year Hadley CRU temperature record we can see that for the last 19 years when CO2 is rising fastest the curtailment effect on OLR is decreasing with time when it should be increasing.
To try to clarify the above here's another attempt at what I'm trying to say:
(1/n) In the range of OLR measured by NOAA satellite, if CO2 was warming earth there would be a reduction in EMR due to "greenhouse trapping", but according to MODTRAN it would be more-than-offset by a general increased brightness at all wavelengths due to the earth warming.— Paul Clark (@cbfool) 17 April 2018
(2/n) But because earth hasn't really warmed for 19 years (especially to the year 2016 when I did that post) then there wouldn't be an increased brightness at all wavelengths, & we should indeed be seeing an EMR reduction including in 12.5 µm - 10.5 µm range measured by satellite— Paul Clark (@cbfool) 17 April 2018
(3/n) The "warming pause" eliminates the warming offset & gives us a convenient chance to see if CO2 was indeed modifying earth's emission spectrum as per AGW theory.— Paul Clark (@cbfool) 17 April 2018
(4/n) But as we see in the attached graph there is no reduction. & there is no (inverse) correlation to the increase of atmospheric CO2. Ergo CO2 is not trapping heat, according to the observations. pic.twitter.com/ePS0Ky80dy— Paul Clark (@cbfool) 17 April 2018
(5/5) This lack of reduction in the 12.5 µm to 10.5 µm range is therefore an empirical failure of the AGW theory, although the expected difference would be quite small so it's arguable.— Paul Clark (@cbfool) 17 April 2018