Carbon emissions are chilling the atmosphere 90km above Antarctica, at the edge of space

Ashleigh Wilson

John French, University of Tasmania; Andrew Klekociuk, University of Tasmania, and Frank Mulligan, National University of Ireland Maynooth

While greenhouse gases are warming Earth’s surface, they’re also causing rapid cooling far above us, at the edge of space. In fact, the upper atmosphere about 90km above Antarctica is cooling at a rate ten times faster than the average warming at the planet’s surface.

Our new research has precisely measured this cooling rate, and revealed an important discovery: a new four-year temperature cycle in the polar atmosphere. The results, based on 24 years of continuous measurements by Australian scientists in Antarctica, were published in two papers this month.

The findings show Earth’s upper atmosphere, in a region called the “mesosphere”, is extremely sensitive to rising greenhouse gas concentrations. This provides a new opportunity to monitor how well government interventions to reduce emissions are working.

Our project also monitors the spectacular natural phenomenon known as “noctilucent” or “night shining” clouds. While beautiful, the more frequent occurrence of these clouds is considered a bad sign for climate change.

Studying the ‘airglow’

Since the 1990s, scientists at Australia’s Davis research station have taken more than 600,000 measurements of the temperatures in the upper atmosphere above Antarctica. We’ve done this using sensitive optical instruments called spectrometers.

These instruments analyse the infrared glow radiating from so-called hydroxyl molecules, which exist in a thin layer about 87km above Earth’s surface. This “airglow” allows us to measure the temperature in this part of the atmosphere.

Scientific equipment
Spectrometer in the optical laboratory at Davis station, Antarctica. John French

Our results show that in the high atmosphere above Antarctica, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases do not have the warming effect they do in the lower atmosphere (by colliding with other molecules). Instead the excess energy is radiated to space, causing a cooling effect.

Our new research more accurately determines this cooling rate. Over 24 years, the upper atmosphere temperature has cooled by about 3℃, or 1.2℃ per decade. That is about ten times greater than the average warming in the lower atmosphere – about 1.3℃ over the past century.

Untangling natural signals

Rising greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to the temperature changes we recorded, but a number of other influences are also at play. These include the seasonal cycle (warmer in winter, colder in summer) and the Sun’s 11-year activity cycle (which involves quieter and more intense solar periods) in the mesosphere.

One challenge of the research was untangling all these merged “signals” to work out the extent to which each was driving the changes we observed.

Surprisingly in this process, we discovered a new natural cycle not previously identified in the polar upper atmosphere. This four-year cycle which we called the Quasi-Quadrennial Oscillation (QQO), saw temperatures vary by 3-4℃ in the upper atmosphere.

Discovering this cycle was like stumbling across a gold nugget in a well-worked claim. More work is needed to determine its origin and full importance.

But the finding has big implications for climate modelling. The physics that drive this cycle are unlikely to be included in global models currently used to predict climate change. But a variation of 3-4℃ every four years is a large signal to ignore.

We don’t yet know what’s driving the oscillation. But whatever the answer, it also seems to affect the winds, sea surface temperatures, atmospheric pressure and sea ice concentrations around Antarctica.

‘Night shining’ clouds

Our research also monitors how cooling temperatures are affecting the occurrence of noctilucent or “night shining” clouds.

Noctilucent clouds are very rare – from Australian Antarctic stations we’ve recorded about ten observations since 1998. They occur at an altitude of about 80km in the polar regions during summer. You can only see them from the ground when the sun is below the horizon during twilight, but still shining on the high atmosphere.


Read more: Humans are encroaching on Antarctica’s last wild places, threatening its fragile biodiversity


The clouds appear as thin, pale blue, wavy filaments. They are comprised of ice crystals and require temperatures around minus 130℃ to form. While impressive, noctilucent clouds are considered a “canary in the coalmine” of climate change. Further cooling of the upper atmosphere as a result of greenhouse gas emissions will likely lead to more frequent noctilucent clouds.

There is already some evidence the clouds are becoming brighter and more widespread in the Northern Hemisphere.

Sea ice in Antarctica
The new temperature cycle is reflected in the concentration of sea ice in Antacrtica. John French

Measuring change

Human-induced climate change threatens to alter radically the conditions for life on our planet. Over the next several decades – less than one lifetime – the average global air temperature is expected to increase, bringing with it sea level rise, weather extremes and changes to ecosystems across the world.

Long term monitoring is important to measure change and test and calibrate ever more complex climate models. Our results contribute to a global network of observations coordinated by the Network for Detection of Mesospheric Change for this purpose.

The accuracy of these models is critical to determining whether government and other interventions to curb climate change are indeed effective.


Read more: Anatomy of a heatwave: how Antarctica recorded a 20.75°C day last month


John French, Atmospheric Physicist at Australian Antarctic Division and Adjunct Lecturer, University of Tasmania; Andrew Klekociuk, Principal Research Scientist, Australian Antarctic Division and Adjunct Senior Lecturer, University of Tasmania, and Frank Mulligan, , National University of Ireland Maynooth

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
116 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RoHa
August 22, 2020 7:43 pm

Are we doomed, then?

LdB
Reply to  RoHa
August 22, 2020 8:20 pm

Yes it’s worse than we thought but not as bad as tomorrow.

Irritable Bill
August 22, 2020 7:44 pm

Is it not scientific law from the pen of Einstein that CO2 cannot rise above the applied temp as CO2 dissipates temp at the exact same rate as it is applied to C02. Therefor C02 cannot force heating….I don’t think this has ever been disproven, and is scientific law….am I wrong? And does anyone have info on this?
Then the Vostok ice core samples which show temps always precede CO2 levels would be the perfect piece of empirical evidence to prove Einstein’s law when discussing global boring. The ice core samples show a rise in C02 levels is due to heat forced evaporation which raises C02 levels. There is no evidence that C02 forces heating in the ice core samples, Martin Feynman would contend that this alone would destroy the global blathering theory, is this “The science” these sociopathic vermin are hyperventilating about? Are Einstein and Feynman science deniers?
When I first heard the climate vermin saying that the science is settled and that no more debate would be entered into…the models were still not including water vapour!! The warmists recognized this was a problem and so added water vapour and their models then showed….the exact same thing, except now it was much worse than previously thought, how do you think Einstein and Feynman would react to this?
See David Evans on climate models for a good time. . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NZuh4_A5kw

Reply to  Irritable Bill
August 22, 2020 9:19 pm

Thanks Bill! I missed that one and even though it’s 8 years old it’s even more relavent today.

Reply to  Irritable Bill
August 22, 2020 9:57 pm

Available CO2 molecules “absorb” IR photons whenever one intersects with it at the right angle and energy, and perhaps position. Emission involves quantum uncertainty, it isn’t predictable but there is probably an average ‘hold’ period (if that means anything). That period is generally very short, on the human time scale, but is not related to the rate of absorption.

John Shotsky
Reply to  AndyHce
August 23, 2020 6:28 am

From memory, when a photon is abosorbed by a gas molecule, its energy is increased. That increased energy is generally lost either in a collision with another molecule, or by radiating a photon itself. The ‘hold time’ is on the order of nanoseconds. That’s why lasers work.

Reply to  John Shotsky
August 26, 2020 7:49 am

The mean time for emission of a photon by and excited CO2 molecule is of the order of millisecs whereas the mean time between collisions in the lower atmosphere is about 10/ nsec.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Irritable Bill
August 22, 2020 11:28 pm

Thanks Bill,
how simplistic and yet precise, well told and spot on.
It is also interesting to read the comment from “Rod Martin, Jr.”, the top comment at moment.

Reply to  Irritable Bill
August 23, 2020 2:26 am

Martin Feynman …… I presume you mean Richard Feynman.

John Shotsky
Reply to  Irritable Bill
August 23, 2020 7:02 am

Everyone should refresh their understanding of the ideal gas laws. The temperature of ANY gas is related to its temperature, pressure and volume. There is no special gas law for CO2, so it cannot behave differently than the other gasses in a given volume. Those are gas LAWS, not greenhouse gas HYPOTHESES (guesses).

Loydo
Reply to  John Shotsky
August 23, 2020 8:47 pm

So why is CO2 opaque to some wave lengths?

Reply to  Irritable Bill
August 23, 2020 7:20 am

Bill
In this 1917 paper:

http://inspirehep.net/record/858448/files/eng.pdf

Einstein says this about radiative heating of a gas:

“During absorption and emission of radiation there is also present a transfer of momentum to the molecules. This means that just the interaction of radiation and molecules leads to a velocity distribution of the latter. This must surely be the same as the velocity distribution which molecules acquire as the result of their mutual interaction by collisions, that is, it must coincide with the Maxwell distribution. We must require that the mean kinetic energy which a molecule per degree of freedom acquires in a Plank radiation field of temperature T be

kT / 2

this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit.”

This means the much hyped IR absorbtion bands of IR are not important since most radiation heat transfer to matter doesn’t involve them.

https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/02/16/albert-einstein-said-no-to-co2-radiative-warming-of-the-atmosphere/

Michael Jankowski
August 22, 2020 8:21 pm

“…Noctilucent clouds are very rare – from Australian Antarctic stations we’ve recorded about ten observations since 1998…While impressive, noctilucent clouds are considered a ‘canary in the coalmine’ of climate change. Further cooling of the upper atmosphere as a result of greenhouse gas emissions will likely lead to more frequent noctilucent clouds…”

A whole ten sightings in 22 years?

Lawrence Ayres
August 22, 2020 8:38 pm

Every time there is a major volcanic eruption or the recent bush fires pour huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere these guys should see the change. Why does it only happen every four years? And why do they assume it’s man made CO2 that causes the changes? There are no records 100 years ago when there may have been similar occurrences so how can they say with certainty that this is man made?

Antero Ollila
August 23, 2020 2:28 am

The absorption by carbon dioxide happens below the altitude of 1 km. At the altitude of tropopause already 98 % of the total absorption by GH gases has happened. What happens thereafter has very little to do with the climate change.

August 23, 2020 2:30 am

,”The density of molecules is so low in the thermosphere that one gas molecule can go about 1 km before it collides with another molecule. Since so little energy is transferred, the air feels very cold. ”
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/geophysical/chapter/layers-of-the-atmosphere/#:~:text=In%20the%20stratosphere%2C%20temperature%20increases,sits%20over%20cooler%2C%20denser%20air.

I’m struggling to see how more CO2 lower will cool it.

Sara
August 23, 2020 4:46 am

Ummmm… what??? Chilling the atmosphere? Are you sure??? Are you positive????

Well, gee, now that throws off all that stuff I was going to do at the next wicca party for keeping the Gaia freaks happy. Have to go back and redo all my ideas and — okay, I can’t do this without giggling.

The They, those important people who think they “know better” than anyone else, found out that they’re not as “know better” as they think they are, so they will eliminate this manifestation of Mother Nature at work, keeping things balanced, because it interferes with Their Doomsday Machinery.

Maybe someone will explain to me (some day, something like that) why it is that these people think they have to meddle, never mind create baloney reports, other than to get money. And when they’re faced with the reality that Mother Nature can take of things for us (on a much grander scale), they toss out what doesn’t suit their “meme”.

It must be sad when they realize that they have no real control over any of it, and the only thing they have is money, which may become crypto currency, even if they don’t want that.

Tom Johnson
August 23, 2020 4:54 am

We don’t yet know what’s driving the oscillation. But whatever the answer, it also seems to affect the winds, sea surface temperatures, atmospheric pressure and sea ice concentrations around Antarctica.

The usual canard that correlation provides zero indication of causation certainly applies here. It’s surprising how many supposedly educated ‘scientists’ are unaware of this.

In addition, the statement that noctilucent clouds have appeared only ten times in 22 years of observations, would preclude any conclusion about the frequency of occurrence. There is simply not enough data. This, of course, is ideal for these ‘scientists’. The only conclusion possible is that “more data are required”.

August 23, 2020 7:11 am

While greenhouse gases are warming Earth’s surface, they’re also causing rapid cooling far above us, at the edge of space.

Not only there. CO2 will inevitably cool the atmosphere by re-radiating incoming IR back out to space at all heights above the emission height. That is, above the troposphere, where the sky above is transparent to IR.

This is the only place where the back-radiation story is actually true. Since there is minimal convection and water vapour, then radiation dominates heat transfer. And the effect is cooling, not warming.

In the troposphere by contrast vertical heat transport is dominated by water vapour and convection and radiation is a minor, marginal player.

John Shotsky
Reply to  Phil Salmon
August 23, 2020 9:36 am

Not sure what you mean when you say convection is a small bit player. Ever seen a thunderhead? That is visual convection at work. Heated air rises, and that is convection. It is THE major player when the sun is present. How on earth would the air we walk around in get heated if it wasn’t from rising warming air? Radiation is the big player when the sun isn’t present.

Reply to  Phil Salmon
August 24, 2020 1:56 pm

No – that was my wording being not clear enough.
I meant radiation is the marginal bit-player in the troposphere. By contrast convection and water processes are much more powerful and significant.

The greenhouse theory is upside down like half of the data they use to justify it.

It happens in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere a d up) and cools the atmosphere by radiating IR out to space.

But in the troposphere it’s overwhelmed by convection and water processes and this insignificant.

Olen
August 23, 2020 7:46 am

What you don’t know can be a bitch and the author stated, in other words, the science is not settled in spite of the prediction.

Will be interesting to find out about seasonal cooling and warming at ground and high up. More work for researchers, and modelers, and politicians.

Matt G
August 23, 2020 8:16 am

“mesosphere”, is extremely sensitive to rising greenhouse gas concentrations.”

The mesosphere is virtually a vacuum next to space with practically near zero ozone, water vapor (7ppm) methane and carbon dioxide. It also has the presence of oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2). Major photochemical species are O2, O3, H2O, O, O1D, H, OH, HO2, CH4, H2, and H2O2.

The minuscule presence of CO2 in the mesosphere (virtually vacuum) means the troposphere has little more influence on the mesosphere as it would the thermosphere or the edge of space. (vacuum) Recent studies shows an increase in CO2 (~ 90–105 km is increasing at a rate of ~ 9–12%/decade) in the upper atmosphere, including the mesosphere. Like the stratosphere, observations have only been occurring during a declining solar activity period, so can’t say it’s one or the other. More likely the photochemical reactions affected by changes in UV for example from the sun, influence the cooling or warming of the upper atmosphere.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016JA023825

“This four-year cycle which we called the Quasi-Quadrennial Oscillation (QQO), saw temperatures vary by 3-4℃ in the upper atmosphere.”

This corresponds to energy changes in the troposphere caused by ENSO phases close to every 4 years.

“Over 24 years, the upper atmosphere temperature has cooled by about 3℃, or 1.2℃ per decade.”

Over 24 years the amount cooled can occur in just 4 years, therefore this means in this case it’s indistinguishable from noise.

Robert of Ottawa
August 23, 2020 8:21 am

Does this also have anything to do with low solar output?

August 23, 2020 11:08 am

[[Our results show that in the high atmosphere above Antarctica, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases do not have the warming effect they do in the lower atmosphere (by colliding with other molecules). Instead the excess energy is radiated to space, causing a cooling effect.]]

How long can the leftist-run U.N. IPCC keep getting away with their sick fake physics CO2 global warming hoax?

CO2 absorbs radiation at 15 microns, which has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C = 193K = -112F, which can’t melt an ice cube, whose Planck radiation max wavelength by the way is 10.6 microns.
CO2’s other absorption wavelengths are 2.7 microns and 4.3 microns. 2.7 microns corresponds to a Planck radiation temperature of 797C (1070K) (1466F), and 4.3 microns corresponds to one of 401C (675K) (755F), neither of which the Earth’s surface is capable of reaching outside of volcanoes.

Actually, those short wavelengths are found in the sunlight in the stratosphere, allowing CO2 molecules to absorb and block that energy from reaching the surface. You can call it a cooling effect if you want, but what’s really cooled is the surface.

Never can CO2 heat anything, period. -80C isn’t heat. Cold isn’t heat. Cold is cold. Therefore, we never have to worry about CO2 emissions, and any attempt to punish anybody for them is a scam.

Notice the comment “by colliding with other molecules”. As 0.04% of the atmosphere CO2 molecules constantly collide with nitrogen and oxygen molecules to equalize temperatures, which is just another cooling process. Are the hoaxers now claiming that CO2 emissions cause more CO2 molecules in the lower atmosphere to collide with “other molecules” and cause global warming? The collisions help cool not heat the atmosphere. Like they said in Smokey and the Bandit, The welcome mat is out and you’re coming home. 🙂

96% of IPCC scientists allegedly push the -80C CO2 warming scam, so let’s cut off 96% of the funding and keep our money. After being fired the IPCC fake scientists can retrain for real careers like plumbing, hair styling, food service, and truck driving. 🙂

http://www.historyscoper.com/mycousinco2.html

Reply to  TL Winslow
August 26, 2020 7:42 am

TL Winslow August 23, 2020 at 11:08 am
[[Our results show that in the high atmosphere above Antarctica, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases do not have the warming effect they do in the lower atmosphere (by colliding with other molecules). Instead the excess energy is radiated to space, causing a cooling effect.]]

How long can the leftist-run U.N. IPCC keep getting away with their sick fake physics CO2 global warming hoax?

Actually their physics is correct, it is your nonsense regarding the Planck radiation temperature which is fake.
Your -80ºC emitter emits ~6 times less 15 micron radiation than one at 300K.

Micky Redmire
August 23, 2020 12:05 pm

“>While greenhouse gases are warming Earth’s surface, <"

In layperson's terms, has that now been proven? I must have missed that.

Matt
August 23, 2020 12:28 pm

There are no carbon emissions on this planet. You typically jump on it when it is something you don’t like to hear or read – yet here it is in your own headline…

Mack
August 24, 2020 7:30 pm

“While greenhouse gases are warming the Earth’s surface”

Bullshit!

August 26, 2020 12:15 am

ALL gases are greenhouse gases as, like all substances, all absorb heat, not necessarily by absorbing IR, which is only one method of transmitting energy. (Others being convection, including wind, and conduction.) Therefore CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas.