From the “CO2 is there anything it can’t do department” comes this ridiculous piece of research making the rounds in the MSM that worries about something that has not been observed to happen…oh, wait.
![Temporal variation of carbon at pressure levelZ[thinsp]=[thinsp]-6(altitude [sim] 101[thinsp]km) from the NCAR global mean model simulation.](https://i0.wp.com/www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/carousel/ngeo1626-f3.jpg?resize=302%2C240&quality=83)
Observations of increasing carbon dioxide concentration in Earth’s thermosphere
J. T. Emmert, M. H. Stevens, P. F. Bernath, D. P. Drob & C. D. Boone
Carbon dioxide occurs naturally throughout Earth’s atmosphere. In the thermosphere, CO2 is the primary radiative cooling agent and fundamentally affects the energy balance and temperature of this high-altitude atmospheric layer1, 2. Anthropogenic CO2 increases are expected to propagate upward throughout the entire atmosphere, which should result in a cooler, more contracted thermosphere3, 4, 5. This contraction, in turn, will reduce atmospheric drag on satellites and may have adverse consequences for the orbital debris environment that is already unstable6, 7.
However, observed thermospheric mass density trends derived from satellite orbits are generally stronger than model predictions8, 9, indicating that our quantitative understanding of these changes is incomplete. So far, CO2 trends have been measured only up to 35 km altitude10, 11, 12. Here, we present direct evidence that CO2 concentrations in the upper atmosphere—probably the primary driver of long-term thermospheric trends—are increasing. We analyse eight years of CO2 and carbon monoxide mixing ratios derived from satellite-based solar occultation spectra. After correcting for seasonal–latitudinal and solar influences, we obtain an estimated global increase in COx (CO2 and CO, combined) concentrations of 23.5±6.3 ppm per decade at an altitude of 101 km, about 10 ppm per decade faster than predicted by an upper atmospheric model. We suggest that this discrepancy may explain why the thermospheric density decrease is stronger than expected.
Paper (paywalled) available here.
Here’s a press release from one of the co-authors:
The researchers report evidence that CO₂ levels are increasing faster than expected in the upper atmosphere, which seems to be cooling and contracting at a pace that current models have not predicted. Reduction in atmospheric drag brought on by the resulting decrease in density could keep space junk in orbit longer, creating more congestion by orbital debris.
“CO₂ increases close to the Earth’s surface cause temperatures to rise but, surprisingly, CO₂ higher up results in just the opposite,” Bernath said. In the upper atmosphere, the density of CO₂ is too low to maintain greenhouse warming. Instead, the gas absorbs heat from its surroundings and radiates much of it away from Earth.”
Bernath’s work with the team of researchers derives from his role as mission scientist for the ACE satellite project, which has been collecting important information about ozone chemistry, climate change and air pollution since 2004.
Before joining ODU in 2011 as the chemistry chair, Bernath was a faculty member with the University of York in England and, earlier, with the University of Waterloo in Canada. While at Waterloo, he proposed the Canadian satellite project and assembled a scientific team to analyze data that the satellite instruments recorded and dispatched back to Earth.
During the past four decades Bernath has been credited with seminal discoveries in molecular spectroscopy and atmospheric chemistry, resulting in his election as Fellow of the Optical Society of America. He was granted a Ph.D. from MIT in 1981 and received the 2009 Alouette Award of the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute and the 2004 Excellence in Research Award from the University of Waterloo. Earlier this year, he was given the Faculty of Science Distinguished Alumni Award of the University of Waterloo.
The primary instrument on the ACE satellite, which is in orbit about 400 miles above the Earth, is a Fourier Transform Spectrometer (FTS) that analyzes the types and quantities of gases in the atmosphere. From the absorption of sunlight during sunrise and sunset, ACE is able to determine the composition of the atmosphere at various heights.
Data from the ACE-FTS has set the standard for measurements of the concentrations of constituents in the Earth’s middle atmosphere. This instrument routinely measures approximately 35 gas species in the atmosphere; some of these are in the parts-per-billion range in concentration.
When the project team led by Emmert checked measurements from 2004-12 by ACE-FTS at altitudes of about 60 miles, it found CO₂ concentrations that were surprisingly high. “To date, CO₂ trends have been measured only up to 35 kilometers (22 miles). Here, we present the first direct evidence that upper atmospheric CO₂ concentrations – the likely primary driver of long-term thermospheric trends – are increasing,” the researchers report.
The eight years of satellite-based solar occultation spectra they studied showed a trend of 23.5 parts per million increase of CO₂ per decade. “This rate is 10 ppm/decade faster than predicted by an upper atmospheric model, which may explain the stronger than expected thermospheric density decrease,” according to the article in Nature Geoscience.
Several possible explanations for this trend are considered by the authors, such as swings in solar activity. They even estimate the amount of CO₂ that may have been deposited in the upper atmosphere by the exhaust of orbital launch vehicles, but the total of 2,700 metric tons above 50 miles high cannot explain the overall trends they found.
If the thermosphere becomes more clogged with space junk, this would present a hazard for active launch vehicles and satellites. Although, some scientists have pointed out that cooling of this outer layer of the atmosphere could be good news for satellites such as the International Space Station, which should be able to stay in orbit longer without firing booster rockets.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
John West,
When the CO2 molecule absorbs a photon it vibrates. Then it would bump into another molecule and increase the translational energy of both, thus heating the atmosphere a little. This is how a microwave oven works. I have read so much about “re-radiation” and cannot make head nor tails of it, as I was taught young about flux. These seem contradictory, but I know and love the Second Law, so this is how I see it. If I am missing something please help me out.
Hang on a minute; the extra CO2 causes cooling up there they say. But when something gets cooler it gets thicker, causing more drag on things going through it, doesn’t it? (Well, apart from water below 4C.) Yet they say that a decrease in temperature causes a decrease in density.
I need another drink.
Reducing drag on low earth orbit satellites is a bad thing??!! They’re friggin’ nuts.
The green line (CO + CO2) should always be about 10% higher than the blue line (CO2). Looks to me as though they added CO on the CO2 scale instead of the CO scale. WUWT?
Whoops–Now I see the green scale IS about 10% higher than the blue scale. Never mind…
Does not compute! error… error…
I fear we are headed back to our roots as primitive beings. When one could not explain natural events, images of gods and evil beings were conjured up to explain it all away. At its core however was the common belief what we were angering some supernatural force by our human actions. Hence we had offerings for the gods and even human sacrifices. The Shaman may have known full well that these rituals were ridiculous, but it achieved a goal – control of the people through fear.
Today is no different. To achieve an objective, we instill irrational fear of natural forces (hurricanes, tornadoes, rain, wind, drought, etc.) and blame events on our actions. And to what end? Control of people? Instead of offerings of beads and food, we now offer tax dollars. Instead of human sacrifice, we sacrifice jobs.
No, really! This CO2 is bad stuff. I am 69 years old and I notice I have aged at a consistent rate with the increase in atmospherical CO2. Please folks, we need to reverse this. I want to be 21 again. If only those damned SUVs had never been invented I would probably only be 39 today. But lets be careful if we go back too far I might not have been born. Just reduce the CO2 until I’m 21, OK?
Michael Moon says:
November 12, 2012 at 12:39 pm
John West,
When the CO2 molecule absorbs a photon it vibrates. Then it would bump into another molecule and increase the translational energy of both, thus heating the atmosphere a little. This is how a microwave oven works. I have read so much about “re-radiation” and cannot make head nor tails of it, as I was taught young about flux. These seem contradictory, but I know and love the Second Law, so this is how I see it. If I am missing something please help me out.
well, half true. Re-radiation as they call it, which is longwave radiation leaves earth at on average 14C globally, differing between the poles and th eequator of course. To Wien’s displacement law, 14C is 10 microns. 15 microns is -89C (minues 89C) and this is the peak at which c02 absorbs Longwave radiation.. If you’re interested in the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then it is apt to conclude that there is no heating of the atmosphere except in areas where the atmosphere is -89C, and again, to the 2nd law, thermalisation take place where the bands of c02 re-radiation hits the bands of 0xygen, nitrogen, bands, which then re-thermalises. These thermalisations take place in a billionth of a second, and thus no extra heat content is possible with co2. It is also a contradiction of the 2nd law that thermalisation of c02 at -89C – temperatures found hiigh in the troposphere – can cause higher surface temperatures. It is impossible for matter at -89C to heat matter to 15C
LazyTeenager says:
November 12, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Really did choose your nick well didn’t you?
It also reduces drag on space debris leaving them in orbit longer, therefore a greater hazard. Do keep up.
DaveE.
Spam filter but why I don’t know.
DaveE.
[Reply: Many times, we don’t know either. — mod.]
The enhanced CO2 content at this altitude has been known about by spacecraft engineers for several decades. Earth Sensors on satellites are calibrated to the emission wavelength of CO2 at this altitude because it has a very well defined boundary that makes it ideal for use as an Earth sensor.
“CO₂ increases close to the Earth’s surface cause temperatures to rise but, surprisingly, CO₂ higher up results in just the opposite,”
Is this called an unaccounted for negative feedback mechanism? More hot down below and less hot on top, temperature differential causing less heat down below?
Geoengineering! Let’s pump CO2 into the top of the atmosphere.
woops. correction to previous post. 15 microns corresponds to -79C, or else -110F
I am not sure where you get the figure of -4 Fahrenheit for c02 absorbtion
Just think how different history would have been if the Kaiser had used CO2 instead of Cl2 in WW1!
More horseshit.
Is there anything lavish funding can’t do?
P Wilson,
Co2 Absorbs in the 15 micron band. I had that far warmer than you do, I will check again. Regardless, this means CO2 in the path of OLR Absorbs radiation emanating from the Earth’s surface where it is close to -4 F. “Re-radiation” in the literature seems to refer to atmospheric CO2 absorbing and re-emitting a photon, after which apparently something very important and disastrous happens, as the atmosphere re-heats the Earth’s surface. This contradicts entropy, so I don’t worry about it too much. There are those who ardently insist that this effect is real, but they can’t explain it re 2nd Law. Outgoiing Longwave Radiation is not the “re-radiation” I referred to.
GoneWithTheWind says:
November 12, 2012 at 12:54 pm
“No, really! This CO2 is bad stuff. I am 69 years old and I notice I have aged at a consistent rate with the increase in atmospherical CO2. ”
But on the other hand, you have lived longer and life expectancy is greater compared with life expectancy of people in the not to distant past, when CO2 is thought to have been lower. Not too bad looking now is it! 🙂
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
November 12, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Maybe someday it’ll explain why Anthropogenic CO2 molecules are propagating upwards differently than the ordinary CO2 released by ocean outgassing and other natural processes. Are they somehow heavier and slower so it takes them longer to get up there?
No, they are hotter and hot molecules diffuse more rapidly than cold molecules. What you breathe out is at about 37 C. And what comes from cars and homes is hotter still. Hot air rises. That is why smoke from chimneys goes up, at least until the smoke has cooled to the surrounding temperature.
Michael Moon,
”When the CO2 molecule absorbs a photon it vibrates.”
Sure does, several degrees of freedom.
“Then it would bump into another molecule and increase the translational energy of both, thus heating the atmosphere a little.””
Well, it could happen that way, but it could also just radiate the energy or a bump could speed one but not the other. A collision could also impart a vibration that is then radiated thus cooling the surroundings a bit. Energy will be distributed as described by equipartition theorem:
http://theory.phy.umist.ac.uk/~judith/stat_therm/node81.html
“This is how a microwave oven works.”
Actually, a microwave works by dipole rotation which is then distributed throughout the material.
Now wait just a “cotton-pickin” minute…Anthropogenic CO2 is having the significant effect claimed by the authors…NOT just any ol’ CO2, but anthropogenic CO2? CO2 due to human activity?
Can someone please tell me: How does anthropogenic CO2 differ physically from CO2 due to natural sources—ocean degassing, the biosphere, volcanos, etc — to elicit such an effect? And why will anthropogenic CO2 “…propagate upward through the atmosphere” in preference to natural CO2?
More importantly (?), from what I recall, only — ONLY — 3%(±) of CO2 emitted yearly into the atmosphere is anthropogenic CO2. Do I have that right? And this trivial amount will cause the effects the authors postulate?
I don’t get it. I must be missing something…
The amazing and contradictory effects of carbon dioxide (especially that rascally anthropogenic CO2) remind me of the old joke about some bored kids who pooled their change and sent one of their number (let’s call hime Michael M.) into the store to get something fun they could share. Michael M. came back with a box of Tampax. After much questioning about how the Tampax would be fun he said “Look here on the box. It says you can go swimming, you can go horseback riding….”.
Michael Moon;
There are those who ardently insist that this effect is real, but they can’t explain it re 2nd Law.
>>>>>>>>>>
The second Law relates to the NET transfer of energy. Two surfaces both radiate energy as per Stefan-Boltzmann Law. There is no other way for the two laws to co-exist. And you need to stop thinking about it in terms of a cool surface warming a warm surface. Both the cool surface and warm surface radiate energy, as per SB Law, with the net xfer between them as per 2nd Law.
With the above in mind, consider what happens to the warm surface, say 40 C next to a cool surface, say 0 C when we take the cool surface away and replace it with outer space, with a temperature of about -270 C. In which scenario would the warm surface cool faster?
M. Moon wrote: ““Instead, the gas absorbs heat from its surroundings and radiates much of it away from Earth.” Professor Wang who taught me Transport of Heat is ROFL. This statement is sense-free. Radiation heats or cools by “FLUX!” Heat cannot be transferred from a cool thing to a hot thing, no way no how. All gases, liquids and solids radiate all the time unless at Absolute Zero. CO2 doesn’t do anything different than the rest of the atmosphere. It absorbs some infrared radiated in the 15 micron band, which corresponds to -4 F, and heats up a little from this. It absorbs and emits photons exactly like the rest of the atmosphere.
This guy has a PhD???”
==========================================================
Well, my heat pump transfers energy as heat from a cold reservoir (outside) to a warmer one (inside). What you mean is that if the two objects are thermodynamically isolated, then the Second Law demands the flow of energy in the form of heat to be from the lower temperature object to the higher temperature one. Couple that system to something else, however, and the energy flow can be driven in the opposite direction. I’m not suggesting what that might be or anything here, only making a subtle, but important corrective distinction to your comment.
As for your latter statement, “It (CO2) absorbs and emits photons exactly like the rest of the atmosphere,” are you suggesting that the absorptive and radiative cross sections of CO2 are identical to those for O2, N2, H2O and whatever else might be floating about? The main issue is whether, at the conditions experienced, the collision frequency for vibrationally excited CO2 molecules (having absorbed the IR photon) is sufficiently low to allow for relatively long-time IR re-radiative processes to occur in lieu of the much more prevalent (at ordinary densities) collisionally mediated V-T (vibration to translational) relaxation process.
Camburn says:
November 12, 2012 at 11:52 am
“The cow is almost to the moon. Gosh, who would have thought that CO2 would allow a cow to get so far.”
Sorry, that MUST be the methane! /sarc (I think!)