Commenter ‘USteiner’ asks this question on suggestions 16 and explains the reason for asking.
Let’s put aside the conclusion that CO2 makes the antarctic cool the earth. In the Schmithüsen paper (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full) they claim to have made the calculation, and it shows that. However, what is new? This had been measured with – gosh – real data some 45 years (!) ago. See here the Nimbus data from 1971 in Fig. 12d (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710026041.pdf )
Further, look at Schmitthüsen’s Fig 2. You see the spike on the CO2 pimple at the South pole at a Spectral radiance of 2.5. And exactly at the same level for the US Standard atmosphere. This is at least consistent with an interpretation that CO2 radiates the same everywhere on earth, but becomes only visible, when the background black body radiation from the ground is low enough. And this requirement is fulfilled only at the very cold south pole. So, what is left as excitement?
My “excitement” , however, is elsewhere. Right in eqn1 of Schmitthüsen they define the atmosphere as a black body radiator, by:
“the emission of the atmosphere ε(index atm) x σ x T(index atm)4”
Gases are no black body radiators. Never. And never were! Not even “greenhouse gases”. So when you do start with a nonsensical assumption, what value does the rest have?
And since they do not give an explanation for that strange assumption, I think it is worth some discussion. In particular since I think this to be a standard assumption in climate modelling, though I have not seen that assumption expressed so explicitly.