More on the atmospheric saturation of heat trapping.
Please note that in the Real Climate link describing the spectral data
, it gave calculations and a nice graph for CO2. It is similar to this. Note that each mark of the left side are factors of 10. It is not a linear graph, but logarithmic:
Now remember what I said about looking at the data in finer resolution? I said 0.1 micrometers, but you actually need to look finer than that. My mistake, sue me. Also note that you need equipment sensitive enough to make true measurements. Here are refined views of the area in question:
Consider how the narrow bands are so discrete. They really never get to 100%. Equipment measurements that cannot discern such resolutions give false reading. This is another indication that CO2 does not trap as much heat as you guys suspect.
Molecules vibrate at pure frequencies. As an electronics expert, and operating several types of Frequency Selective measurement equipment, I know how the sensitivity and bandwidth affects a graph. There are not really any curved areas when dealing with molecular vibration frequencies. What you see is the lack of the equipment to give clear resolution. The higher the bandwidth that the receiver, the smoother the signal looks. Often to the point of making the changes invisible from zero to maximum.
Link for above data from CalTech:
Carbon dioxide images from HITRAN 2004