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.
Michael Moon:
If you don’t get the point by now with a number of good explanations handed to you, this might not help. But, I can always try.
Think of a land mass with an atmosphere above it, containing greenhouse gasses. Let’s also assume that it’s night, for simplicity, although this works during the day too. Assume that the land is warmer than the atmosphere.
The land will receive heat radiated to it as IR, from the atmosphere. But, all else being equal, the atmosphere will not “heat” the land, in the sense of increasing its temperature (warming it). The atmosphere with its GHGs will merely slow the rate at which the land mass cools, by sending some of its escaping energy back. Similarly, the land will not “cool” the atmosphere by stealing radiation from it, since it radiates back to the atmosphere. If the atmosphere cools, it’s because it radiates upwards. (Some radiation may pass through the atmosphere; that’s not so much stealing as failing to repay a debt.) Strong absorption bands in the atmosphere may complicate the picture, but if some part of the atmosphere were to reaches the same temperature as the land, it would radiate energy just as fast as it receives it, so it won’t go beyond this point, and in practice, cannot actually reach it. You cannot, by this process, bring either the atmosphere or the land to a steady state where it becomes hotter than the other and radiates more energy than it receives. If the land is hotter, that’s because the sun was shining on it (and this is not a steady state).
So: nowhere do you require that a colder body actually increase the temperature of a hotter body by a passive process. The second law is happy.
So we have more RADIATIVE CO2 showing up high in the air, dumping more heat to space, and this is bad how?
I also note that this clearly shows a swapping of CO for CO2 via a UV driver. Any chance that could explain our planet cycling with the solar UV changes? I’d expect CO2 and CO to have very different radiative performance. Having direct conversion between them based on large solar UV modulation looks like an easy path to “sun did it” after all…
M. Moon,
I had no intention of offending you, but you’ve certainly confused me.
Perhaps if you asked a more specific question, I’m not sure I know what the “warmist meme of “reradiation”” is other than the indeed poorly named greenhouse effect.
The point I was making about the clear night sky is that there is less downwelling radiation and therefore faster cooling (under similar convection conditions). Even though the sky on a cloudy night is cooler than the surface it still slows the cooling due to a reduction in NET radiant heat flux to space.
Hi P. Solar:
As you stated, I was working on memory with respect to the chart showing decreasing levels of CO2 and other gases, including CFCs, with increasing altitude in the atmosphere. I am somewhat bothered that I cannot lay hands on this chart. I will continue trying to cudgel my brain to find this chart.
E.M.Smith says:
November 14, 2012 at 4:48 am
So we have more RADIATIVE CO2 showing up high in the air, dumping more heat to space, and this is bad how?
I also note that this clearly shows a swapping of CO for CO2 via a UV driver. Any chance that could explain our planet cycling with the solar UV changes? I’d expect CO2 and CO to have very different radiative performance. Having direct conversion between them based on large solar UV modulation looks like an easy path to “sun did it” after all…
It’s in the thermosphere where concentrations are extremely low, also the CO has strong emission bands at ~2.5 and ~5μm between CO2 bands.
Interpolated or extrapolated?
to quote one eminent Climatalalalalujist, “thuH MAGiC GAS, th..uH mAGIc gAiS, ThuH MAGIC MELTIN
MANNIAN
MOONBAT
MONEY
MILKIN
MECHANISM
with a THING
for BEIN’ TOO MAGIC..UL tuH
MAYZhUR!
GaSSss, manNN…”
……” Thank you for that scintillating expose on ‘the Magic Gas, too Magical to Measure,’ ProFESSOR BOREhole, Back to you, Bob.”
—————-
..”Thanks, Bill, in OTHER news, scientists released their warning that yes, magical mystery infrared has taken all the OTHER light spectra hostage, and is HIDING, under their BURKAs, in preparation apparently for, -to quote the PAPER, “AMBUSH YA’LL an’ YAW GOIn tuh HAYLe fer CARBUN SINN! yaW GON’nUh jus BURNUP & DIE witch yawz HEETN & COOKIN, & s%!+! Yaw’z uH BUNCHA RABBLE YeAYuH dAS RAIT CHAW’s uh BUNCHA NO BUhLEEvIn hOLuHCAWST duh NY’in INDore’ LIvIn ‘ppliUnce yewsurz. YaYUh DAS WAT I sed!”
Over to you, Ted.
John West says:
November 14, 2012 at 6:51 am
M. Moon,
I had no intention of offending you, but you’ve certainly confused me.
Perhaps if you asked a more specific question, I’m not sure I know what the “warmist meme of “reradiation”” is…”
The warmist meme of reradiation is a fantasy in which carbon dioxide’s presence in the atmospheric gas mix means a certain narrow spectra of infrared are always emitted exactly 50% down and 50% up and that in addition to that magical element, these re-radiations – collisions and deflections that already have a name in radiation I just went blank lol – because the hillbillies at Magic Melting/Magic Gas/Magic Infrared said that now, the typical deflection of magic light by magic gas, creates, magic melting.
The magic light is magic because it is the only light not visible to instruments of any kind,
the magic gas is magic because it is the only gas that rejects more sun coming in than it does going out, yet it’s a ‘warming’ blanket, and because it always spits the photons at a precise 50% up/down ratio, with ‘down’ being defined several different ways, but with the magical 50% ratio never far from the werewolf eyes and the ghost of newts.
And of course the magic melting is magic because it’s melting whether it’s freezing, at 49 below zero F
or melting.
Also there are magic trees, the boreholes of which reveal the temperature within a few years give or take, in complete violation of the laws of physics, whereby the
“water/canopy
water/roots,
LIGHT/canopy
light/roots
geometric space for canopy to grow as in not under a tree being deprived of light and more importantly for this concern having it’s photosynthetic leaves rubbed off by being whipped about by another tree or PROTECTED by said tree’s canopy from winds etc,
also space for roots to grow,
15 different elements IN PROPORTION, in SOIL, on roots,
and in contact with what PROPORTION of the roots,
parasites/canopy
parasites/roots
pollutants/canopy
pollutants/roots
incidental temporary fertilization/canopy
incidental temporary fertilization/roots
thing
magically vanishes and a magic treemomitur appears,
and these magical boreholes can only be looked into properly by people who thought useless scrawls that yield hockey sticks from calibration data can be used to look into the magic bore holes and see that we have to shut down using regular oil, like Al Gore’s competitors sell, and start using alternative energy and oil, instead of coal, and other people’s oil.
Congratulations. You’re now a climatologist.
Sorry for the poor grammar first paragraph there I was trying to convey there’s a ‘re-radiation meme’ simply because some people SAY there is. There isn’t a real effect, they’re bullshooting from the go when they start trying to hijack the name of the kind of classical collision re-radiation all gases participate in.
“This contraction, in turn, will reduce atmospheric drag on satellites”
colder = contraction = more dense = MORE drag ?
Click here to see a net energy budget diagram which is on page 2 of my first website. Note that conduction is shown as 7% of incoming solar radiation, latent heat as 23% and the total from the surface is 51%. So this diagram implies (7+23)/51 or about 59% of energy from the surface is by other than radiation. I say 60% to 70% in fact because I believe, from other reading, that the diagram understates conduction and evaporation.
Either way, it is clear that a lot of energy is not radiated from the surface but, instead, finds its way into the atmosphere via oxygen, nitrogen and water vapor molecules, not by photon capture in carbon dioxide molecules.
Non-radiating molecules, mostly oxygen and nitrogen, thus act like an insulating blanket. Carbon dioxide does the opposite..
When CO2 molecules do capture, they are more likely to then radiate that energy away, or transfer it by diffusion to cooler oxygen or nitrogen molecules. It can then diffuse to water vapor and be radiated away. Without radiating molecules (the holes in the blanket) things would get very hot up there. I assure you.
DC
AndyG55 says:
November 14, 2012 at 3:56 pm
“This contraction, in turn, will reduce atmospheric drag on satellites”
colder = contraction = more dense = MORE drag ?
Contraction = less dense higher up = Less drag.
Bob says:
The authors attribute this dire fate to anthropogenic carbon. Does naturally derived carbon not do this? How do I separate anthropogenic and natural carbon? Heck, how do you distinguish between the two?
Especially given that “fossil fuels” can oxidize without any human involvement. How could you tell the difference between carbon dioxide from Mount Wingen and that from an Australian coal fired power station?
“Gases also absorb infrared light, but there are some strict rules from quantum mechanics. First, gases have to be able to vibrate, i.e., they have to be molecular. Any monatomic gas like helium is not IR active. Second, when they vibrate there has to be an oscillating electrical charge distribution (we call it a dipole moment), so that a coupling will occur between the oscillating charge and the electric field component of IR light. So gases like O2 and N2 vibrate, but there is no change in charge distribution when they do. They are not IR active. They do absorb heat, but only through molecular collisions. CO2, on the hand, has vibrational modes that are IR active, so when a CO2 molecule absorbs IR light, the molecule is excited to higher vibrational states. Now, here’s the tricky part. The molecule has at least two choices. It could simply de-activate sending the IR photon out (emission). If it does that, there is no thermal consequence. Or, it can collide with gas molecules around it and transfer the vibrational energy to, say, O2 or N2 around them as translational KE, causing them to warm. Of course, this is the greenhouse gas effect. Note that in the greenhouse gas effect it is mainly the air around the CO2 that warms. The CO2 will warm, but at 0.04%, they do not contribute much to the warming.”
Fine, I found it myself. “Re-radiate,” indeed…..
You were going well, Michael, up to your strange conclusion “Of course, this is the greenhouse gas effect.” What you said prior to that is pretty much what I have already written in my article about to be published. You gave an accurate description of what happens when radiation from the surface strikes carbon dioxide molecules. You also confirmed that oxygen and nitrogen molecules absorb heat through collisions. This in fact is how at least two-thirds of the thermal energy in the surface gets into the atmosphere, warming the normal air molecules that collide with the surface and then rise by convection. As you will learn from my article, not all that radiation from the surface is actually transferring energy from the surface to the atmosphere: most of it is re-radiating the energy that it acquired temporarily from all that backradiation – electro-magnetic energy that never became thermal energy in the surface, because Clausius said it couldn’t do so.
So, let me say: Of course, the fact that oxygen and nitrogen cannot radiate energy is the reason why they form a blanket keeping the Earth nice and warm – well keeping the surface 33 degrees warmer than it would have been without an atmosphere comprising, of course, mostly those oxygen and nitrogen molecules..
Water vapor and the radiating gases are of course the holes in the blanket. Once that air gets warm in the vicinity of carbon dioxide molecules its molecules are of course free to move up by convection and eventually collide with radiating molecules (mostly water vapor) but also cooler carbon dioxide ones. Of course the air would remain much warmer if there were no holes in the blanket.
That was not my conclusion, but the conclusion of the physics expert who wrote that. Strange, indeed…
And thank you to all who tried to explain heat to me. Where would I be without you…
Well Michael maybe you need to listen to some other “physics experts” who have far more convincing and detailed arguments which display a somewhat better comprehension of atmospheric physics and computational blackbody radiation, like Prof Claes Johnson perhaps. But if you like to put your “physics expert” in contact with me, or have him respond to my posts above, I would more than welcome the opportunity to answer anything he throws at me.
Not convincing? It convinced me! It convinced me that the warmist meme of “Re-radiation” is a crock, designed to confuse non-technically educated audiences into believing that CO2 is dangerous. What is your point? And he is not “my” physics expert, he is his own. I think it was someone called Dr. Jim, and I will try to find it again. You guys can duke it out privately, but somehow I think he probably has better ways to spend his time, as do I.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=374997
Knock yourself out…