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.
Actually, a CO2 molecule has a dipole moment such as water and many polymers which can be heated in a microwave. I am asking for help from someone who knows more than I do about this. “Equipartition,” ok, checking. Tampax? Really? Nolo, you can go back to sleep now…
Nolo Contendere says:
November 12, 2012 at 1:59 pm
very funny – reminds me of another joke. A bunch of climate scientists are in a bar whooping and hollering, ordering bottles of champagne one after the other. After a while the bar tender gets curious and asks what they are celebrating. Some guy wearing a badge that says I’m the Mann, holds up a box and says… ‘ see this puzzle’? – ‘it says 8-10 years on the box’ – ‘Well buddy, we did it in three weeks……….’
Lots of things can happen. Equipartition, trivial, of course every molecule has rotational, translational, and vibrational energy. If a molecule absorbs and re-emits a photon, did it make a sound? AGW “scientists” claim that CO2 heats the Earth by re-emitting photons, some of which strike the Earth. Contradicts 2nd Law, does not happen, I am out.
LazyTeenager says:
November 12, 2012 at 12:01 pm
This contraction, in turn, will reduce atmospheric drag on satellites
————
This conclusion from the paper is in direct contradiction to the headline.
Aren’t you ever embarrassed by your mental laziness?
thanks Doug Proctor for CO₂ increases close to the Earth’s surface cause temperatures to rise but, surprisingly, CO₂ higher up results in just the opposite,
I knew I had read that somewhere. So CO2 up there cooling is a “bad” thing for a warmest because it will make us warmer down here? I can’t get to the paper either, so maybe that’s their point–other than saving the satellites.
Bob W in NC says:
November 12, 2012 at 1:48 pm
That’s easy to explain Bob – the anthropogenic CO2 is much much more virulent and nasty than ordinary CO2. It worms it’s way up into the higher atmosphere and then sneaks into the thermosphere all on its ownsome, leaving the ‘natural’ CO2 sitting behind feeling all lost and lonely. Once there, it attacks defenseless spacecraft and satellites, rendering them into useless boxes of junk by clinging to their outer skins – creating a massive GHG effect – where the sunlight can keep cooking them until they bleed molten silicon……..
/sarc (Yeah, I know, no doubt someday soon this will be a ‘paper’!)
“CO2 increases close to the Earth’s surface cause temperatures to rise but, surprisingly, CO2 higher up results in just the opposite,”
Isn’t CO2 just simply amazing! It warms and it cools the atmosphere.
Bob W in NC says:
November 12, 2012 at 1:48 pm
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?
========================================================================
A CO2 molecule is kind of like a dog. The ones Man has made all have “dog tags”. The ones without a “dog tag” are feral and therefore harmless. Just Ma Gaia doing her thing. The ones with a “dog tag” have been trained to do as much damage to their owners as possible. The Fossil Fuel Agenda people did the training.
Hansen has trained others to spot the tiny tags. They get get a bonus for each tag they spot.
OOPS! Forgot the sarc tag.
The amazing and contradictory effects of carbon dioxide
Just remember that epicycles explained planetary motion at one time. The math was right on the money, the reality, not so much…
There appears to be a strong correlation between increasing CO2 levels and stupid “scientific” papers. ;-))
Bob W in NC says:
” I must be missing something…”
Yes, you are missing that belief in man being a scourge on the planet and a willingness to believe anything uncritically that supports that paradigm.
(Also in NC and about to see if WRAL is going to join the bandwagon.)
A minor point in the scheme of things, I know, but who apart from these so-called scientists regards CO2 as pollution?
My garden finds it essential to its lifestyle….
Credibility of the mechanism described I leave to others. If the upper cooling occurs, what is the net effect? If less sun tothe surface, what is the net near earth effective change in temperature over time? (GCMs assume a quantum of reflected energy. Are the assumptions based on data or just calculated and thus perhaps wrong due to no proper understanding of upper atmosphere?) ?
Michael Moon;
AGW “scientists” claim that CO2 heats the Earth by re-emitting photons, some of which strike the Earth. Contradicts 2nd Law, does not happen, I am out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Venus has far higher average temperatures than does Mercury, despite the fact that Mercury is closer to the Sun. Earth has higher temperatures than the moon despite getting nearly identical insolation. In the cases of both Earth and Venus, they have atmospheres, and in the case of both, the atmospheres are colder than the planet surface.
Explain away how colder atmospheres don’t warm planetary surfaces. Use any Laws of physics you wish.
“Actually, a CO2 molecule has a dipole moment ”
No: or, more precisely, CO2 has no NET dipole moment. Two of the vibrational modes (an antisymmetric stretch and a doubly degenerate bend), however, do effect a CHANGE in the dipole moment during the vibrational oscillation and, thereby, satisfy one of the requirements for absorption/emission of EM radiation (in first order).
Michael Moon
“Contradicts 2nd Law, does not happen, I am out.”
Does not contradict the 2nd Law, you probably know from experience that a cloudy winter night stays warmer than a clear winter night. That’s the GHE in action, clouds being orders of magnitude more effective than CO2 and I hope you stay.
davidmhoffer says:
November 12, 2012 at 3:06 pm
“Explain away how colder atmospheres don’t warm planetary surfaces. Use any Laws of physics you wish.”
Bad choice for that since you can claim molten core.
I’m so happy with WRAL right now. They did NOT jump onto the CAGW bandwagon.
“CO₂ increases close to the Earth’s surface cause temperatures to rise but, surprisingly, CO₂ higher up results in just the opposite,” I doubt Bernath could have been surprised, since this is what is expected from radiative physics. I suspect Bernath knew the writer of the press release would be surprised. The thermosphere expands and contracts impacting the drag on satellites and debris with changes in solar activity also. I don’t see any reason to mock or be dismissive of the paper, other than the usual mention of a negative effect in the abstract and the leaving of any positive effect or disclaimer until the full text.
This is only to expected. Using petrol engiines to power sattelites was bound to clog the upper atmosphere with exhaust fumes. They should be fitted with solar panels or some sort of tiny nuclear power plant.
temp says:
November 12, 2012 at 3:16 pm
davidmhoffer says:
November 12, 2012 at 3:06 pm
“Explain away how colder atmospheres don’t warm planetary surfaces. Use any Laws of physics you wish.”
Bad choice for that since you can claim molten core.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I thought so once too, but then I did the research to understand how many w/m2 actually get to earth surface from the molten core and discovered it was negligible. Same for wave energy from the tides, same for radioactive decay, same for all the energy released by all the human activity on earth. Same for all of them combined. Just a rounding error compared to insolation and just a tiny fraction of what would be required to account for the difference in surface temps.
fretslider says:
November 12, 2012 at 3:00 pm
A minor point in the scheme of things, I know, but who apart from these so-called scientists regards CO2 as pollution?
_________________________________
The Corporate CEOs cashing in on taxpayer money all over the world. It is the biggest reverse ‘Robinhood’ since Fractional Reserve Banking was invented.
Too bad the Occupy Wall Street who finally figured out Fractional Reserve Banking haven’t figured out CAGW is the same thing, a money making scheme.
davidmhoffer says:
November 12, 2012 at 4:08 pm
“actually get to earth surface from the molten core and discovered it was negligible. ”
I agree however was speaking in general not so much earth or even venus.
Gail Combs says:
November 12, 2012 at 4:27 pm
fretslider says:
November 12, 2012 at 3:00 pm
A minor point in the scheme of things, I know, but who apart from these so-called scientists regards CO2 as pollution?
_________________________________
“The Corporate CEOs cashing in on taxpayer money all over the world. It is the biggest reverse ‘Robinhood’ since Fractional Reserve Banking was invented. ”
Yup “big oil” huge supporter of global warming. However occupy is horrible in understanding both. The fix for the “evil banks” is the same for the “evil big oil”… nationalize them. For some reason when the government does it… its somehow not wrong. Realistically both “big banks” and “big oil” are almost completely controlled by the government now. The problem has been and will always be the government.
From Werner Brozek on November 12, 2012 at 1:32 pm:
Forest and prairie fires yield “natural” CO₂ much hotter than what comes from my chimney or exhaust pipe. Shouldn’t that be the type propagating higher faster than the notably different Anthropogenic CO₂ molecules?