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.
As a physicist, I can tell right now that you are having trouble deciphering between mass-based molecular temperature and massless non-thermal temperature (radiation).
The chemical response of O3 could not be any more meaningless in the grand scheme.
The same errors resonate through the scientific field, regarding this mythical ‘greenhouse effect’ of 33C, it has nothing to due with radiation. I realize that I am straying off topic but I must say that our current understanding of the physical climate system is so poor its humiliating.
Pardon, my response was directed at ‘Phil.’
Phil says:
May 3, 2012 at 9:05 pm
As a physicist, I can tell right now that you are having trouble deciphering between mass-based molecular temperature and massless non-thermal temperature (radiation).
The chemical response of O3 could not be any more meaningless in the grand scheme.
Not at all, the Ozone layer is created as a result of the absorption of UV and the photodissociation of the O2 leading to the formation of O3 and subsequently absorbing UV itself, the chemical response of O3 is critical to the temperature distribution of the stratosphere. Your ignorance of the processes occurring in the stratosphere is unfortunate, you describe O3 absorbing UV, becoming heated as a result, and conducting heat to neighboring molecules, an impossibility since the O3 doesn’t survive the absorption. You also proclaim that O3 can’t cool the stratosphere whereas the radiational cooling of the upper stratosphere by O3 is well known and accounts for ~18% of the cooling. It seems that there are a lot of things which you don’t know about the stratosphere. Your mind-reading ability is no better since I have no “trouble deciphering between mass-based molecular temperature and massless non-thermal temperature (radiation)”. As a physicist it would behoove you to learn something about the physical chemistry of gases before pontificating about the stratosphere.
So now you’re putting words into my mouth? Lovely, this is a joke. O2 does not absorb LW radiation, O3’s presence, absorbing LW in the lower stratosphere where it is concentrated explains the cooling until TOS. O2 is transparent to LW radiation.
From the TOS level upward, molecular temperature increases as stellar radiation is diminished closer to the surface decreasing. The concentration of O3 determines stratospheric temperature, air pressure does not change as a whole.
The argument you cite cannot explain why the large majority of of the atmosphere is colder than 255K, it is nonsense. Increasing the O3 ppm in the lower stratosphere cannot cool the upper stratosphere unless you violate the law of Conservation of Energy. Do you know why this is true?
You are full of nonsense.
In case my two responses above are not clear, I take issue with your claiming that O3 COOLS the mid and upper stratosphere, not how and why it exists.
1). Your argument that ozone cools the mid and upper atmosphere is physically impossible via the conservation of energy. Same goes for CO2 theory, the level of ‘radiation’ at TOA does not change in the long run, the time it takes for the average photon to leave/escape the planetary system is reduced by a few milliseconds at best per doubling CO2, but no significant effect can be expected above the equilibrium threshold. If we pretend CO2 theory is correct, the only place a radiative gain will manifest is below the equilibrium altitude.
The presence of ozone concentrated in the lower stratosphere keeps not only that area warmer, but also the levels above it, O2 is transparent to LW IR but knowing that O3 isn’t you can now understand why TOS is so cold.
The average molecule collides/conducts with other hundreds of times every several seconds.
As long as we continue to butcher the underlying physics, the more embarrassing the upcoming global temperature drop will be for the field of climate science.
Phil says:
May 5, 2012 at 10:15 pm
As long as we continue to butcher the underlying physics, the more embarrassing the upcoming global temperature drop will be for the field of climate science.
I suggest that you stop butchering the physics then, you really don’t have a clue. Read Clough and Iacono and learn something!
Phil says:
May 5, 2012 at 6:50 pm
So now you’re putting words into my mouth? Lovely, this is a joke. O2 does not absorb LW radiation, O3′s presence, absorbing LW in the lower stratosphere where it is concentrated explains the cooling until TOS. O2 is transparent to LW radiation.
Try reading what I wrote:
“Not at all, the Ozone layer is created as a result of the absorption of UV and the photodissociation of the O2 leading to the formation of O3 and subsequently absorbing UV itself, the chemical response of O3 is critical to the temperature distribution of the stratosphere. Your ignorance of the processes occurring in the stratosphere is unfortunate, you describe O3 absorbing UV, becoming heated as a result, and conducting heat to neighboring molecules, an impossibility since the O3 doesn’t survive the absorption.
In case you’ve forgotten you said: “ozone absorbs a considerable portion of intense solar shortwave radiation within it’s spectral bounds, heating up considerably, and conducting this heat to surrounding molecules.”
So I’m not “putting words in your mouth”, I can only suppose that your grasp of the physics is so weak that you don’t know that UV is ” intense solar shortwave radiation”.
Cooling by O3 in the upper stratosphere is caused by vibrationally excited O3 being formed by the reaction of O + O2 and then emitting IR which is lost to space.