On the battle between Arrhenius and Ångström.
Story submitted by John Kehr, The Inconvenient Skeptic
Any serious discussion about the Theory of Global Warming will eventually include the absorption band argument that started more than 100 years ago between Arrhenius and Ångström. One of the arguments presented by Ångström was that the main CO2 absorption band is between 14-16 micron and that band is also absorbed by water vapor (which is correct). The counter to this by Arrhenius was that it didn’t matter in the upper atmosphere where there was no water vapor. Of course none of this matters because radiative heat transfer is only 20% of the energy transferred to the atmosphere, but that is generally ignored by both sides of the argument.
At the time there was no way to measure the temperature in the upper atmosphere so there was no way to determine what was going on there, but of course now there are many ways to measure the temperature there. When I started looking at the annual temperature behavior of the stratosphere and the top of the troposphere I found something very interesting that is as usual, bad for the warmists.
Here is the average daily temperature of the troposphere (at ~4.2 km) and the stratosphere (41 km).
What makes this so interesting is that they are completely out of phase with each other.
The tropospheric temperature is matched to the natural global temperature cycle. This is highly dependent on the geography of the Earth’s surface. The stratospheric temperature is not in phase at all with the surface temperature. It is however in phase with the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. The distance the Earth is from the Sun determines how much energy the Earth gets from the Sun. Here is the stratospheric temperature and the solar constant over the course of the year.
While I would not say that the upper atmospheric temperature is completely independent, it is mostly independent of the of the lower atmosphere. The cooling in the stratosphere each spring is exactly what would be expected based on the changing solar constant. The warming that takes place in July is likely caused by the peak atmospheric temperatures in the NH that take place during the summer months. That warming stops in October, but by that point the increasing solar iconstant warms the stratosphere.
What determines the stratospheric temperature is absolutely critical to understanding why it has been cooling over the past 60 years (which is about how long it’s temperature has been measured). If the stratosphere’s temperature is primarily dictated by the incoming solar energy then the argument made by Arrhenius is meaningless. That is because the increase in CO2 would never have an impact on the temperature there, simply because so little of the energy needed to warm the stratosphere comes from the Earth’s surface.
Based on the scientific data, the stratosphere is mostly influenced by the solar constant (basically the distance from the Sun for this discussion). There appears to be some influence from the lower atmosphere, but it is clearly marginal. This is not really a surprise since the energy transfer mechanisms are very limited above 12km. The low atmospheric density results in low vertical mixing rates which only leaves radiative transfer which is a poor method for heat transfer when low absolute temperatures are involved.
When the temperature of the stratosphere and the troposphere are compared for the period from 2003-2011 it is also interesting to note that the peak stratospheric temperature was lowest of the whole period in early 2009. This also matches the period of minimal solar activity over the entire period of time. All of these pieces together clearly demonstrate the importance of the solar constant on the stratospheric temperature. This also means that any impact by atmospheric CO2 levels on the stratospheric temperatures is very limited.
Total Solar Insolation
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OT but looks like Cryosphere today is down. Dont post if not relevant or important, just that it could be related to icy issues lately. BTW in central South America now 11 degrees daytime latitude 23 sea level. It freezing for April. Check with pal at MeteoSUL Brazil
John, it almost looks as if there is cross impact between the two altitudes – can they really be so independent of each other?
Heh: It looks as if there is NO cross impact between the two altitudes. That’s what I get for trying to type around a cat.
Does extinction range in the troposphere of the IR in the frequency range of interest have anything to do with this? For example, if it is greater than the depth of the troposphere quite a bit of IR would pass through it unimpeded. That would reduce lag time as the IR wends its way though this region, and it is said that the heating is the result of this lag time. This is all related to CO2 density (molecules per unit volume) at high altitude.
LAG.
Knut Angstrom, son of Anders Jonas Angstrom, was the nemesis of Arrhenius. He challenged Svante immediately on the “absorptive powers of CO2” when released in 1896. Due to the ‘horse-and-buggy’ peer review it took a while for universal rejection. See, US Monthly Weather Review, June 1901. page 268….
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/029/mwr-29-06-0268.pdf
Interestingly Svante was quoted as “knowing his work was correct from balloon temperature readings”. This would have been from manned observations in hot air balloons. In 1900 Svante was on the founding committee for the Nobel Prize. In 1903 he helped give himself a Nobel Prize in Chemistyr. In 1922 Svante was a founding member of the “State Institute for Racial Biology” and was worshipped by the Nazi for his Arian superiority beliefs. Curious choice for the biology diversity poster boy.
I’d like to see, as well as the temperatures,
1) the heat content (including mass x heat capacity)
2) the heat flux
I am guessing at those plots and would like to verify my speculation.
I guess I am asking about relative size of the two regions.
@affizzyfist Perhaps it was something Steve Goddard said! http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/cryosphere-today-raising-the-bar/
Jeez. do a search on the primary literature describing the importance of C02 and the stratosphere. That’s probably asking too much so start here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/
after that you go look through all the work done in the 50s. A good portion of it was funded by DOD. understanding why people were wrong about the saturated gas argument was vital for saving the lives of american pilots.
Paul Westhaver:
Both tiny compared to oceanic heat capacity. But the effect of the changing solar constant on the oceans is hidden by the ocean’s ability to play shuffle and hide with the energy.
Since both Arrhenius and Ångström were Swedes, let me give you some shocking – but not too unexpected – news from environment and media in Sweden.
In a new survey by the University of Gothenburg it was revealed that 41% of Swedish journalists support the Environmental Party the Greens (who otherwise received ca 7.5% in the last election). Together with the Social Democrats and the Left Party (formerly the Communists) they form the so called red-green bloc in parliament with ca 45% of votes in the election, but having 71% support among Swedish journalists!
If we go to the figures for the government controlled “public service” radio & TV figures get even worse. The Greens have 52% support among national TV journalists, and 54% support among national radio journalists – a party of barely 7% population support have *their own majority* in both cases (and national radio/TV are the heaviest in opinion making!). The red-greens together have more than 80% (!) support in national radio/TV – almost double their election result.
No wonder Swedes are showered with environmentalist and climate propaganda on a daily, hourly basis. (I suspect the tendency is similar in other countries. It seems BBC is total junk, and so is Australian media.)
–Ahrvid Engholm
Does anyone really believe that the oceans and atmosphere DO NOT moderate the heating the solar radiation can cause during the day and thus actually protect us ?
I can’t see any other conclusion to be drawn from a few simple facts – the Sun clearly could heat the Earth’s surface to over 120 degrees C – the lunar daytime temperature proves that.
But it doesn’t – even climate scientists acknowledge this by acknowledging the higher albedo of Earth due to the atmosphere and clouds.
How does reducing the heating effect of the solar radiation below its proven capabilities when the Sun is illuminating the Earth equate with a greenhouse effect?
Isn’t it an artifact of averaging which tries to equate 2 different power fluxes as if they give equal effect in equal time – after all the REAL solar insolation is 4 times the power of Earth’s radiating power, not a quarter spread over the whole globe all the time.
How would John deal with this observation ? :
“The NRL SSI produces an ozone response that is in phase with the
solar cycle in TSI throughout the stratosphere and lower mesosphere, whereas the
SORCE SSI produces an out-of-phase response in the uppermost stratosphere and lower mesosphere.”
from here:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/12/7039/2012/acpd-12-7039-2012.pdf
On that basis the temperature of the stratosphere would NOT be determined primarily by the solar constant but rather the varying mix of wavelengths respecially UV with perhaps a component from variable particle types from he sun.
There is also evidence that the stratosphere stopped cooling in the late 90s so I am puzzled as to why John thinks it reached its coolest in 2009.
I think John is observing seasonal effects but not longer term multidecadal to centennial effects and so he may be comparing apples to pears as far as climate change is concerned.
However, I concur that CO2 is an irrelevance.
The argument that “radiative heat transfer is only 20% of the energy transferred to the atmosphere” is irrelevant due to the fact that essentially 100% of all energy leaving the surface of Earth has to be radiated to space (from the ground, from clouds, and from CO2 and water vapor at mid to upper troposphere). The stratosphere is not a player in this balance, and the anti-correlation is irrelevant. The way the energy gets to the upper atmosphere is by itself not important. The long wave radiation absorption of CO2 in the mid to upper troposphere, where water vapor becomes much smaller, is important. The greater the amount of CO2 at these altitudes, the higher the final average level of outgoing radiation, and thus the larger the greenhouse effect, if that was the only issue. Of course, CO2 alone has only a modest effect per doubling, and the water vapor is still important in two ways. The first is that what water vapor effect there is depends mainly on concentration in the mid to upper troposphere. It has not been found to increase when CO2 increases, so no positive feedback. Also clouds changing seem to be a negative feedback, thus CO2 effects are small. Arrhenius almost had it right, but the weak effect and negative feedback make the point moot.
My statements may not be as clear as I intended, so I will be more specific: When I said “the higher the final average level of outgoing radiation, and thus the larger the greenhouse effect” I was referring to higher altitude, not higher intensity.
The stratosphere’s temperature is driven by absorption of UV by ozone. The surface temperature is driven by sunlight being absorbed by the ground, but is lagged because of the effective thermal heat capacity of the oceans.
Angstrom’s work effectively killed the Arrhenius theory for 50 years until Manabe developed the convective-radiative model, which is not affected by saturation, is not determined by back-radiation, and which for some strange reason everyone ignores. Arrhenius’s old theory – which everyone discusses instead – was already debunked by around 1900.
The cooling of the stratosphere is expected because the (badly named) ‘greenhouse effect’ between two altitudes is equal to the lapse rate times the difference in heights, and as the lapse rate in the stratosphere is negative, you get cooling instead of warming. Whether that is the actual cause of the cooling I don’t know – that would be confirming the consequent.
Mosher,
The “amplified” greenhouse effect ain’t happening. Sorry, it just ain’t.
BTW, this was also known since since at least 1964, but Raypierre seems to have forgotten.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6401.pdf
Please explain a) why the tropical troposphere is not warming as GCM’s predict and b) how the surface can warm at a faster rate than the troposphere based on greenhouse “theory”.
You have a propensity for doing drive-by posts, then disappear into the sunset.
Being that the troposhere is warmest in June, I’m assuming this comparison is done somewhere in the northern hemisphere ??
Or is it a global average.. which would mean that it is highly biased toward the NH?
Sorry, just a bit puzzled..
If it is NH data.. what do SH graphs look like ??
Keep in mind that each hemisphere of the entire stratosphere has a different cycle. The stratosphere in the SH will be the main contributor to the peak warmth that takes place in January. The NH will be the warm spot in July.
It is the July period that really shows the disconnect. While the troposphere is warmest in July, very little of that energy makes it to the stratosphere.
The mid-point appears to be at the altitude of 15-20km, but it is hard to tell if the temperature gradient there is due to decreasing oxygen absorption of UV of transfer from the lower atmosphere.
The energy content of the stratosphere is tiny in comparison to the ocean, but the timing does indicate that there is little heat transfer between the stratosphere and the troposphere. That in turn weakens the argument that the upper atmosphere can cause surface warming, which was always a weak theory anyway.
What this means for stratospheric cooling is also interesting. More on that in the future.
Also of interst would be to know what happens to the height of the tropopause when the troposhere increases temperature. It may be that the tropopause gets significantly higher, thus the air in the stratosphere above gets cooler at a specified height. I can put the concept a quick sketch form if you want.
“the higher the final average level of outgoing radiation, and thus the larger the greenhouse effect” I was referring to higher altitude, not higher intensity.”
I don’t think that can be right unless that higher altitude is a result of greater atmospheric mass or higher solar input.
If the higher average level (effectively an expansion of the atmosphere) is simply caused by more energy held in the atmosphere without greater atmospheric mass then the expansion will result in cooling to offset any temperature effect from that increase in energy content.
PV = nRT
So, no greater greenhouse effect from a simple rise in heights. You need more mass and more solar input to increase the greenhouse effect.
The relevance to this thread being that the temperature of the stratosphere is critical for the height of the tropopause. That height can be increased EITHER by warming below or cooling above and that height determines the climate zone distribution in the troposphere.
Thus IF a more active sun actually COOLS the stratosphere we get exactly the same observed climate consequences as are currently inferred from a warming of the troposphere caused by an increase in GHGs.
The evidence is that the late 20th century cooling of the stratosphere was solar induced and not CO2 induced which is the only explanation for the cessation of stratospheric cooling in the late 90s DESPITE a continuing rise in CO2 quantities.
I see that John takes stratospheric temperatures at 41Km which is below the reverse sign ozone effect from 45Km upward.
I think it is that effect at the higher levels especially above the poles which causes overall stratospheric cooling on multidecadal and centennial timescales when the sun is more active.
John’s short term seasonal analysis does not show those longer term trends so his reference to the past 60 years is misplaced in my opinion.
FauxScience Slayer:
I can’t get your link to work.
A quick sketch
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gradds55/Stratocooling.jpg
“I don’t think that can be right unless that higher altitude is a result of greater atmospheric mass or higher solar input.”
You can’t see as far into a more opaque atmosphere. If the atmosphere becomes more opaque to IR, the lowest altitude from which radiation can escape to space rises.
http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/wind-farms-can-cause-global-warming-claims-new-study-3095892.html
[REPLY: David, thank you, but this is off-topic for this thread and should be posted to Tips & Notes. Additionally, this study has already been discussed at WUWT here. -REP]