# Greenhouse Effect in the Standard Atmosphere

*Reviewer 1:*Anonymous

*Reviewer 2:*Anonymous

**Round 1**

*Reviewer 1 Report*

**Report on Smirnov-Zhilyaev paper “Greenhouse effect …”**

The paper addresses a very important topic of yearly changes in the Earth atmosphere. For this purpose the authors significantly upgraded the model used previously. The distinctions from the earlier calculations are clearly explained and the advantage of the code used in the present work is demonstrated.

One of the most significant findings is a large difference of their results from climatological models. The authors provided a physical explanation: such a large difference originates from ignoring one of the fundamental physical laws (the Kirhhoff law) in climatological models.

The paper represents a significant advance in fundamental studies of the Earth atmosphere. I recommend the paper for publication after the authors would address the following minor questions/comments.

- Out of all input data, the cloud altitude h
_{cl}stands out by having the largest scatter in the data: from 3.2 km to 5.6 km, that is, by almost a factor of two. The authors used the average value of 4.6 km. If they would consider, for example, 3.2 km, which is by factor 1.44 smaller than 4.6 km, how this would affect their main results? Also, is it really so that the clouds are never observed at h_{cl}> 5.6 km or at h_{cl}< 3.2 km? - As concerning some assumptions used for parameters in the model, such as the linear evolution of the temperature and the Lorentzian dependence of the cross sections on the frequency: how the results would be affected under slight deviations from the above assumptions?
- As the formulas are referred as (a, b) (a number of the section, b number of the formula in the section), the same notation is required in the text, not only (b).
- For all formulas, the authors should check that all parameters are defined explicitly in the following sentence, rather than later in another paragraph or section.
- Page 3, Eq. (2.6) is not helpful there unless it is explained.

There is also a number of corrections to the authors’ English language and/or misprints that they should implement, as follows.

Sect. 1, the last sentence: instead of “we account in this analysis the contemporary understanding”, should be “we account in this analysis for the contemporary understanding”

Line 1 after Eq. (2.3): instead of “Formula”, should be “The formula” or “Formula (2.3)”

Page 2, lines 9 and 10: instead of “the computer code represented”, should be “the computer code presented in our paper”

Page 2, the last paragraph, the 1^{st} sentence: instead of “Formula (1)”, should it be “Formula (2.1)”?

Page 4, line 3: instead of “Formula (4)”, should it be “Formula (2.4)”?

Line 2 above Eq. (2.11): instead of “which intensities are satisfied to the relation”, should be “whose intensities satisfy the relation”

Line 1 after Eq. (2.11): instead of “The problem in evaluation the radiative flux”, should be “The problem in evaluation of the radiative flux” or “The problem in evaluating the radiative flux”

Line 3 after Eq. (2.11): instead of “formulas (4)”, should it be “formulas (2.4)”?

Sect. 5, line 1: instead of “In evaluations the radiative fluxes”, should be “In evaluations of the radiative fluxes” or “In evaluating the radiative fluxes”

Table 1 should be placed directly under the title ‘Table 1”, rather than after Figs. 6 and 7

Page 10, the last paragraph, the 1^{st} line: instead of “As is seen”, should be “As it is seen”

Page 10, the last paragraph, the 2nd line: instead of “we ignore in [1]”, should be “we ignored in [1]”

Page 12, the 1^{st} line: instead of “ozone emission”, should be “the ozone emission”

Page 13, lines 7 and 8 from the bottom: Instead of “because absorption of *CO*_{2} molecules is absent in an added frequency range”, should be “because the absorption of *CO*_{2} molecules is absent in the added frequency range”

Page 14, lines 3 and 4: instead of “This results from neglecting by absorption”, should be “This results from neglecting the absorption”

Page 16, line 2: instead of “Therefore real determination”, should be “Therefore, a real determination”

Line 3 after Eq. (4.12): instead of “an air temperature”, should be “the air temperature”

Line 2 above References: instead of “rdiator”, should be “radiator”

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

*Author Response*

Dear Editor,

We are thankful to referees for useful remarks and we introduce some corrections, remarks or changes according to reviews. The main remark is that according to the algorithm under consideration, the altitude of clouds may be varied from 3.2 km to 5.6 km. As a result, the radiative flux from clouds to the Earth may be varied twice. Therefore, the accuracy of yield parameters is two. We add this in the conclusion. But, in spite of this low accuracy, the error of climatological models because of ignoring the Kirchhoff law is the factor five. Therefore, a low accuracy of our evaluations do not influence on the conclusion, that the variation of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the main factor of the greenhouse effect.

*Reviewer 2 Report*

The main goal of this paper is to improve upon previous

calculations presented in Ref. (1) for the emission and absorption

of radiation in connection with the greenhouse effect. It uses a

detailed line-by-line analysis of the molecular spectra over an

extended frequency range. The main conclusion is that changes in

CO2 concentration accounts for only 30% of the observed global

warming, with most of the remainder due to water vapor.

The analysis appears to be carefully done and well presented.

However, there are several points that should be addressed

before accepting the paper for publication as follows:

1. The meaning of Eq. (4.14) is not clear. The middle expression

should have dimensions of time, so something must be missing.

Also the concentrations c(H2O) etc. presumably have dimensions of

1/volume, so 1 - c(H2O) in the numerator does not make sense. It

would be helpful to show how Eq. (4.14) was obtained, and to

explain how the result t_ev = 100 yr provides a useful way to

check the mechanism for global heating. What should we look for?

2. Similarly, the quantities of the form ln C(H2O) in Eqs. (4.4),

( 4.6), (4.7), (4.10) and (4.11) are not well defined because the

concentrations have dimensions. The authors must mean a

concentration ratio, but this should be clarified.

3. The quantity T is defined to be the temperature in K, but then

Boltzmann's constant should be included in Eqs. (2.2) and (4.13).

4. On p. 2, the sentence "First, the computer code represented does

not separate frequencies in different ranges and this code relates

to the total range of frequencies" is not clear. What are the

separate frequencies, and what does the word "this" refer to?

More minor typographical errors or English errors are as follows:

Abstract: missing parenthesis on c(H2O) in two places.

Abstract and three places in the text: early --> previously

p. 1: traced --> trace

p. 1: delete "at" in "starting from at"

p. 2 and 10: the equation numbers (1), (10), (11), and (5) do not

correspond to the equation numbers in the equations themselves.

Fig. 5: There is no red line, as mentioned in the caption.

Fig. 7: Curve (2) is not defined in the caption.

p. 13: contemporary --> current

p. 14: deviative --> derivative

p. 13: larger in five --> larger by five

p. 14: in fife --> by five

p. 14: Gottard --> Goddard

*Author Response*

Dear Editor,

We are thankful to referees for useful remarks and we introduce some corrections, remarks or changes according to reviews. The main remark is that according to the algorithm under consideration, the altitude of clouds may be varied from 3.2 km to 5.6 km. As a result, the radiative flux from clouds to the Earth may be varied twice. Therefore, the accuracy of yield parameters is two. We add this in the conclusion. But, in spite of this low accuracy, the error of climatological models because of ignoring the Kirchhoff law is the factor five. Therefore, a low accuracy of our evaluations do not influence on the conclusion, that the variation of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the main factor of the greenhouse effect.