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
Steve Mosher, I think the “saturated gas” model is poorly explained by those expounding it and the confusion deliberately played up by the Warmistas.
An optical thickness of a translucent sunbstance (such as CO2 in a very narrow frequency range) required to reduce the intensity of those frequencies by 50% may be Th, but add another Th of optical thickness (say another similar plane of glass) would only reduce the Total amount of incoming radiation by 25% because it would have absorbed 50% of the penetrating 50%.
Clearly there is no shut-off to this affair; it is like Zeno’s arrow. In fact, this behavior represents a logarithmic function.
Another point I’d like to raise is that the atmospheric CO2 is not a 50% mirror, reflecting 50% of that self-same radiation back to Earth. Some of the energy absorbed will be given up by physical collision with other molecles and they will give off energy in other ways, at different wavelengths.
Robert of Ottawa says:
April 30, 2012 at 4:20 pm
“Another point I’d like to raise is that the atmospheric CO2 is not a 50% mirror, reflecting 50% of that self-same radiation back to Earth. Some of the energy absorbed will be given up by physical collision with other molecles and they will give off energy in other ways, at different wavelengths.”
In local thermal equilibrium thermalization and dethermalization happen to equal amounts. (Kirchhoff’s Law I think)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/
Stephen Wilde says:
April 30, 2012 at 2:42 pm
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 you misread what John said. He said:
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.
He said 2009 was the lowest of the 2003-2011 period.
@ur momisugly juanslayton
“How convenient”….[H/T Dana Carvey]….current NOAA Library post start at 1914….
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/data_rescue_monthly_weather_review.html
Volume 1 thru Volume 101 covers 1873 to 1973, but is a large file, contact library.reference@ur momisuglynoaa.gov or Stanley.Elswick@ur momisuglynoaa.gov for assistance. If found, please post corrected link. I will scan my hardcopy and email to Anthony. Every page of this historical record very interesting reading by HONEST weather observers from across this great nation.
Leonard Weinstein says:
April 30, 2012 at 2:52 pm
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.
Well actually it is important. The wavelength of IR from latent heat from cloud formation or droplets freezing into ice in not in the CO2 absorption range. So 80% of the heat energy is convected to the tropopause and released as latent heat of freezing or condensation and goes straight past CO2. So yes at that point it will radiate out – but it has not been available to be absorbed and re-emitted’ by CO2.
Inconvenient Skeptic
In terms of yearly, seasonal variations – the stratospheric temperature swings are driven by insolation.
Nine years (as you present) is not, however, long enough to look at climate trends. Over the longer term the data [http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/vr0101.pdf, http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html, also http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/%5D shows the stratosphere has cooled as the troposphere has warmed – a fingerprint of GHG increases. Insolation changes would affect stratospheric and tropospheric temperatures in the same direction, while GHG increases will warm the troposphere while cooling the stratosphere (which is what we observe).
juanslayton says:
April 30, 2012 at 3:27 pm
This link works:
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/029/mwr-029-06-0268a.pdf
Faux Science Slayer says:
April 30, 2012 at 4:41 pm
FSS, they’re all still there individually, they have changed the filenames for some inexplicable reason adding a zero in the filename (to match the directory name) and a suffix of ‘a’ or ‘b’ after the page number. I cannot see the difference between the ‘a’ and the ‘b’ suffix files. They are also the same size.
John, could you direct me to where I could download the text files for Figures 1-3?
I would also like to know if you have a stratosphere diurnal cycle temperature data?
Thank you BL ! For a moment i thought a former “Wiki” rearranger was re-employeed. I found this link three years ago when researching my “Strange Tale of the Green House Gas Gang” article. This article describes an outlaw gang of gas molecules that has outlived all of my predictions on escaping the Truth Posse. Amazing what some folks think that just a few atoms can do.
It’s odd KR. The only way to show the stratosphere cooling is to include the total of 30+ years of satellite data, with the first 1/2 (now less) dominated by effects of two large volcanoes followed by two step changes in temperature drops. It is NOT a linear trend in concert with CO2, nor does it verify any such “fingerprint” of AGW. RC may be food for useful idiots, but any interested honest person can look up the data.
The stratosphere has been warming since at least 1995 or so, exactly opposite climate model predictions. Your link to RealClimate is complete nonsense. This is just laughable as the tropical troposphere (hotspot) hasn’t warmed as advertised like we’ve been told would happen for the last 20+ years beginning with Hansen in 1989. Did you already forget Santer 08 and getting gobsmacked by McIntyre & McKitrick, albeit after 18 months of obfuscation and stalling by Santer, then being rejected by “peer review” (pal protection) because MM exposed the deception of S08.
Point out the error in this paper which clearly shows stratospheric warming for over 15 years and counting. Spencer and Christy have long ago smacked down Fu et al claiming the MSU MT was contaminated by “cooling” of the stratosphere (which isn’t happening) so don’t don’t bother resurrecting that.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/5_0_53/_pdf
Before the internet we were force fed the lies and unscrupulous scientists went unchallenged. Now it isn’t so easy to fool the public, but there will always be those who think bandwagon mentality is science.
Maybe you can answer the question of why the tropical tropospheric hot spot is missing, which as in Santer 05 (Gavin Schmidt co-author) clearly states is a prerequisite for AGW. That is why when Douglass 07 was published RC and the rest had to circle the wagons, isolate it, trash it and S08 was trotted out. Damn these people are dishonest.
CO2 is supposed to be a long-term component, though at 0.15 to 0.30C/decade. The last 15 years of global temperatures, outside of the Arctic, have been essentially static. The comments re CO2 sensitivity for the stratosphere or troposphere require temperature changes for CO2 sensitivity beyond that of even the CAGW narrative to show up.
The TOA SI and tropospheric and stratospheric temperature changes may or may not be important in the CAGW dispute, but here, for the time period under discussion, they are neither sufficient nor necessary to debunk CAGW.
A TSI variation vs atmospheric (component) variation would be more to the point. I expect there would be some linear relationship with unexplained sinusoidal or non-linear component that would represent energy redistribution from the oceans and non-oceanic heat sinks. Some of that non-oceanic portion might be CO2. Or not.
If I weren’t born in the Age of Abacus, I’d so it. Sorry.
Interesting, but not YET convincing.
The stratosphere has been cooling due to the destruction of ozone via an increased solar wind. Irradiance/TSI/UV absorbed by ozone should be separated from long term destruction of these molecules by the solar wind. The Earth’s own geomagnetism as you might guess has a significant impact on the destruction of ozone hence stratospheric temperature.
AKA the solar wind is repelled, in a sense, by the geomagnetic field. The solar wind destroys ozone molecules, so geomagnetism is key. Ozone is indirectly the most powerful climate impacter in existence.
The movement/weakening of the north directional pole+rope field vector has lead to a whole host of trouble in the arctic starting via ozone flow depletion.
The entire arctic circulation regime has been f**ked up, the dipole anomaly in recent decades, destruction of the beaufort gyre, etc. It all starts with magnetism.
Twice daily weather balloon measurements can be found at http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html
As a general rule, the WARMER the Troposphere, the higher and colder the Tropopause and the COLDER the Stratosphere.
In polar regions (Lat > 55Deg) the Troposphere is cooler, but the Tropopause lower and warmer, and the stratosphere warmer, than in tropical regions (Lat <35Deg).
Furthermore the Tropopause and Stratosphere are not stable. An extreme example is Inuvik, Canada, 64N, on 8th April 2011. Here the Tropopause dropped 3km in 12hours, the temperature of about a fifth of the atmosphere increasing significantly – at 10km this increase was about 20DegC. Nor is this variability confined to polar latitudes – see Guam 7/8Sep2011.
It is clear from satellite measured spectra that emissions in the wavenumber 630-710 band (the really active CO2 band) are mostly being emitted from ABOVE the Tropopause. Emissions from the Troposphere in this band are mostly absorbed by the overlying gas. (This is also confirmed by calculation. )
I therefore think:
1. Emissions from CO2 to Space (in the most active band) are more intense in polar regions, because the atmospheric temperatures are warmer.
2. The very variable Stratosphere/tropopause will considerably modulate these emissions.
3. Measurement of Radiative Forcing (defined by the IPCC as being the imbalance at the Tropopause) will be impossible due to the inconsistent height and temperature of the Tropopause.
4. An increase of CO2 increases the average height of emission at opaque frequencies. In the main band there will therefore be an increase in temperature and therefore emissions and a strong cooling of the Stratosphere, which may well balance or more the imbalance below the Tropopause (ie it is unclear that the planet as a whole viewed from Space will be in debit.)
DR
You might also wish to look at Sieldel et al 2011 (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/Seidel_WIRES_Jul2011.pdf) – even the Liu and Weng paper you reference shows stratospheric cooling.
DR – My apologies, I was reading the wrong section: The Liu and Weng reanalysis show a slight warming. However, given that there are several re-analyses of those channels, and that:
“…the disagreement between the channel 25 analyses between 1985 and 1989 (note in particular the abrupt decrease in 1989 in the Liu and Weng data) appears to be associated with a reported radiometric error (of order 0.5 K) on the SSU instrument on the NOAA-9 satellite, considered in other analyses.”
I would have to consider the Liu Weng analysis tentative at this time, especially given the cooling trend seen in other stratospheric channels. See Fig. 7 of Siedel et al 2011 (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/Seidel_WIRES_Jul2011.pdf).
“…severe difficulties using SSU data in reanalyses have been identified, so reanalyses are not currently a reliable source of temperature trends in the middle to upper stratosphere.” (emphasis added)
The base channel data indicates stratospheric cooling.
@Ahrvid Engholm
We are both OT, but you make an important point about the green-left control of the media.
It confirms my own experience in German-speaking countries.
A further problem is that only Europeans with an exceptionally good grasp of idiomatic English have access to alternative information from skeptical blogs such as WUWT, so what gets into the media goes uncontested.
Europe is wrecking itself with green-left nonsense and there is no easy way to counteract this in the popular mind. You can’t just say to people: here’s a link to WUWT or CA or wherever, go and judge for yourself.
Mosh said:
For that tale to be true this tale has to be false.
http://www.livescience.com/9423-global-warming-affects-space-station-orbit.html
I’m skeptical.
Interesting post. Btw, that’s “its” not “it’s” (paragraph seven). Anthony is prone to that mistake.
[except of course Anthony didn’t write this article ! ~ac]
Stephen Wilde, 3:27 pm:
I used to think the way you did on the density issue, for radiation to space, but due to arguments from others, was convinced that was incorrect. As long as the density is high enough for the lapse rate to continue dropping temperature (up to the tropopause), it is only the partial pressure of absorbing and radiating gases that determine the radiation to space. The thermal storage is not a factor. Also, while the temperature of the stratosphere has a negative lapse rate down to the tropopause, its effect on the location of the tropopause is not the main driver of the location of where emission to space occurs. The tropopause occurs because convective mixing has dropped below the level needed to maintain enough energy transport by convection, and decreased radiation is occurring because the partial pressure of radiating gases is low. Thus essentially all outgoing long wave radiation that came from the surface has occurred by the tropopause.
Ian W. 4:43 pm:
All of the energy leaves the atmosphere as radiation. I stated some is emitted directly from clouds to space, and some directly from the ground to space, but the rest has to be radiated from water vapor, CO2, and other trace greenhouse gases. Most of the water vapor is condensed into the stratus and cirrus clouds, and this makes the atmosphere above the cirrus clouds very low on absolute water vapor. The lower the temperature, the more CO2 becomes important. There is no significant condensation close to the tropopause, so final radiation to space, of the energy not radiated from the ground or clouds, is radiated by water vapor and CO2, with CO2 becoming a major factor at the higher altitudes. Adding more CO2 raises the average level of that portion of outgoing radiation. The temperature is not too low for the bands of absorption and radiation of CO2.
Of course none of this matters because radiative heat transfer is only 20% of the energy transferred to the atmosphere
———–
This statement is so imprecise it could mean anything.
Here is the average daily temperature of the troposphere (at ~4.2 km) and the stratosphere (41 km).
———-
An average over what? Again lack of precision. Is this global, northern hemisphere, USA, above your house?
DR says:
April 30, 2012 at 6:53 pm
Maybe you can answer the question of why the tropical tropospheric hot spot is missing, which as in Santer 05 (Gavin Schmidt co-author) clearly states is a prerequisite for AGW.
=========
As energy is convected upwards in the tropics during the day, the N2/O2 in the atmosphere cannot radiate this energy to space. Normally this energy would be carried towards the poles, where it would eventually be conducted back to the ground, providing a net warming of the planet.
However, before this can happen the energy is conducted to the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, raising their temperature. This causes the CO2 molecules to radiate this energy as IR. 1/2 of it is radiated out into space, 1/2 towards the ground. This results in a net reduction in the energy that would have been convected towards the poles by the N2/O2, resulting in a net cooling of the planet.
What has been ignored in the CO2 radiative model is that CO2 is very effective at REMOVING energy from the atmosphere. Energy that would have otherwise through the process of convection and conduction have been transported from the equator to the poles. This is why there is no tropical hot spot. The CO2 in the atmosphere radiates it away to space.
If the stratosphere’s temperature is primarily dictated by the incoming solar energy then the argument made by Arrhenius is meaningless.
———
Straw man argument warning.
The stratosphere extends over considerable height. So Arrhrenius referring to processes in the lower stratosphere does not have a bearing on those processes higher in the stratosphere which determine its average temperature.
If memory serves the temperature profile of the stratosphere is determined by solar UV absorption.