In short the author shows convincingly that in Central Antarctica where the tropopause is very low and ill-defined, and there is often a strong ground inversion, increased CO2 actually has a net cooling effect, since it will normally result in LWIR radiation to come from a higher altitude with a higher radiation temperature. The title is extremely discreet by the way.
It would seem that this would be a very elegant explanation why Antarctica is completely failing to become warmer, so I presume the reason it has not made any waves is that it also implies that the EAIS is enormously stable with respect to higher CO2 levels. And since the cold catabatic winds from central Antarctica also largely control coastal antarctic climate and the production of Antarctic Bottom Water from coastal polynyas the results have global significance as well.
Key part:
Hypotheses behind the thesis
The occurrence of emission maxima at TOA in the absorption bands of GHGs means, that, from a top of atmosphere perspective, the presence of GHGs causes a surplus of energy loss into space. Taking the difference between surface and TOA emission as greenhouse effect, this yields a negative GHE being observed over Antarctica. Furthermore, when considering increasing concentrations of GHGs, particularly CO2, this phenomenon should yield an increase in thermal
emission. This is opposite to what is generally known to result from increasing concentrations of GHGs.
In section 1.5 it has been demonstrated, that global warming during the last decades has not been
proven to occur over the highest elevated areas of Antarctica. There are even indications, that
parts of the continent might have experienced slight cooling. One cause of this non-warming might
be the inverted effect of GHGs on the long-wave radiative emission to space over central
Antarctica.
Figure 2.5A: Yearly averaged greenhouse effect of CO2 in 2006, calculated from TES spectra. The All panel comprises 545203 observed spectra from 165 global surveys. The orbit of the satellite does not allow data acquisition right at the poles. The black contour line over Antarctica denotes 0 W/m2
Here is a longer and more detailed version from the Author’s PhD dissertation:
CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since pre-industrial times. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space. As the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere, the total long-wave emission to space is commonly less than the surface emission. However, this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, it is shown that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative. Moreover, for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the earth-atmosphere system. These unique findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the well known general warming effect of increasing CO2 . The work contributes to explain the non-warming of central Antarctica since 1957.
“…I’m sure our alarmist friends will be ready to dismiss this…”
Maybe initially. Then they will embrace it saying this process masks global warming now but will eventually be overwhelmed by warming, so it is “worse than we thought.”
steven mosher
July 15, 2018 8:29 pm
this is already known. and published on before.
next
steven mosher
July 15, 2018 8:37 pm
this is not a new paper. 2015.
and the work hasnt been hiddened.
reading is fundamental.
water vapor is real. yep. everything else is a bit player on Earth.
A 4.5 Gya water planet. Probably quite beyond exceptional in the scheme of the galaxy.
The most convincing question was not mentioned in the whole discussion: How do models replicate the inverse GHG-effect in parts of the Antarctic? See Tab. 2.4 in the dissertation of Schmidthüsen: Helter scelter!
“It’s coming from a long way south and there’s not really any humidity in the air at all, so it’s very, very dry… allowing the temperatures to fall away very sharply overnight,”
The altitude of the tropopause is critical to the notion that net radiation from a higher altitude will take place at a lower temperature. Above the tropopause radiation takes place at a higher temperature with increasing altitude. Modtran sees the tropical tropopause at 17 kilometers, and sees CO2 radiating at 220K. 220k corresponds to an altitude of either 24 km or 12 according to the tropical lapse, and it is looking down so it sees 24 km first. This agrees with CERES data showing an increase in LW radiation to space.
In the saturated CO2 bands (with 90% of the Boltzmann electron population), increasing concentration LOWERS the extinction altitude.
joel
July 16, 2018 9:53 am
CO2 causes warming? Here I thought the science was settled.
Methinks these guys need to get their act together. So far, all they have done is to explain the past. They remind me of history professors, like Arnold Toynbee, who professed to understand the rise and fall of civilizations. They are 100% accurate in their conclusions regarding the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire, for example, but don’t ask for meaningful predictions on current affairs.
So it is a refrigerant under these conditions. I would have thought the phenomenon would have turned thinking toward a bigger picture. This should assist in prolonging the glacial maximum in the northern hemisphere once you have 2-3km thickness of ice over such a large area. Perhaps the interglacials would be larger and glacial max smaller, a sine wave, although partially extended by albedo during max.
Trevor
July 16, 2018 12:34 pm
So, what does this mean for the Vostok Ice Cores, and other ice cores drilled on Antarctica? Are the global average temperature reconstructions based on Antarctic ice corps the worthless for paleoclimatological purposes? Or do they indicate the OPPOSITE of what was going on, temperature-wise, in the rest of the world?
Louis Hunt
July 16, 2018 3:48 pm
“Moreover, for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the earth-atmosphere system.”
What is the mechanism that allows an increase in CO2 to cool the Arctic? I can see how CO2 would not have much effect there, but how does it actually cool the Arctic? And how would less CO2 in the atmosphere cause less cooling in the Arctic? Does anyone understand this well enough to explain it in plain English?
Yeah, OK, it’s an unusual situation and localized, but when I saw the Nimbus IR satellite view of Antarctica w/GREATER emissions from CO2 instead of lower, I knew that CO2 was emitting MORE energy than otherwise & causing cooling. So this “new” realization should have been obvious a long time ago.
CO2 causes Antarctica cooling was the topic of two previous papers reported in this blog over the past two or three years.
correct. Nothing “new” about a 2015 paper in 2018.
On the risk of repeating myself:
CO2 in the atmosphere GLOBAL has a cooling effect –
because of aberrativ distribution of incoming energy travel direction / from the sun / in the atmosphere BY CO2.
Yields: not all incoming energy “reaches” planet surface – some, small, amount of incoming energy goes voulet back to space.
One thing I’m curious about. Considering the lowered tropopause, what effect do Polar Stratospheric Clouds have on high latitude temperatures?
Anthony, has it really to be
https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=k-ZLW5PDLMHt6ATZjqvYDA&q=print+type+times+new+roman&oq=print+type+times+new+roman&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
_____________________________________________________
‘arial’ is simply ‘eyes friendly’.
Just asking -Hans
Font type arial sans serifes. / without bars /
https://www.cssfontstack.com/Arial
“…I’m sure our alarmist friends will be ready to dismiss this…”
Maybe initially. Then they will embrace it saying this process masks global warming now but will eventually be overwhelmed by warming, so it is “worse than we thought.”
this is already known. and published on before.
next
this is not a new paper. 2015.
and the work hasnt been hiddened.
reading is fundamental.
further:
the newest work shows this
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0031-y
yup greenhouse effect is real.
water vapor is real. yep. everything else is a bit player on Earth.
A 4.5 Gya water planet. Probably quite beyond exceptional in the scheme of the galaxy.
The most convincing question was not mentioned in the whole discussion: How do models replicate the inverse GHG-effect in parts of the Antarctic? See Tab. 2.4 in the dissertation of Schmidthüsen: Helter scelter!
Mosher,
“and the work hasnt been hiddened.
reading is fundamental.”
__________________________________________________
Why not
“hasn’t been hide.”
What’s your hiding.
Now even colder? CO2 precipitating out of the atmosphere like snow?
Carbon dioxide is formed in the atmosphere above the polar circle as a result of the action of secondary galactic radiation.
“The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/onlinequery.cgi?station=OULU&startday=16&startmonth=06&startyear=2009&starttime=00%3A00&endday=16&endmonth=07&endyear=2018&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&outputmode=default&picture=on
Thank you.
“It’s coming from a long way south and there’s not really any humidity in the air at all, so it’s very, very dry… allowing the temperatures to fall away very sharply overnight,”
Yep that makes it cold in winter in Oz alright-
https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/07/15/08/38/cold-weather-australia-brisbane-sydney-melbourne
The altitude of the tropopause is critical to the notion that net radiation from a higher altitude will take place at a lower temperature. Above the tropopause radiation takes place at a higher temperature with increasing altitude. Modtran sees the tropical tropopause at 17 kilometers, and sees CO2 radiating at 220K. 220k corresponds to an altitude of either 24 km or 12 according to the tropical lapse, and it is looking down so it sees 24 km first. This agrees with CERES data showing an increase in LW radiation to space.
In the saturated CO2 bands (with 90% of the Boltzmann electron population), increasing concentration LOWERS the extinction altitude.
CO2 causes warming? Here I thought the science was settled.
Methinks these guys need to get their act together. So far, all they have done is to explain the past. They remind me of history professors, like Arnold Toynbee, who professed to understand the rise and fall of civilizations. They are 100% accurate in their conclusions regarding the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire, for example, but don’t ask for meaningful predictions on current affairs.
So it is a refrigerant under these conditions. I would have thought the phenomenon would have turned thinking toward a bigger picture. This should assist in prolonging the glacial maximum in the northern hemisphere once you have 2-3km thickness of ice over such a large area. Perhaps the interglacials would be larger and glacial max smaller, a sine wave, although partially extended by albedo during max.
So, what does this mean for the Vostok Ice Cores, and other ice cores drilled on Antarctica? Are the global average temperature reconstructions based on Antarctic ice corps the worthless for paleoclimatological purposes? Or do they indicate the OPPOSITE of what was going on, temperature-wise, in the rest of the world?
“Moreover, for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the earth-atmosphere system.”
What is the mechanism that allows an increase in CO2 to cool the Arctic? I can see how CO2 would not have much effect there, but how does it actually cool the Arctic? And how would less CO2 in the atmosphere cause less cooling in the Arctic? Does anyone understand this well enough to explain it in plain English?
Large amount of greenhouse gases in the lower stratosphere (O3 and 14CO2) causes the escape of water vapor to the stratosphere.
Yeah, OK, it’s an unusual situation and localized, but when I saw the Nimbus IR satellite view of Antarctica w/GREATER emissions from CO2 instead of lower, I knew that CO2 was emitting MORE energy than otherwise & causing cooling. So this “new” realization should have been obvious a long time ago.