Antarctic temperatures recently plunged close to the theoretically coldest achievable on Earth!

Guest inconvenience by David Middleton

This story was previously discussed here at WUWT… But, why wasn’t this headline news in the Washington Post, New York Times, etc.?  Yes… That was a rhetorical question.

Ultralow Surface Temperatures in East Antarctica From Satellite Thermal Infrared Mapping: The Coldest Places on Earth

T. A. Scambos, G. G. Campbell, A. Pope, T. Haran, A. Muto, M. Lazzara, C. H. Reijmer, M. R. van den Broeke
First published: 25 June 2018

[…]

Plain Language Summary

The lowest measured air temperature on Earth is −89.2 °C (−129 F) on 23 July 1983, observed at Vostok Station in Antarctica (Turner et al., 2009, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012104). However, satellite data collected during the Antarctic polar night during 2004–2016 reveal a broad region of the high East Antarctic Plateau above Vostok that regularly reaches snow surface temperatures of −90 °C and below. These occur in shallow topographic depressions near the highest part of the ice sheet, at 3,800 to 4,050‐m elevation. Comparisons with nearby automated weather stations suggest that air temperatures during these events are near −94 ± 4 °C or about −138 F. Ultracold conditions (below −90 °C) occur more frequently when the Antarctic polar vortex is strong. This temperature appears to be about as low as it is possible to reach, even under clear skies and very dry conditions, because heat radiating from the cold clear air is nearly equal to the heat radiating from the bitterly cold snow surface.

[…]

Geophysical Research Letters

Comparisons with nearby automated weather stations suggest that air temperatures during these events are near −94 ± 4 °C or about −138 F. Ultracold conditions (below −90 °C) occur more frequently when the Antarctic polar vortex is strong. This temperature appears to be about as low as it is possible to reach, even under clear skies and very dry conditions, because heat radiating from the cold clear air is nearly equal to the heat radiating from the bitterly cold snow surface.

The full text of the paper is still available.

How much colder could it have gotten at 280 ppmv CO2? Probably not any colder at all.

 

In even plainer language…

Jun 28, 2018, 12:58pm

‘It’s Almost Like Another Planet’ – Coldest Temperature On Earth Recorded In Antarctica

Trevor Nace
Contributor
Science

As summer starts heating up, scientists just published the coldest temperature ever recorded on Earth. During the long, dark Antarctica winter temperatures dropped low enough to resemble other planets.

The temperature they measured? A stunning negative 144 degrees Fahrenheit (-97.8 degrees Celsius). At that temperature, just a few breaths of air would induce hemorrhaging in your lungs and quickly lead to death.

The temperature was recorded using satellite measurements in the middle of Antarctica during the depths of winter where the sun never rises. These findings, recently published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, are close to the theoretical coldest temperature Earth can get down to.

[…]

Forbes

These findings, recently published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, are close to the theoretical coldest temperature Earth can get down to.

 

The story was covered in Forbes, Fortune, NatGeo and a few other places… And it was worse than previously thought…

Live Science Planet Earth

The Coldest Place on Earth Is Even Colder Than Scientists Thought

By Mindy Weisberger, Senior Writer | June 26, 2018

Scientists already knew that the lowest temperatures ever measured on Earth were on a frozen ice ridge in eastern Antarctica, near the South Pole. But they recently discovered that temperatures there can drop even lower than those previously measured.

In 2013, analysis of satellite data pinpointed scattered pockets of intensely cold air on the East Antarctic Plateau between Dome Argus and Dome Fuji — temperatures that dipped to a staggering minus 135 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 93 degrees Celsius).

However, new analysis of the same data suggests that under the right conditions, those temperatures can drop to nearly minus 148 degrees F (minus 100 degrees C), which is probably the coldest it can get on Earth, researchers reported in a new study.

[…]

Live Science

Despite runaway tipping points of Gorebal Warming, pushing the Earth back to the Pliocene, Miocene, Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, Cretaceous, Venus… well-within the Holocene noise level.  It still gets as cold as theoretically possible in Antarctica.

Advertisements

137 thoughts on “Antarctic temperatures recently plunged close to the theoretically coldest achievable on Earth!

  1. If a record hot day in Atlanta is proof of global warming…

    …what is a record cold night in Antarctica?

      • Yes, of course!! Silly me, I forgot my script. You know, the one ManBearPig sent me along with the detailed instructions on how to blow up a pipeline and how to get rid of inconvenient professors, tenured or not. who don’t toe the line.

        • Sorry to be so uninformed, but who or what is ManBearPig? I think it has something to do with Al Gore, but if so, I’ve no idea what. Please let me know what this odd expression signifies.

          • There was a South Park episode shortly after the original release of “An Inconvenient Truth”, with a character resembling Al Gore warning of the dread threat of ManBearPig. The mockery has stuck to Gore.

  2. Measurements at that latitude are not certain.
    We’ll be saying that CO2 condenses into a solid next, Historical 🙂

    • The reason the South Pole doesn’t have blocks of CO2 is that there’s just so darn little CO2 in the atmosphere. link Most people don’t understand how little CO2 is in the atmosphere.

      Ask one of your warmist friends why there are no blocks of solid CO2 at the South Pole. That should provide hours of fun.

    • Yes M Courtney, as Ryddegutt points out below, CO2 sublimates at -78.5 deg C so it will be precipitating as dry ice at that temperature. That is, if there is any left in the atmosphere that has not already been absorbed by the water vapour or snow due to the solubility increasing with decreasing temperature.
      The Poles are the sink for the CO2 which is mainly produced in the Equatorial zone from biological sources and spreads out towards the Poles as I have suggested in :
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/12/secrets-about-the-1-5c-world-temperature-limit/

      The CO2 is trapped in the ice sheets which gradually move away from the Poles. At the ice sheet – ocean interface, there is a blooming of microbial life in the CO2 rich melt water seen as a profusion of shrimp, fish etc which attract whales to travel vast distances to feed off the seasonal plenty.

      Climate controls the atmospheric CO2 level. CO2 does not control the climate.

      • Actuallly, the sublimation point at a CO2 partial pressure of 0.0004 is well below -100C.
        This means that all the CO2 will remain in the gas phase.

      • We know it happens on the poles of Mars, and although Mars does have a higher proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere than Earth, the air is more rarified and under far less pressure.
        So it gets to -133 C there, and the air is at 6 millibars, and it is 96% CO2, but the atmosphere is about 1/100th as dense as on Earth at sea level.
        So…knowing all of that, how many potatoes can Matt Damon grow while he is waiting for someone to rescue his lonely ass?

      • “Climate controls the atmospheric CO2 level”

        I controls the natural carbon cycle part.
        Unfortunately not the anthro part though.
        From there follows that CO2 (now) controls the climate.
        Because unlike H2O it is non-condensing.
        And it is outstripping the carbon cycles ability to sink it.

        • The carbon cycle is able to handle in excess of any anthro co2. The drop in co2 from May to Sept is far in excess of what man produces in a year. The question is why wasn’t it doing so in 1950’s, 1960’s and so on.
          The delicate co2 cycle is a myth. I will maintain that contrary to causing a problem, we have probably staved off a catastrophe from co2 depletion. 0.0004 is a very small number even for a planet

      • When the pressure of the CO2 is at one atmosphere (1013 mbar) that is. However the partial pressure of the CO2 is only 0.4 mbar at sea level.

      • These phase diagrams like this one (Thanks to Karlos51) have as the pressure always the (partial) pressure of the gas in focus.

        BR
        MFKBoulder

  3. Maybe NASA and Elon should plan an expedition there before Mars. Probably too risky and too hard to get to and from.

  4. We have a saying here in Wyoming, maximum cold is “colder than a well digger’s ass”. And that’s as cold as it can get in the winter no matter what planet you’re on.

  5. Maybe there is snowing CO2? The freezing point of CO2 is -109.3 degrees Fahrenheit (-78.5 degrees). But I quess the consentration is too low.

          • David and Pop,
            OK, I wasn’t expecting a ‘snow’ storm, but it seems to me that at the temperatures encountered, one should expect the potential (is nucleation needed?) of aggregates forming slowly, and if they should grow large enough, settle out. I wasn’t aware that crystallization was impossible below a certain concentration. I thought that the concentration would only control the rate of crystallization. Am I missing something?

          • Nick,

            OK, I thought that the way things worked was that as water vapor rose, it cooled, and eventually became saturated, thus allowing water droplets to form. Further cooling allows the water droplets to crystallize. That is the process is temperature dependent.

            Wikipedia states, “At 1 atmosphere (near mean sea level pressure), the gas deposits directly to a solid at temperatures below −78.5 °C (−109.3 °F; 194.7 K)” I would interpret that as meaning that in a mixture of gases, CO2 passes directly to the solid phase without a need (or ability) to form an intermediate liquid. Thus, what would seem to be necessary to form at least one crystal would be enough atoms to come together to form a unit cell.

            Sorry for being dense, but your remark about “vapor pressure” doesn’t seem to have applicability to something that doesn’t have a liquid phase at normal surface pressures.

          • Clyde,
            There is always an equilibrium gas phase pressure, whether the other phase is solid or liquid (for solid it may be called sublimation pressure, but it functions the same way). As for rain, yes, it is as you described. The vapor pressure is temperature dependent (as described by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation). So as air of a certain specific humidity rises and cools, it may reach a level where the vapor pressure falls to the actual partial pressure in that air (so RH=100%). Then you get condensation, and possibly rain.

          • Actually, the vast majority of the rain that falls on Earth is by the Bergeron Ice Crystal Process, whereby ice crystals grow at the expense of water droplets.
            If water droplets had to aggregate together for us to get rain, the Earth would be a desert.
            But luckily, the vapor pressure curves of water vapor and ice cross, so in places where it is very cold up in the clouds, and ice crystal and supercooled water droplets exist together, the water droplets evaporate rapidly and the ice crystals grow rapidly.
            Most rain starts out as snow, even in the tropics, in fact especially in the tropics, where the rain falls from towering cumulonimbus clouds.

        • For the same reason that if the air temperature is below 0 degrees C, you will not have snow or frost if the air is very low in humidity. Think of -5 degrees C in a desert….the scant amount of water vapor in the air there doesn’t condense.

          • “the air is very low in humidity”

            Ah.. so you are saying the atmosphere is very low in CO2.

            We can agree on that !!

          • There is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to form crystals, just as there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to affect temperature.

        • The typical 3mg snowflake contains around 100 snow crystals. The typical Snow Crystal contains 10(18) (10 Quintillion) water molecules. The concentration level of CO2 in the atmosphere simply isn’t high enough to allow for CO2 snowflakes nor even CO2 snow crystals

          • Bryan, such calculations make sense if they relate to a certain amount of air. For example, 1 m^3 of air at standard conditions (273 K, 1 atm) contains 44.6 mole of air and , hence, 0.0178 mole of CO2. It corresponds to 1.02×10^22, or 10,000 Quintillion molecules molecules of CO2. Is this amount high enough?

          • But, If you have ever inadvertently frozen a can of soda, you will find that, after thawing the soda is essentially flat with much of the CO2 gas being frozen out of it. Most if not all of the CO2 gas will freeze out of the water as it crystalizes as well. So no CO2 snow

      • “goddard -heller tried that nonsense a decade ago here”

        And you couldn’t counter one sentence of it with any science then, either

        • You have a poor memory of that event. Heller’s points were devastated and it was the beginning of the end of him here.

          • Which was both an over-reaction and an unfortunate outcome, since he has since raised many good points regarding the temperature reconstructions, and the historical newsprint/record which deserve a far wider dissemination than that given by his own site which unfortunately is not linked in the sidebar.

            Some of his youtube videos are a must watch.

          • He’s great with the historical articles. He should stick to that.

            Anything involving science analysis falls in to the even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while category.

            His defense of his last post here was beyond embarrassing.

            Yes this is only MY opinion.

        • I don’t recall if Mosh was involved in the debate. Those of who were involved explained in detail why any sentence supporting CO2 frost in Antarctica can’t exist and were involved in a physical experiment that fully backed up our claims.

          I was going to ask what we might have missed, but no, that debate is history, at least to most readers. From comments on his blog, I think Heller still doesn’t completely accept that he was wrong.

  6. could it be harvested from the air at those temperatures and concentrations.

    You would need a chemically sticky product to overcome the partial pressure problem but it could be a great research project needing funding in these times of falling temperatures.

    • Mosher,

      As to be expected, your terse comment fails to communicate what you are claiming. From a cursory reading of your link, it appears that a negative greenhouse effect it probable, and WV and CO2 may act in opposite directions. So, it would appear that broad brush statements about climate sensitivity and CO2 may be too general, and ambient conditions have to be specified for the ‘constant,’ which may actually be a variable. Did I miss something?

      • “Did I miss something?”

        Yes you did

        first you missed saying thank you to Nick up thread for the free education.

        start with that.

        Second, ECS is related to the entire system. global response.. average.

        Third, you missed saying thank you for the link that explains the phenomena

        • The “funny” thing is that an enhanced greenhouse effect should be most pronounced in the coldest air masses on Earth, during winter, at night… and this has generally been observed.

          Since the enhanced greenhouse effect is global in nature… it’s simply not sufficiently enhanced to prevent parts of Antarctica to approach the coldest theoretically possible temperatures on Earth… 😎

    • From your link: “…A previous explanation attributes this effect solely to stratospheric CO2; however, we surprisingly find that the negative greenhouse effect is predominantly caused by tropospheric water vapor…”

      When I saw you bring this up previously, you had the attribution to CO2. That was only a few years ago. Now you have a 2018 paper based on 13 years of satellite observations and a “recently developed principle-based concept”…and you claim it’s “duh” and simply a matter of understanding physics.

      Stop talking out of your arse.

    • Steven Mosher

      Being that you are a well respected scientists, perhaps you could point me to the empirically derived studies that demonstrate, convincingly, that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.

      The Berkley study is no good, Iv’e been reliably informed it’s a bit dodgy so I can’t use it to convince people global warming is real and I get rounded on when I have cited it in the past.

      Thanks.

      • “perhaps you could point me to the empirically derived studies that demonstrate, convincingly, that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.”

        Nope, he can’t.

      • Being that you are a well respected scientists

        well, HotScot, there’s your first mistake. He’s not a scientist he’s “a fricken liberal arts major” and “the dumbest person on this blog” (as even he admits). And based on his posting behavior, he’s not worthy of any respect.

    • Steve, did you ever consider that folks would be more likely to follow your link if it wasn’t followed by “duh”?
      We’re led to consider that you might have an inferiority complex here by your largely negative and condescending comments.
      When you show some character of optimism and respect, I as one of the wizened unwashed will take you more seriously.

      • Mosh believes he has the moral and intellectual high ground. He has to be insulting in order to maintain that high ground. While we insult him and ridicule him, he continues to feel superior. It’s a feedback loop for his ego.

      • 1. The science is already out there for anyone who knows google.
        2. This topic has been covered before here for anyone who reads WUWT.
        3. I post for the curious, for those who wonder, “maybe this post is not right” that is
        I post for the skeptic who always doubts everything even if he agrees with it.
        4. I am under no obligation to say “pretty please read this”

        ‘We’re led to consider that you might have an inferiority complex here by your largely negative and condescending comments.”

        weirdly some other interpret it as arrogance. It’s neither. It is actually sadness. sadness because WUWT used to be a place were every idea was challenged.

        This post went up.

        took me, a fricken liberal arts major, 2 seconds to find the science that is related to the topic.
        Question? why do I, the dumbest person on this blog always have to be the one to point
        out the other side?

        FFS.

        • “1. The science is already out there for anyone who knows google.” What science is that?

          Obviously not the science that answers HotScot’s question, ” perhaps you could point me to the empirically derived studies that demonstrate, convincingly, that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.”

          Here is the claim made by Berkeley Lab, with reference to Feldman et al (2015), “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010”.

          “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface”.

          I suppose the opposite of this claim is an implied claim that surface radiative forcing by CO2 had not been observed before Feldman et al (2015). So much for the usual cry of “overwhelming evidence for AGW”.

          So considering that there was no mention of “warming” in the paper and that many questions about the paper went unanswered I can see why you fail to answer HotScot’s genuine question.

        • “weirdly some other interpret it as arrogance. It’s neither. It is actually sadness. sadness because WUWT used to be a place were every idea was challenged.”

          Riiiight. So when you drive by and just post “wrong”, we’re supposed to scramble about and find out why you think something is wrong. That is the definition of arrogant.

        • Question? why do I, the dumbest person on this blog always have to be the one to point
          out the other side?

          is that what you think your incoherent drive-bys are doing? Bwahahahahahahahahahaha

        • You initially claimed, “Yup and if folks understood radiative physics you understand why this happens…duh…”

          But in actuality, you just googled and found an article. No demonstration of radiative physics understanding necessary.

          So nobody in the climate science or meteorological community understood radiative physics until this study was published in the middle of 2018…one which required “A recently developed principle-based concept” and which overturned the previously-held assertion that CO2 was the cause?

          FFS indeed. No duh.

    • The “duh” comment makes you sound like the kids I teach when they’re arguing with each other in the playground.

      • Andrew, don’t be so insulting … what did those kids ever do to deserve that, I think you owe them an apology. 😉

    • From the “trust us because we think that we’re smarter than you” department comes this little gem… if folks understood radiative physics, they’d be lining up to get some of the newly released “negative greenhouse effect”. This limited edition anti-greenhouse effect is only available in Antarctica and quantities vary by season, so get in quick and place your order with Mosher now!

      Please note that the negative greenhouse effect is somewhat magical and appears to only work in Antarctica (where the lack of warming was annoying the fark out of climate scientologists), so don’t expect Walmart to be stocking it anytime soon.

    • Does your deep understanding of radiative physics include the realization that according to the paper you cited, the “negative” greenhouse effect in Antarctica is more the result of water vapor trapped beneath a surface inversion?

      A surface inversion happens when energy from the surface passes directly to space without passing GO in the atmosphere. The surface then cools below the temperature of the air above. We normally have a lapse, where stored solar energy at the surface warms the air immediately above by radiation (in the case of greenhouse gasses), conduction, and convection.

      Like gravity, the intensity (energy) of electromagnetic radiation falls off with distance from the source at 1/distance squared. The intensity (energy) of electromagnetic radiation also varies to the fourth power of temperature. In a lapse situation these two energy functions work together to reduce energy loss from the surface to space. In a surface inversion, the surface has switched from a source to a sink for radiative and conductive energy, and convection is turned off. The atmosphere becomes the energy source and more energy is lost to space due to higher temperature with altitude under the inversion.

      While they consider this a “negative” greenhouse effect, it ultimately resulted from a FAILURE of greenhouse gasses. This failure allowed the surface to cool below atmospheric temperature in the first place.

      Duh?

  7. According to calculations I did in my head, 16 Celsius (60.8 fahrenheit ) radiates 10 (ten) times as much energy as -100 celsius.

  8. So all this Global Warming has sucked all the heat out of the poles?

    I wonder how they got CO2 to defy the laws of thermodynamics!!

  9. Pop Piasa

    Picasso?

    (No idea what the discussion is, just thought I’d toss a comment in)……..well, I kinda get the principle.

  10. “However, satellite data collected during the Antarctic polar night during 2004–2016 reveal a broad region of the high East Antarctic Plateau above Vostok that regularly reaches snow surface temperatures of −90 °C and below.”

    Turned out nice again. We could bury Mosher there, along with the nuclear waste.

  11. Folks… Please lighten up on Mosh! Like Nick Stokes, his input is constructive to the discussion.

    • Actually I really don’t think it is constructive.

      In fact I think it is deliberately destructive,

      His posts are all ‘You folks reckon you are talking Real Science, but the Real science is the stuff I provide links to’ (but do not understand myself)’.

      In short he is a classic concern troll activist using arguments from authority as his primary technique.

      His posts are valuable only insofar as they illustrate this particular activist technique admirably.

      So I definitely agree they should be allowed, just not for the reasons stated above.

      Climate change ceased to be about the science probably ten years ago now. It is all about the propaganda, power and profit.

      Mosh and Stokes are here as agents of that, not to promote science.

      • And as some of us know, they are guilty of real nastiness too. Why TH is banned and they are not is a wonder….. Back to constructivenes please, and I have been working on certain deaths. The symptoms of Scott’s Party and two solos in recent years lean towards lung freezing. We know the cold was likely in the deadly range at the right times. Even on the Ross Ice Barrier, from old records. Brett

    • David,
      I suspect that Mosher may have the potential for being constructive. However, his usual mode of operation is to lob snowballs as he drives by. His text is typically so terse that it is often difficult to know what his point is. And then, there are the gratuitous insults and condescending remarks like “duh!” Stokes does make contributions on a regular basis, even if I think that they are often disingenuous. But, they are readable and coherent. Mosh only provides something of similar quality about 1 out of 10 times.

      • I would not put it that high, although Mosher is notably better when he posts at Climate Etc (Dr Judith Curry’s site).

        Nick, on the other hand, does add to the discussion. His points are usually well argued and often supported with references. One might disagree with (some or all of) the points he makes, but he is always courteous and it is important to see contrarian views so as not to get bogged down by group think and one way bias.

        • Indeed, Nick as much as I think he’s simple wrong, I can at least respect that he argues his points well and behaves like an adult. Drive-by Mosh, on the other hand, has long since lost any ounce of respect or credibility through his antics. He’s proven himself, time and again, to be unworthy of “lightening up” on. Any stick he gets, he’s well earned.

      • A concept I’ve noticed over the years is that you can learn something from everyone even if it is by bad example.

  12. Maybe David. Maybe
    In ancient Greece the Spartans were aka Lacadaemonians. Their language was tailored for close order infantry combat.
    terse to the point of rudeness
    this is were the description ‘Laconic’ comes from

    Mosher is clearly a Spartan

  13. A most interesting article and superb commentary for us uneducated non-scientist. But as one who has witnessed the eruptions of volcanoes, flown multiple times thru the oil fire skies of Kuwait in Desert Storm, and sailed the wide open oceans enough to appreciate the vastness, I cannot fathom how anything man can do will alter the climate or planet to any permanent change. Low level flying as a helo pilot gives a close up, but wide range visual of this miracle planet. WUWT is fantastic and more so due to your commentary. Please keep it up, and continue to explain enough for us “common folks” to think we understand and enjoy.

  14. AWI Institute (Germany) said, that CO2 has a cooling effect in antarctic:

    Abstract:
    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.

    http://epic.awi.de/38614/

    • Also the height of the tropopause is significantly less at the poles, than it is at the equator.

      It appears that CO2 is a bit player in the atmosphere below the tropopause where energy transfer is dominated by convection and sensible energy exchanges (condensation/evaporation) rather than by radiative transfers. Below the tropopause to the extent that radiative energy transfers are significant this is primarily the province of water vapour, not CO2.

      it is above the tropopause where radiative transfers dominate and it is here where CO2 comes into its own and fast tracks the transfer of energy to the upper reaches of the stratosphere, mesosphere and thence to the great void of space.

      It is worthwhile having a look at radiative transfers as a cross section of the atmosphere, and note how CO2 appears to do little if anything at all below the tropopause (the marked line at about 14 km (the tropopause is much less at the poles)’ See:

      https://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/stratosphere-radiation-by-species-1460.jpg

      • You are misinterpreting the image. The low cooling rate at low altitude in the CO2 band is not because the “CO2 does little if anything at all” but rather is due to radiation being completely saturated by CO2 there and therefore transmitting nothing to the TOA.

        In the middle of this band most of the radiation is therefore transmitted from the stratosphere, and more CO2 will move the radiating zone upwards. This will have a net cooling effect since temperature rises with altitude in the stratosphere and the average radiation temperature will increase.

        This is the reason that one often sees images of emission spectra at the top of the troposphere rather than TOA – the figures go the “politically incorrect” way in the stratossphere.

    • This is quite correct and has been well known and understood ever since the first NIMBUS satellites. However it is very rarely mentioned, because while it is true that this “negative” Greenhouse heating only applies strictly to inland Antarctica similar effects exist elsewhere. The net warming effect of Greenhouse Gases is for example very close to zero over the Greenland icecap as well and is weakened anywhere where temperature inversions occurr regularly:

      https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cooling-in-antarctica.png

      • Perhaps CO2 acts as a cooling engine many places. The cold winds of Antarctica are cooling the surface as far as to 60 degrees south. Cold winds from Greenland highland can cool big areas. Winter temperature inversions in Arctica don`t allow the IR radiation to increase. All part of a negative feedback. I suspect that models cannot simulate this properly.

        • Agreed. Colder interior temperatures in Antarctica are transferred by catabatic winds to the rest of the continent and surrounding seas as well as cooling the deep oceans by increased AABW (Antarctic Bottom Water) production.

          “Winter temperature inversions in Arctica don`t allow the IR radiation to increase. ”

          What more CO2 does is to allow IR radiation to increase because of the inversion.

    • That nicely fills a spot!
      CO2 has been proposed to cause and do everything-except cooling. I suppose it would cause cooling only where it is already too cool. When the planet cools we can therefore be bombarded with studies that “prove”-from models, that Antarctic cooling will occur everywhere within a very few but never arriving years.

  15. “those temperatures can drop to nearly minus 148 degrees F (minus 100 degrees C), which is probably the coldest it can get on Earth, researchers reported in a new study.”

    The coldest it can get on Earth’s surface. Earth’s atmosphere can get colder. Minus 140 C at the mesopause and minus 160 C at thermosphere.

  16. Oh dear, the CO2 frost monster is breaking out again.

    The low temperature at home this morning was 25°F. While this is below the freezing point of water, there was no frost on my car.

    There is no CO2 frost in Antarctica for exactly the same reason, i.e. the partial pressure of water vapor here and CO2 there is too low to prevent frost to form. Instead of partial pressure of water vapor, we refer to the dew point (or better, the frost point). Those were 17°F (and 15°F), so no frost this morning.

    See the links, posted above, to the past blowup over this.

  17. ”Coldest” temperature? I have never met one of these. Is it animal, vegetable or mineral? I have heard of people who have experienced highest temperatures, lowest temperatures and even average temperatures but never cold temperatures or even hot temperatures.

  18. Here in the American SouthEast, we are having record cold too. It feels like it gets colder every winter lately, and I don’t think it’s just my age. Of course they tell me that is “climate change” too. I wonder sometimes if we are actually seeing the temporary warming that comes before a new Ice Age. Glaciers covered the American East coast during the last ice age.

    • Dont worry, when theres a kilometer of ice above us we will be 1002 metres away from the top of it………….

Comments are closed.