Claim: NASA Satellites See Upper Atmosphere Cooling and Contracting Due to Climate Change

From NASA

Jun 30, 2021

The sky isn’t falling, but scientists have found that parts of the upper atmosphere are gradually contracting in response to rising human-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Combined data from three NASA satellites have produced a long-term record that reveals the mesosphere, the layer of the atmosphere 30 to 50 miles above the surface, is cooling and contracting. Scientists have long predicted this effect of human-driven climate change, but it has been difficult to observe the trends over time.

“You need several decades to get a handle on these trends and isolate what’s happening due to greenhouse gas emissions, solar cycle changes, and other effects,” said Scott Bailey, an atmospheric scientist at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, and lead of the study, published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. “We had to put together three satellites’ worth of data.”

Together, the satellites provided about 30 years of observations, indicating that the summer mesosphere over Earth’s poles is cooling four to five degrees Fahrenheit and contracting 500 to 650 feet per decade. Without changes in human carbon dioxide emissions, the researchers expect these rates to continue.

Moving satellite images show electric blue and white clouds swirling around a top-down view of the North Pole.
These AIM images span June 6-June 18, 2021, when the Northern Hemisphere noctilucent cloud season was well underway. The colors — from dark blue to light blue and bright white — indicate the clouds’ albedo, which refers to the amount of light that a surface reflects compared to the total sunlight that falls upon it. Things that have a high albedo are bright and reflect a lot of light. Things that don’t reflect much light have a low albedo, and they are dark.
Credits: NASA/HU/VT/CU-LASP/AIM/Joy Ng

Since the mesosphere is much thinner than the part of the atmosphere we live in, the impacts of increasing greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, differ from the warming we experience at the surface. One researcher compared where we live, the troposphere, to a thick quilt.

“Down near Earth’s surface, the atmosphere is thick,” said James Russell, a study co-author and atmospheric scientist at Hampton University in Virginia. “Carbon dioxide traps heat just like a quilt traps your body heat and keeps you warm.” In the lower atmosphere, there are plenty of molecules in close proximity, and they easily trap and transfer Earth’s heat between each other, maintaining that quilt-like warmth.

That means little of Earth’s heat makes it to the higher, thinner mesosphere. There, molecules are few and far between. Since carbon dioxide also efficiently emits heat, any heat captured by carbon dioxide sooner escapes to space than it finds another molecule to absorb it. As a result, an increase in greenhouses gases like carbon dioxide means more heat is lost to space — and the upper atmosphere cools. When air cools, it contracts, the same way a balloon shrinks if you put it in the freezer.

This cooling and contracting didn’t come as a surprise. For years, “models have been showing this effect,” said Brentha Thurairajah, a Virginia Tech atmospheric scientist who contributed to the study. “It would have been weirder if our analysis of the data didn’t show this.”

While previous studies have observed this cooling, none have used a data record of this length or shown the upper atmosphere contracting. The researchers say these new results boost their confidence in our ability to model the upper atmosphere’s complicated changes.The team analyzed how temperature and pressure changed over 29 years, using all three data sets, which covered the summer skies of the North and South Poles. They examined the stretch of sky 30 to 60 miles above the surface. At most altitudes, the mesosphere cooled as carbon dioxide increased. That effect meant the height of any given atmospheric pressure fell as the air cooled. In other words, the mesosphere was contracting.

Earth’s Middle Atmosphere

Though what happens in the mesosphere does not directly impact humans, the region is an important one. The upper boundary of the mesosphere, about 50 miles above Earth, is where the coolest atmospheric temperatures are found. It’s also where the neutral atmosphere begins transitioning to the tenuous, electrically charged gases of the ionosphere.

The layers of the atmosphere
This infographic outlines the layers of Earth’s atmosphere. Click to explore in full size.Credits: NASA
Explore an expanded version of this infographic.

Even higher up, 150 miles above the surface, atmospheric gases cause satellite drag, the friction that tugs satellites out of orbit. Satellite drag also helps clear space junk. When the mesosphere contracts, the rest of the upper atmosphere above sinks with it. As the atmosphere contracts, satellite drag may wane — interfering less with operating satellites, but also leaving more space junk in low-Earth orbit.

The mesosphere is also known for its brilliant blue ice clouds. They’re called noctilucent or polar mesospheric clouds, so named because they live in the mesosphere and tend to huddle around the North and South Poles. The clouds form in summer, when the mesosphere has all three ingredients to produce the clouds: water vapor, very cold temperatures, and dust from meteors that burn up in this part of the atmosphere. Noctilucent clouds were spotted over northern Canada on May 20, kicking off the start of the Northern Hemisphere’s noctilucent cloud season.

Because the clouds are sensitive to temperature and water vapor, they’re a useful signal of change in the mesosphere. “We understand the physics of these clouds,” Bailey said. In recent decades, the clouds have drawn scientists’ attention because they’re behaving oddly. They’re getting brighter, drifting farther from the poles, and appearing earlier than usual. And, there seem to be more of them than in years past.

“The only way you would expect them to change this way is if the temperature is getting colder and water vapor is increasing,” Russell said. Colder temperatures and abundant water vapor are both linked with climate change in the upper atmosphere.

Currently, Russell serves as principal investigator for AIM, short for Aeronomy of Ice in the Mesosphere, the newest satellite of the three that contributed data to the study. Russell has served as a leader on all three NASA missions: AIM, the instrument SABER on TIMED (Thermosphere, Ionosphere, Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics), and the instrument HALOE on the since-retired UARS (Upper Atmospherics Research Satellite).

TIMED and AIM launched in 2001 and 2007, respectively, and both are still operating. The UARS mission ran from 1991 to 2005. “I always had in my mind that we would be able to put them together in a long-term change study,” Russell said. The study, he said, demonstrates the importance of long-term, space-based observations across the globe.

In the future, the researchers expect more striking displays of noctilucent clouds that stray farther from the poles. Because this analysis focused on the poles at summertime, Bailey said he plans to examine these effects over longer periods of time and — following the clouds — study a wider stretch of the atmosphere.


By Lina Tran
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
,

Greenbelt, Md.

Last Updated: Jun 30, 2021

Editor: Lina Tran

2.5 19 votes
Article Rating
165 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ozspeaksup
July 1, 2021 2:25 am

personally I think theyre full of sh*t
heat rises so clouds or not the heats going to go up especially if theres room to expand
and supercold top atmosphere also means larger Ozone holes and not just at the poles as showed over UK some yrs ago

Charles Higley
Reply to  ozspeaksup
July 1, 2021 7:58 am

NASA has know for years that the atmosphere is contracting and only the one explanation-fits-all pseudo scientists pretend that climate change does everything.

The ISS does not have to be pushed back to higher orbit as often as it used to because the thin upper atmosphere is moves through has been contracting and getting thinner. Duh, cooling, man.

Trying to pretend that the contraction makes for better barriers in terms of gases is just a joke. Heat is not trapped by imaginary gases that act like perfect reflectors. List the “researchers” and yank their degrees.

Reply to  Charles Higley
July 1, 2021 11:52 pm

As Karl Popper said, anything that claims to explain everything explains nothing.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Charles Higley
July 2, 2021 11:29 am

Remember we have a political “leadership” change in the US to the left, so everything becomes political. If it got colder, we would be told it’s due to global warming.

Vuk
Reply to  ozspeaksup
July 1, 2021 12:26 pm

Here is a more honest report from few years ago

“Earth’s thermosphere went through its biggest contraction in 43 years.
Researchers expected to see a contraction due to a solar minimum, but not this significant.
One explanation may be an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Scientists are mulling over why part of the Earth’s atmosphere recently suffered its biggest collapse since records began, and is only now starting to rebound.
The collapse occurred in a region known as the thermosphere, a rarefied layer of the planet’s upper atmosphere between 90 and 600 kilometers (56 to 373 miles) above the surface, which shields us from the sun’s far and extreme ultra violet (EUV) radiation.
A report in Geophysical Research Letters by a team led by John Emmert from the United States Naval Research Laboratory has found that the thermosphere went through its biggest contraction in 43 years.
The thermosphere usually expands and contracts in line with the sun’s 11-year solar cycle. During solar maximum when solar activity increases, it causes the thermosphere to heat up — reaching temperatures of 1100°C — and expand like a marshmallow in a camp fire. The opposite happens during solar minimum.
Currently, the sun is experiencing its longest solar minimum on record, with little sunspot activity and few solar flares or coronal mass ejections.
To see what effect solar minimum is having on the thermosphere, Emmert and colleagues monitored the impact of atmospheric drag on satellites in low-Earth orbit (LEO). These satellites fly through the thermosphere, so the thicker the thermosphere the more drag it puts on spacecraft.
The researchers expected to see a contraction in line with solar minimum, but the level of collapse was up to three times greater than solar activity alone can explain.
They believe an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may explain the contraction. CO2 has a cooling effect in the thermosphere, which would then amplify the impact of the extended solar minimum.
But the researchers found low levels of EUV radiation only account for about 30 percent of the collapse, while the increase in CO2 levels account for another 10 percent at most.
That still leaves some 60 percent, which can’t be explained by current modelling.
Furthermore the current anomaly appears to have commenced in 2005, well before the current solar minimum began.
Emmert and colleagues think there may be an as yet unidentified climatological tipping point involving both energy and chemical feedbacks.
Phil Wilkinson of the Ionospheric Prediction Service with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology says it highlights something is going on that science doesn’t understand.”

whiten
Reply to  Vuk
July 1, 2021 1:08 pm

Vuk,

It is the Sun, isn’t it?

Last edited 25 days ago by whiten
Jean Parisot
Reply to  Vuk
July 1, 2021 1:11 pm

while the increase in CO2 levels account for another 10 percent at most”

At Most? So, they indexed their analysis at 10% intervals and tossed CO2 into the bottom decade. Effect could easily be 0.02%.

whiten
Reply to  Jean Parisot
July 1, 2021 1:17 pm

No decade talking there.

Billions of years actually.

Clyde
Reply to  Vuk
July 1, 2021 2:17 pm

Three reasons:

1) Water vapor isn’t a ‘global warming’ gas… it acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense) below the tropopause.
———-
You know, the refrigeration cycle (Earth) [A/C system]:

A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an A/C compressor], it emits radiation to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that A/C compressor], and the cycle repeats.

That’s kind of why, after all, the humid adiabatic lapse rate (~3.5 to ~6.5 K / km) is lower than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (~9.81 K / km).

The lapse rate is said to average ~6.5 K / km. 6.5 K / km * 5.105 km = 33.1825 K. That is not the ‘greenhouse effect’, it’s the tropospheric lapse rate. The climate loons have conflated the two.

Polyatomic molecules (CO2, H2O) reduce the adiabatic lapse rate (ALR), not increase it (dry ALR: ~9.81 K / km; humid ALR: ~3.5 to ~6.5 K / km) by dint of their higher specific heat capacity and/or latent heat capacity convectively transiting more energy (as compared to the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics), thus attempting to reduce temperature differential with altitude, while at the same time radiatively cooling the upper atmosphere faster than they can convectively warm it… they increase thermodynamic coupling between heat source and sink… they are coolants.

That’s kind of why, after all, CO2 isn’t used as a filler gas in double-pane windows… if it was such a terrific ‘heat trapping’ gas, it’d be used as such. It’s not. Low DOF, low specific heat capacity monoatomics generally are.

The effective emission height is ~5.105 km.

7 – 13 µm: >280 K (near-surface).
>17 µm: ~260 – ~240 K (~5km in the troposphere).
13 – 17 µm: ~220 K (near the tropopause).

The emission profile is equivalent to a BB with a temperature of 255 K, and thus an effective emission height of 5.105 km.

9.81 K / km * 5.105 km = 50.08005 K dry adiabatic lapse rate (due to homonuclear diatomics and monoatomics), which would give a surface temperature of 255 + 50.08005 = 305.08005 K. Sans CO2, that number would be even higher.

Water vapor (primarily) reduces that to 272.8675 K – 288.1825 K, depending upon humidity. Other polyatomics (CO2) contribute to cooling, to a lesser extent. The higher the concentration of polyatomics, the more vertical the lapse rate, the cooler the surface. Also remember: the atmosphere is stable as long as actual lapse rate is less than ALR… and a greater concentration of polyatomic molecules reduces ALR… thus convection increases.
———-

2) CO2 isn’t a ‘global warming’ gas… it acts as a net atmospheric coolant at all altitudes except a negligible warming at the tropopause (see below).
———-comment image
That’s from an atmospheric research scientist at NASA JPL.
comment image
That’s from the Clough and Iacono study.

Gee… adding more of the predominant upper-atmospheric radiative coolant causes more emitters per unit volume, which causes more emission per unit volume, which causes more emission to space, which causes a larger loss of energy from the system known as ‘Earth’, which causes cooling… who knew? LOL

It is the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics which are the actual ‘greenhouse’ gases… remember that an actual greenhouse works by hindering convection.

Monoatomics (Ar) have no vibrational mode quantum states, and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR. Homonuclear diatomics (O2, N2) have no net magnetic dipole and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR unless that net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision.

In an atmosphere consisting of solely monoatomics and diatomics, the particles (atoms / molecules) could pick up energy via conduction by contacting the surface, just as the polyatomics do; they could convect just as the polyatomics do… but once in the upper atmosphere, they could not as effectively radiatively emit that energy, the upper atmosphere would warm, lending less buoyancy to convecting air, thus hindering convection… and that’s how an actual greenhouse works, by hindering convection.

The environmental lapse rate would necessitate that the surface also warms, given that the lapse rate is ‘anchored’ at TOA (that altitude at which the atmosphere effectively becomes transparent to any given wavelength of radiation).

The surface would also have to warm because that 76.2% of energy…comment image
… which is currently removed from the surface via convection and evaporation would have to be removed nearly solely via radiation (there would be some collisional perturbation of N2 and O2, and thus some emission in the atmosphere)…. and a higher radiant exitance implies a higher surface temperature.

The chance of any N2 or O2 molecule colliding with water vapor is ~3% on average in the troposphere, and for CO2 it’s only ~0.0415%. Logic dictates that as atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases, the likelihood of N2 or O2 colliding with it also increases, and thus increases the chance that N2 or O2 can transfer its translational and / or vibrational mode energy to the vibrational mode energy of CO2, which can then shed that energy to space via radiative emission. (And yes, t-v and v-v collisional processes do occur from N2 to CO2… if you doubt me, I can post the maths and studies which prove it.)

Thus, common sense dictates that the thermal energy of the 99% of the atmosphere which cannot radiatively emit must be transferred to the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ (CO2 being a lesser contributor in the lower atmosphere and the largest contributor in the upper atmosphere, water vapor being the main contributor in the lower atmosphere) which can radiatively emit and thus shed that energy to space.

So can anyone explain how increasing the concentration of the major radiative coolants in the atmosphere (and thus increasing the likelihood that N2 and O2 will transfer their energy to those coolant gases and then out to space via radiative emission) will result in more ‘heat trapping’, causing global warming? I thought not.
———-

3) The climate loons are, as usual, provably diametrically opposite to reality.
———-
The climate loons mis-use the S-B equation, using the form meant for idealized blackbody objects upon graybody objects:
q = σ T^4
… and slapping ε onto that (sometimes).

Their mis-use of the S-B equation inflates radiant exitance far above what it actually is for all graybody objects, necessitating that they carry that error forward through their calculations and cancel it on the back end, essentially subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly and thus far too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow… which leads especially scientifically-illiterate climate loons to conclude that energy actually can flow ‘cooler to warmer’ (a violation of 2LoT and Stefan’s Law).
comment image

The S-B equation for graybody objects isn’t meant to be used to subtract a fictive ‘cooler to warmerenergy flow from the incorrectly-calculated and thus too high ‘warmer to coolerenergy flow, it’s meant to be used to subtract cooler object energy density (temperature is a measure of energy density, the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s constant) from warmer object energy density. Radiant exitance of the warmer object is predicated upon the energy density gradient.

Their problem, however, is that their take on radiative energetic exchange necessitates that at thermodynamic equilibrium, objects are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation, and they’ve forgotten about entropy… they cite Clausius, but Clausius was discussing a cyclical process by which external energy did work to return the system to its original state (for irreversible processes), or which returned to its original state because it is an idealized reversible process… except idealized reversible processes don’t exist. All real-world processes are irreversible processes, including radiative energy transfer, because radiative energy transfer is an entropic temporal process.

So the climate loons are forced to either ignore entropy completely, or to claim that radiative energetic exchange is an idealized reversible process… it’s not, and that completely disproves their blather.

Their mathematical fraudery is what led to their ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy gradient‘ narrative (in their keeping with the long-debunked Prevost Principle), which led to their ‘backradiation‘ narrative, which led to their ‘CAGW‘ narrative, all of it definitively, mathematically, scientifically proven to be fallacious.
———-

Upside down, backwards, inside out and diametrically opposite to reality… the natural state of every single liberal. Almost as if there’s something wrong with their brains. LOL

Another Joe
Reply to  Clyde
July 1, 2021 7:23 pm

You nailed it!

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Clyde
July 2, 2021 3:05 am

ah thats the right n proper sciency answer to it
writing theyre full of sh*t was easier;-)))
lol
upvotes to you

Jean Parisot
Reply to  Clyde
July 2, 2021 7:19 am

My FTIR loved this post.

Reply to  Clyde
July 2, 2021 11:19 am

Clyde
Great comment!
I can see how water is a refrigerant owing to its phase changes which cause enhanced convective transport to the upper atmosphere (above the emission height).

But how does the non-condensing gas CO2 refrigerate? It is evenly mixed so won’t be specifically convected. It would have to be a purely (differential) radiative effect.

The observation of increasing noctilucent cloud recently would seem to confirm increased transport of water to the upper atmosphere and thus increased water refrigeration.

C7878808-996D-4AF4-9B01-14A9032953B2.jpeg
Clyde
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
July 2, 2021 2:26 pm

It’s not exactly a refrigerant in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense, because at prevalent Earth temperatures, it doesn’t have latent heat capacity (it’s usually too warm for CO2 to undergo phase change).

But it is a radiative molecule, and the only way the planet can shed energy is via radiative emission to space. CO2 is a minor contributor to that below the tropopause, and the predominant contributor to that above the tropopause, as the NASA and Clough & Iacono studies show.

Keep in mind that the only effect of tropospheric CO2 thermalization of radiation centered around 14.98352 µm is an increase in CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), which increases convection. Given that convection and evaporation removes ~76.2% of surface energy, that increase in CAPE increases convective transport of surface energy in the higher specific heat capacity of CO2 and H2O (as compared to the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics), and in the latent heat capacity of H2O.

A parcel of air with a higher concentration of polyatomic molecules will have higher specific heat capacity and (in the case of water), higher latent heat capacity… it’ll convect more energy as compared to the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics.

So the 99% of the atmosphere (N2, O2, Ar) which can’t effectively radiatively emit must transfer their translational mode kinetic energy and (for N2, O2) vibrational mode quantum state energy to the vibrational mode quantum state energy of CO2, which then radiatively emits. More CO2 molecules in a parcel of air means more radiative emitters in a parcel of air and a higher chance that N2 and O2 will collide with CO2 and transfer energy to it. More radiative emitters means a higher radiant exitance per volume, which means more radiative flux, and given the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation, the majority of that emitted radiation will be upwelling and exit to space.

So an increased atmospheric CO2 concentration represents an increased radiative loss of energy to the system known as ‘Earth’, which is a cooling process.

You’ll note that reality is diametrically opposite to what the climate loons claim happens… they claim CO2 is a ‘heat trapping’ gas. I notice they tend to do that a lot, being diametrically opposite to reality.

There are other means of disproving the climate loon ‘backradiation’ claim… such as asking:

If ‘backradiation’ causes CAGW, and the troposphere is opaque to 14.98352 µm radiation (extinction depth of ~10.4 m at 415 ppm CO2, ~9.7 m at 830 ppm CO2), is all this ‘backradiation’ coming from that ultra-thin layer of atmosphere within ~10.4 m of the surface? And don’t you climate loons claim that energy is being thermalized? Are you double-counting that energy?

Truth Be Told
Reply to  Vuk
July 1, 2021 3:13 pm

“We believe CO2 causes everything and solar cycles too”, sang the Climate Choir as the Climate Clergy preached the Climate Gospel to the Climate Faithful.
Actually I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that a study mentioned solar activity!

Geoff Sherrington
July 1, 2021 2:28 am

This account of the paper is quite questionable. Take the sentence “That means little of Earth’s heat makes it to the higher, thinner mesosphere”. All heat generated on Earth eventually leaves the atmosphere, passing through the mesosphere.. I have no idea what they mean by that sentence.
Next, the blanket analogy. If the lower atmosphere acts like a blanket, keeping it warmer lower down, it does so by making it cooler higher up. Otherwise, we would have the atmosphere generating excess heat, rather than merely distributing it between lower parts and higher parts of the atmosphere.
Finally, while noting that ” what’s happening due to greenhouse gas emissions, solar cycle changes, and other effects” they limit the effect to greenhouse gases, failing to note that there is still no fundamental proof of the magnitude of any link between greenhouses gases and temperature changes. That is, they still have no idea about the foundation of their speculation, because they cannot calculate a climate sensitivity like ECS or even show is not zero. Or even show whether sensitivity .to CO2 is a positive or negative number, like the social cost of carbon and other fairy tales..
Science faces future tasks to correct guesswork and favourite stories replacing traditional standards of observation, data, uncertainty and logical inference. Geoff S

Joao Martins
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
July 1, 2021 6:16 am

“Science faces future tasks to correct guesswork and favourite stories replacing traditional standards of observation, data, uncertainty and logical inference.”

Very well stated. Congratulations.

I also think that the highest priority task of science, now, is not making new discoveries or enlarging knowledge, but make a thorough cleanup of the “house” and reject and eliminate all the superstition that has been poisoning it in the recent decades. Science and (what is more important!) society can live with the present level of knowledge for some, not very short, time; but it will not survive the confusion and the misleading tendencies that have been increasingly contaminating its practice (and practicioners) and the minds of lay people.

Greg
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
July 1, 2021 9:10 am

Yes, I was expecting to see some discussion of the effect of solar changes and how they had eliminated that from the record. Oddly, after acknowledging it , they never mention it again.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
July 2, 2021 12:46 pm

I knew it was fossil heat after all. Blame it on a dinosaur workout.

Andy Espersen
July 1, 2021 2:45 am

I was always taught that hot stuff would rise – I cannot figure out how hot air will remain down below (like a blanket!!!???!!!).

Scissor
Reply to  Andy Espersen
July 1, 2021 4:16 am

The blanket arguments include a lot of sheet.

Last edited 26 days ago by Scissor
clarence.t
Reply to  Scissor
July 1, 2021 9:37 pm

I have yet to find a blanket that cools me down when I get too warm. !

Sara
Reply to  Andy Espersen
July 1, 2021 5:55 am

Well, if you look at clouds from both sides now, from up and down and still somehow, it’s CLOUDs’ illusions you may find. They really don’t know CLOUDS at all.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Sara
July 1, 2021 2:51 pm

Thanks for that little reminder, Joni!

pochas94
July 1, 2021 2:48 am

This is really funny!

whiten
Reply to  pochas94
July 1, 2021 12:12 pm

Indeed

😝

Pablo
July 1, 2021 2:51 am

“Carbon dioxide traps heat just like a quilt traps your body heat and keeps you warm.” 

No it doesn’t. What is this baby talk?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Pablo
July 1, 2021 4:08 am

“said James Russell, a study co-author and atmospheric scientist at Hampton University in Virginia.”

Hampton U should be embarrassed to have his name associated with theirs.

Greg
Reply to  Pablo
July 1, 2021 9:12 am

Goes along with the balloon in the freezer crap, as though that is something everyone does and is intimately familiar with.

There’s nothing worse than scientists trying to talk down to “ordinary” people.

JOHN CHISM
July 1, 2021 2:52 am

But didn’t an earlier IPCC report – once given in an article by WUWT that I cannot find anymore – say that human CO2 contributions are like 1-2% of the 415 ppm of the total CO2? Papers like this article make it sound like all the CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made when the vast majority is made by nature/natural occurrences.

Clyde
Reply to  JOHN CHISM
July 1, 2021 2:54 pm

3.63% of total CO2 flux, per IPCC AR4.

Peta of Newark
July 1, 2021 2:56 am

Quote:”Since carbon dioxide also efficiently emits heat”
Complete bollox. What planet are these people on?

At atmospheric temps and pressures, CO2 has virtually (to 3 decimal places) emissivity.
Bizarrely for such a heavy molecule, it also has very low thermal conductivity

The Stratosphere is Earth’s Global Thermometer, an extremely sensitive Gas Thermometer as all the best ones are.
If it is shrinking (getting colder), so is Earth

It gets even worse when they assert that a steepening Thermal Gradient between Troposphere and Stratosphere cause less heat loss.
It breaks Every Rule in The Book

https://postimg.cc/bdn7xW5N

Eduard
July 1, 2021 3:03 am

Summer? Where?

hiskorr
Reply to  Eduard
July 1, 2021 9:55 am

Simple-speak for us simpletons, meaning “period of most sunshine wherever I am.” Sort of like saying “The sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening.” does not imply geocentrism.

Editor
July 1, 2021 3:11 am

“Together, the satellites provided about 30 years of observations, indicating that the summer mesosphere over Earth’s poles is cooling four to five degrees Fahrenheit “.

This is curious. Why is the mesosphere cooling so much more at the poles? CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere, but not completely. CO2 concentration at the South Pole is lower than the global average. Also, the amount of outgoing IR from Earth’s surface is lower at the poles than it is where the surface is warmer. The ‘blanket’ effect of CO2 is therefore a bit lower at the poles than over warmer parts. It would seem to follow that the greatest cooling of the mesosphere should be at lower latitudes, not at the poles.

But there’s another curious thing about this report: If my memory is correct then the IPCC reports predicted that the stratosphere would cool. Chapter 9 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change in the IPCC report makes plenty of mention of stratospheric cooling, but no mention at all of the mesosphere.

I wonder whether they are making up the story, or cherry-picking a little bit of the atmosphere, in order to make it sound like the models are working. Comments on this would be appreciated.

The Dark Lord
Reply to  Mike Jonas
July 1, 2021 6:51 am

CO2 is NOT well mixed … as the sattelites have shown …

MarkW
Reply to  The Dark Lord
July 1, 2021 8:36 am

The satellites have shown that the CO2 concentrations vary by a few ppm from one place to another. That does not mean that CO2 is not well mixed.
You really need to look at the legends before you try to interpret those charts.

Reply to  The Dark Lord
July 1, 2021 10:02 am

Just stirred – not well mixed.

RoHa
Reply to  Anti_griff
July 2, 2021 10:06 pm

Needs to be shaken, not stirred.

Jean Parisot
Reply to  The Dark Lord
July 1, 2021 1:17 pm

Are the CO2 isotopes associated with human activity well mixed?

whiten
Reply to  Mike Jonas
July 1, 2021 8:29 am

Mike,

The problem with the “blanket” effect is that even as a very simplified “model”, it actually does not mean either CO2 effect or GHE.
It actually “works” as an example for Radiative effect in overall, where main one is sunshine, not GHE.

The “fact”, of the observed and detected cooling and contraction of atmosphere,
especially in the polar regions, means that there is no more warming in the “pipeline”, and soon the modern global warming period will come to an end.

It is expected that;
if earth’s system had to shed extra energy accumulated, aka the energy radiative in “origin”,
it is bound to decrease the footprint of it, during that “process”,
by the means of the thermal and physical state of the atmosphere…
as this happens to be a natural coupling condition.

CO2 has not much to do with it,
unless addressed as a tracer helping with better understanding and unraveling of the system,
as it happens to be the most tightly and clearly component in atmosphere following the thermal atmospheric behaviour over long time periods.

Where GHE potential has no any saying over the atmosphere’s thermal variation,
and when in the same time,
CO2 or any other minor GHGs have no much saying or potential over the GHE… as that barely at 10%… at the most stretched.

cheers

Last edited 25 days ago by whiten
whiten
Reply to  whiten
July 1, 2021 1:13 pm

This actually is proof of time wasting.

Fare and square,

And am bound to accept it.

Last edited 25 days ago by whiten
whiten
Reply to  whiten
July 1, 2021 2:20 pm

I think I understand now,
the clause, the painful one,
like that of Mosher and Stokes…

It is very stupid, of and from the stupids.
No, fixing there… ever forevah…

pHil R
Reply to  Mike Jonas
July 1, 2021 9:05 am

Mike,

Now that you mention it (because I don’t refer regularly to IPCC) that was my recollection also, that they predicted stratospheric cooling and I don’t recall any reference to mesospheric cooling (but too lazy to go back and research). Wonder why they went from a tropospheric blanket to the mesosphere, completely skipping the stratosphere.

whiten
Reply to  pHil R
July 1, 2021 9:18 am

These, guys are referring to models, GCMs.

GCMs do thermal expansion of atmosphere without any physical expansion of it.

Do you get their point made now,
when spinned around CO2?

cheers

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Mike Jonas
July 1, 2021 1:08 pm

“The ‘blanket’ effect of CO2 is therefore a bit lower at the poles than over warmer parts”

Hi Mike,
That is not correct with my understanding. It’s the exact opposite based on the often measured and documented physics of CO2.

There are a number of radiation frequency band widths in the long wave radiation spectrum for greenhouse gases to absorb. Water vapor/H2O is 95% or so of the greenhouse gas on the planet. This is massive enough to saturate some of the bands which absorb LW energy.

CO2 also absorbs LW radiation at some of the same frequency band widths as H2O. Where there is a high amount of water vapor/H2O in the air……… band widths where H2O and CO2 share absorption abilities are more saturated already by the abundant H2O….so CO2 is less efficient at absorbing additional LW radiation.

In the areas of the planet with lower amounts of water vapor/H2O, the same frequency wave bands are NOT saturated and it allows CO2 to absorb MORE radiation.

Cold air cannot hold us much water vapor so very cold air(even at 100% RELATIVE humidity) is dry air. This is why the highest latitudes have seen the warming amplified by something like 3 times compared to the humid, mid/lower latitudes.

This is no theory…………its a proven law of physics and meteorology!

https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/GWnonlinear.htm

This is not making a case on whether its good or bad(I believe that warming the coldest places, during the coldest times of year the most is a GOOD thing and that the current climate is that of a climate optimum, not a crisis).

It’s just stating an irrefutable law of physics.

There are plenty of scientists with their own theories about why the poles are warming much faster(we know with 100% certainty the higher latitudes are warming faster in the northern hemisphere, which is less affected by oceans as the southern hemisphere) but this explanation above is the one that I came to on my own as a meteorologist. I might be wrong on that part but my confidence is pretty high.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warmingpoles.html

Editor
Reply to  Mike Maguire
July 1, 2021 10:57 pm

Mike Maguire – Thanks. No climate pronouncement ever seems to add up properly when one looks into it a bit further. It’s all very well them saying that the CO2 effect is greater at the poles because the air there is dry, but surface temperatures in East Antarctica (the large cold desert (very dry) area that surrounds the S Pole) have not increased. So – nice theory but no bikkies for them.

Forrest Gardener
July 1, 2021 3:16 am

The upper atmosphere is cooling and contracting because the rest of the atmosphere is warming.

Ok. Let’s go with that.

Clyde
Reply to  Forrest Gardener
July 1, 2021 3:01 pm

Sort of like saying, “You turned on the heater at one end of the room, so the other end of the room got colder.” Climate Loon phantasy fyziks make no sense. LOL

fretslider
July 1, 2021 3:17 am

For years, “models have been showing this effect”

Largely because they’ve been programmed to.

This comes across as another one of those ‘global warming causes cold’ type yarns

Last edited 26 days ago by fretslider
whiten
Reply to  fretslider
July 1, 2021 8:43 am

fretslider,

careful with the ‘double speak”, of this ‘smarties’.

They in the core of that claim, are not even wrong.

cheers

Chris Nisbet
Reply to  fretslider
July 1, 2021 11:18 am

Do models ‘show’ us anything?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
July 1, 2021 3:03 pm

Too often people seem to believe that the output from models is some sort of “data” that provides us with insight.

July 1, 2021 4:12 am

Combined data from three NASA satellites have produced a long-term record that reveals the mesosphere, the layer of the atmosphere 30 to 50 miles above the surface, is cooling and contracting.

Willem69
July 1, 2021 4:17 am

regarding the blue clouds:
when the mesosphere has all three ingredients to produce the clouds: water vapor, very cold temperatures, and dust from meteors that burn up in this part of the atmosphere”.

And:
”“The only way you would expect them to change this way is if the temperature is getting colder and water vapor is increasing,” Russell said. Colder temperatures and abundant water vapor are both linked with climate change in the upper atmosphere”

they conveniently miss the third ingredient in the second quote.
Maybe we should stop junking up the sky and send up less satellites?

Best,
willem

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Willem69
July 1, 2021 9:53 am

” ‘The only way you would expect them to change this way is if the temperature is getting colder and water vapor is increasing,’ Russell said. Colder temperatures and abundant water vapor are both linked with climate change in the upper atmosphere.”

Apparently, James Russell has never used a psychrometric chart or table . . . if he had he would know that the colder the atmosphere is the less absolute humidity it can have.

With such a statement I find it hard to believe Russel is currently serving as principal investigator on the AIM satellite, but there you have it.

Moreover, if anyone needs further evidence that the above NASA press release is just an assembly of garbage, look at these two back-to-back contradictory statements taken verbatim from that PR:
” ‘We understand the physics of these clouds,’ Bailey said. In recent decades, the clouds have drawn scientists’ attention because they’re behaving oddly.”
(my underlining emphasis added)

Pitiful.

Last edited 25 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 1, 2021 10:20 am

Translated: We think we understand the physics of these clouds; however, in recent decades, they are not behaving as we think they should.

A reasonable person would conclude that they don’t understand the clouds as well as they think they do.

davetherealist
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 1, 2021 11:10 am

that was a real head scratcher for me too. So many contradictions and just silly speculation offered as ‘science’ For Gods Sake, the atmosphere is NOT like a blanket. This article reads more like something from the Onion than from NASA

dk_
July 1, 2021 4:25 am

This cooling and contracting didn’t come as a surprise. For years, “models have been showing this effect,” said Brentha Thurairajah, a Virginia Tech atmospheric scientist who contributed to the study. “It would have been weirder if our analysis of the data didn’t show this.”

Confirmation bias, in a nutshell. Of course their analysis shows what they expected.

They can’t really explain how warming causes cooling, without getting into a lot of doubletalk.

eyesonu
Reply to  dk_
July 1, 2021 11:11 am

For years, “models have been showing this effect,” said Brentha Thurairajah, a Virginia Tech atmospheric scientist who contributed to the study. “It would have been weirder if our analysis of the data didn’t show this”

That sounds weirder than the weirdest weird weird.

Maybe even worser than the worsest worst worse! It’s weirder than we thought. It must be really bad, badder than we can imagine!

Last edited 25 days ago by eyesonu
Bob boder
Reply to  eyesonu
July 1, 2021 2:35 pm

If so it’s the only thing the models predicted the has come true.

David Thompson
July 1, 2021 4:33 am

I’ve been following SpaceWeather.com thru the most recent solar cycle. They report that the thermosphere is ‘cold’ today due to solar minimum conditions. Their explanation is here: https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/

Reply to  David Thompson
July 1, 2021 5:25 am

And here is the respective graph

comment image

JamesD
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 1, 2021 7:00 am

BINGO. Thanks.

Jean Parisot
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 1, 2021 1:21 pm

Thank you.

Andrew Burnette
July 1, 2021 4:36 am

Assuming their measurements are correct, they have no idea what is causing this contraction. So attributing it to human emitted greenhouse gases, just takes away from their accomplishment and reduces their credibility.

This might actually be a valuable contribution to atmospheric science, if they would just leave out the politics.

They are the investigator who “knows” who the perpetrator is and then sets about finding evidence to “prove” it.

Zig Zag Wanderer
July 1, 2021 4:37 am

That means little of Earth’s heat makes it to the higher, thinner mesosphere.

Well, no. It all gets out. The only difference would be the speed.

There, molecules are few and far between. Since carbon dioxide also efficiently emits heat, any heat captured by carbon dioxide sooner escapes to space than it finds another molecule to absorb it.

Colour me confused, but doesn’t this refute CAGW hypothesis?

As a result, an increase in greenhouses gases like carbon dioxide means more heat is lost to space — and the upper atmosphere cools.

And this?

I think the message is getting confused and not helping ‘the cause’.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
July 1, 2021 5:25 am

You caught this too! Good job.

If more heat is escaping then that is a negative feedback from CO2 as far as the atmosphere is concerned. Betcha the models don’t include that feedback!

David Dibbell
July 1, 2021 4:54 am

So is it worse than we thought?

fretslider
Reply to  David Dibbell
July 1, 2021 5:01 am

Every single time

Reply to  David Dibbell
July 1, 2021 6:15 am

I can feel it…the upper atmosphere is contracting and increasing atmospheric pressure….I feel so….so trapped….atmospheric pressure must be 15.0 psi now?

Jim Gorman
July 1, 2021 5:16 am

This cooling and contracting didn’t come as a surprise. For years, “models have been showing this effect,” said Brentha Thurairajah, a Virginia Tech atmospheric scientist who contributed to the study. “It would have been weirder if our analysis of the data didn’t show this.”

No kidding, the models have been showing this. Who would have expected this?

Colder temperatures and abundant water vapor are both linked with climate change in the upper atmosphere.

I’ve always read that water vapor and clouds penetrate only slightly into the stratosphere because the temps are so cold water vapor precipitates before going higher. Who knew water vapor could actually rise to this height?

In the lower atmosphere, there are plenty of molecules in close proximity, and they easily trap and transfer Earth’s heat between each other, maintaining that quilt-like warmth.

The last I knew hot air rises. This seems to indicate that warmer air just kinda hangs around raising temperature permanently. How does water vapor reach the mesosphere if it stays near the earth.

oeman 50
July 1, 2021 5:41 am

So what are the error bars on these calculations? When you tell me that you can detect a difference of 650 ft. 30 to 50 miles up in the atmosphere, I have to wonder what the error is.

rbabcock
Reply to  oeman 50
July 1, 2021 6:21 am

There are no such thing as error bars in climate science.

Reply to  rbabcock
July 1, 2021 6:56 am

The reason is, there are no errors…. /sarc

whiten
Reply to  rbabcock
July 1, 2021 12:33 pm

r,

Are you questioning the “find”, the claimed evidence in fact as offered, as far as the information concerned, concerning the given case here…

or you just happen to question the explanation offered with it?

and therefore cancelling all merit there?

On top of it all do you know what nihilism does mean ?

🙄

whiten
Reply to  whiten
July 1, 2021 1:31 pm

Nihilism, any way addressed still simple,

a radical, extreme too, positioning to take, nihilistic, an extreme position to take and stand by, completely void of empathy or compassion,
the very clause of defileing:

“Agreeing to disagree.”

Kinda of weird!!!

pHil R
Reply to  oeman 50
July 1, 2021 9:13 am

650 feet in 30-50 miles is approx. 2-4 parts per 1,000, if I did my math correctly. Can they measure with that precision?

bdgwx
Reply to  oeman 50
July 1, 2021 10:46 am

The answer to your question regarding error bars is in the publication linked to in the article.

Bailey et al. 2021

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
July 2, 2021 5:16 am

From the study.

Due to the lack of long-term observations of the mesosphere (other than HALOE prior to 2002), the only source of validation for this period is from models.”

I suppose the data validates the models, and then the models validate the data.

Also, from the study, altitude resolutions:

HALOE ~ 2.3 km
SABER ~ 2 km
SOFIE ~ 1.6 km

Hard to tell exactly how they ended up with a resolution of +/- 0.2 km. (650 ft) I see the sampling takes place at much lower intervals, but sampling doesn’t translate into resolution.

Charles Fairbairn
July 1, 2021 5:48 am

If this is the way modern so called scientists think; heaven help us all. I surmise that this article was written by the Ministry of truth; as instructed by Big Brother.

Sara
July 1, 2021 5:50 am

They examined the stretch of sky 30 to 60 miles above the surface. At most altitudes, the mesosphere cooled as carbon dioxide increased. That effect meant the height of any given atmospheric pressure fell as the air cooled. In other words, the mesosphere was contracting. – article

OK, but that is only ONE spot and not the entire atmosphere. I would have more confidence in this if they had taken measurements at high altitudes in the Himalayas, for instance, and in the African and Saudi deserts and various jungle areas. One small spot is just one small spot. If they widen their area of research to include a larger variety of ground influences, that would be better.

War air rises and cold air sinks? I learned that in grade school, a long, long time ago.

Sara
Reply to  Sara
July 1, 2021 5:53 am

Oh, what a typo!!!! “War” air? Hey, did anyone ever take measurements of the air over war zones? Just askin’?

Yeah, that’s supposed to be WARM air. My bad, sorry.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Sara
July 1, 2021 10:30 am

The beauty of the English language is its redundancy. I got it from the context. Now, if you had said “cod air,” I might have been a little puzzled. 🙂

JCM
July 1, 2021 5:57 am

The mesosphere must naturally adjust to perturbations in any part of the atmosphere to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium. These are mainly density effects on the total column lapse rate from surface to mesopause.

JCM
Reply to  JCM
July 1, 2021 6:17 am

most directly these perturbations are changes to stratospheric ozone/UV affecting stratospheric temperature gradient and changes to thermosphere. The mesosphere is sandwiched between these two layers.

July 1, 2021 5:58 am

Meanwhile, back at the global warming fraud:
 
RECORD COLD STRIKES BRAZIL: HEAVY FROSTS RAVAGE SUGARCANE, COFFEE AND CORN CROPS
JULY 1, 2021 CAP ALLON
Record cold is engulfing large swathes of the South American continent this week, ravaging the region’s crops, lowering yields and spiking prices.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
July 2, 2021 4:48 am

SANTA CATARINA, BRAZIL LOGS ITS THIRD CONSECUTIVE DAY OF RARE SNOW AND SUB-ZERO COLD
JULY 2, 2021 CAP ALLON
According to the local weather service, this is the first time that such a meteorological event has been recorded for more than two decades.
 
RARE SUMMER COLD FRONT MEANS A CHILLY FOURTH OF JULY FOR TEXAS, AS LATEST USDA CROP FIGURES SOUND THE ALARM BELLS AND SEE PRICES “EXPLODE HIGHER”
JULY 2, 2021 CAP ALLON
Corn stocks, for example, are down a whopping 18% when compared to the same time of last year — this is despite a 2% increase in planting acreage on 2020.
 
WESTERN AUSTRALIA SHIVERS THROUGH ONE OF ITS COLDEST STARTS TO WINTER ON RECORD
JULY 2, 2021 CAP ALLON
Many towns and cities have suffered their coldest months of June on record, with WA’s capital Perth logging its second-coldest June in recorded history.
 

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
July 2, 2021 6:13 am

LATEST USDA CROP FIGURES SOUND THE ALARM BELLSConsistent cold isn’t good for crops. According to latest USDA figures, the situation in 2021 is looking far worse than their original projections foresaw, and the commodity markets are climbing as a result.

Grains have “exploded higher” after the initial release of the USDA Stocks and Acreage Reports this week.

There were some big surprises in the report.

Arlan Suderman, Chief Commodities Economist at of StoneX gives us the rundown:
“The prices literally exploded higher after the reports’ release,” said Suderman — this was in response to a “smaller acreage than expected for corn and soybeans … The corn acreage came in at 92.7 million acres … that was about 1.1 million acres below what the trade expected (which was already low).”

Soybean acres were an even bigger surprise, continued Suderman, which came in at 87.55 million acres with the trade expecting 88.95 million acres.
“Stocks being less than expected for corn, soybeans and wheat (have sent) the markets off to the races,” he said.

Corn stocks are currently estimated to be at 4.11 billion bushels, which is down a whopping 18% when compared to the same time of last year — this is despite a 2% increase in planting acreage on 2020.

Looking forward, Suderman sees roll-on implications for July’s crop reports.
Expect higher prices moving ahead.

July 1, 2021 6:00 am

So, it’s a quilt – not a blanket – got it. It is also a one way quilt? Going with the quilt…..if it becomes very very cold, the quilt will not keep you warm….need another quilt? Also, unlike the human body which generates heat for the quilt to block….the earth does not generate much heat – the heat comes from the sun. Also, more water vapor at the high elevations means more greenhouse gas….to block more radiation from the sun? So, the atmosphere high above the poles is important…more important than the other 2/3 of the amosphere above the equator?

Marnof
July 1, 2021 6:16 am

I bought a cheap blanket at a flea market, it’s only 400ppm wool.

dgp
July 1, 2021 6:37 am

I really hate when they try to explain radiative heat transfer in “layman’s terms” but use a conductive heat transfer analogy.

The Dark Lord
July 1, 2021 6:48 am

That means little of Earth’s heat makes it to the higher, thinner mesosphere.” actually all of it eventually reaches there. It may be slower but it ALWAYS gets there and is NEVER “trapped” …

bdgwx
Reply to  The Dark Lord
July 1, 2021 7:44 am

Although I prefer the word “accumulated” over “trapped” they mean the same thing in this context. The context being the law of conservation of energy which states that dE = Ein – Eout. When dE > 0 the energy is said to have been “accumulated” or “trapped” within the system. The dE of the climate system over the period 1960-2019 is about 350e21 joules. Therefore the climate system “accumulated” or “trapped” 350e21 joules. This energy NEVER made it to the mesosphere. See Schuckmann 2020 for details.

Last edited 26 days ago by bdgwx
Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
July 2, 2021 5:26 am

The dE of the climate system over the period 1960-2019 is about 350e21 joules.

Any idea of exactly what device measured this number of joules?
Any idea of exactly what this amount of joules translates into temperature wise?
Any idea of exactly where this energy is being stored?

From the study:

Contemporary estimates of the magnitude of the Earth’s energy imbalance range between about 0.4 and 0.9 W m−2 (depending on estimate method and period; see also conclusion) and are directly attributable to increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities …

Seems funny that this is all due to CO2 from human emissions. You might elucidate on what clouds contribute to this imbalance. From my research, the uncertainty of cloud effects far outweigh this small amount.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 2, 2021 5:37 pm

The publication provides details and further references regarding questions 1 and 3. For question 2 you can use the formula dT = dE * (1/M) * (1/c) where dE is the change in energy, M is the mass of the reservoir, and c is the specific heat capacity of the reservoir. You can use the formula dM = dE / dH where dH is the enthalpy of fusion to see how much ice this would melt.

Last edited 24 days ago by bdgwx
Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2021 7:13 am

You didn’t answer my questions. I asked them for a reason. You are showing big numbers but apparently have no idea what they mean in real numbers. Big numbers make for good propaganda, but are not really useful in showing what the real world effects are.

AndyHce
Reply to  The Dark Lord
July 1, 2021 11:01 pm

Maybe if you could tag the photons.

Rod Evans
July 1, 2021 6:52 am

Is there anything global warming doesn’t make colder?

JamesD
July 1, 2021 6:56 am

As a result, an increase in greenhouses gases like carbon dioxide means more heat is lost to space — and the upper atmosphere cools.

LOL.

Lil-Mike
July 1, 2021 7:29 am

“As the sun goes to solar minimum, the solar heating of the atmosphere decreases, and a cooling trend would be expected,” said Russell.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/appearance-of-night-shining-clouds-has-increased

Olen
July 1, 2021 7:57 am

Putting the cart before the horse or the ozone hole scare. They should not throw BLAME out there before they have the full story they admit they don’t have. For all anyone knows the gasoline engine could be holding off the next ice age or not.

Don’t hear much about the ozone hole lately although we NOW know it changes naturally. And it cost a lot of money installing new air conditioners in vehicles via the US Congress.

However the research is interesting without exaggeration.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Olen
July 1, 2021 10:37 am

It has been oscillating in recent years from record lows to record highs. One year they claim that the stratospheric weather is evidence that the ‘ozone hole’ is healing, and then they claim that the record high is evidence Chinese manufacturers are cheating. It is always about CFCs and never about the polar vortex or stratospheric temperatures.

mrsell
July 1, 2021 8:24 am

“Combined data from three NASA satellites have produced a long-term record that reveals the mesosphere, the layer of the atmosphere 30 to 50 miles above the surface, is cooling and contracting.”

“Together, the satellites provided about 30 years of observations, indicating that the summer mesosphere over Earth’s poles is cooling four to five degrees Fahrenheit and contracting 500 to 650 feet per decade.”

So let’s see – at a minimum altitude of 158,400 feet (5280 x 30), the mesosphere has contracted 1,950 feet (650 x 3). That means that over the 30-year study period the mesosphere has contracted by 1.2% (1950 / 158400).

One point two percent? Over thirty years? Is that even something that can be accurately measured? What is the uncertainty?

Or better yet – who cares?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  mrsell
July 1, 2021 10:06 am

Direct answer to your bottom-line question: those that rely on Government funding.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  mrsell
July 1, 2021 3:26 pm

What is the margin of error there?

David Dibbell
July 1, 2021 8:26 am

It’s pretty hard to keep the heat down here. Look at all the holes in my quilt!

WSI_radar_summ_063021-2.jpg
MarkW
July 1, 2021 8:29 am

Does this mean that the stratospheric hot spot has been memory holed?

whiten
Reply to  MarkW
July 1, 2021 11:28 am

Stratospheric hot sop.

What is that????

Mr.
Reply to  MarkW
July 1, 2021 12:21 pm

The tropical tropopause?

bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
July 1, 2021 1:28 pm

I think you mean the mid-troposphere tropical hotspot.

Bob boder
Reply to  bdgwx
July 1, 2021 3:43 pm

“You mean the mid-troposphere tropical hotspot that isn’t there.”
Fixed it

MarkW
July 1, 2021 8:32 am

If the decrease in heat flow from the planet were actually as large as these guys think it is, there should be a huge, easily measurable increase in the rate at which the planet is heating. Many times larger what has been measured.

I suspect they are attributing the affects of a quieting sun, to CO2.

Kevin
July 1, 2021 8:39 am

Isn’t most of stratospheric heating due to ozone absorbing energy from cosmic rays? Could a reduction on cosmic ray flux or ozone be a factor?

Reply to  Kevin
July 1, 2021 9:06 am

Reflect about UV radiation

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 1, 2021 10:03 am

That is, UV-visible spectrum of radiation from the Sun!

2hotel9
July 1, 2021 8:44 am

They can get back to me when they have actual proof humans are causing climate to change. Till then they are just spewing the same leftarde environista lies.

MarkW
July 1, 2021 8:49 am

When air pressure is low, CO2 actually helps the atmosphere radiate heat.
If concentrations are increasing in the mesosphere, I would expect the mesosphere to cool, and it has nothing to do with how much heat is coming up from below.

DMA
Reply to  MarkW
July 1, 2021 9:33 am

Mark W
True but there are lots of reasons for cooling other than CO2 increasing slightly. This article said “Together, the satellites provided about 30 years of observations, indicating that the summer mesosphere over Earth’s poles is cooling four to five degrees Fahrenheit and contracting 500 to 650 feet per decade. Without changes in human carbon dioxide emissions, the researchers expect these rates to continue.”
There is no proof that the increase in CO2 is human caused. There is no correlation of emissions and atmospheric concentration. Additionally, the tropospheric hot spot predicted by the GCMs for increasing CO2 does not exist so I don’t think we should expect the cooling mesosphere to stop cooling if humans find a way to provide their power needs without emitting CO2.

Greg
July 1, 2021 9:07 am

so the long term trend is essentially a function of how they stitched the three satellite records together and we must trust them because all scientists are fair and objective searchers of TRUTH.

I may have believed that before we saw ClimateGate emails.

Gordon A. Dressler
July 1, 2021 9:25 am

And the method by which the above-mentioned “scientists” are able to distinguish that it’s man-made increases in emissions of CO2 instead of naturally-occurring increasing emissions of CO2 that are causing the upper atmosphere cooling and contraction is . . . ???

Or, what? . . . anyone think that nature alone over the past 600 million years has not resulted in swings in atmospheric CO2 concentration ranges from a low of about 200 ppmv to a high of around 7000 ppmv*?

(*reference paleoclimatology reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels by C.R. Scotese and R.A. Berner)

Derek Wood
July 1, 2021 9:43 am

Sounds like bullshit to me! I’m prepared to wait a year or two for solid confirmation.

Robert of Texas
July 1, 2021 10:11 am

“That means little of Earth’s heat makes it to the higher, thinner mesosphere.”

How exactly does less heat get into the upper atmosphere? Unless the Sun is producing less light, it still hits the Earth and gets radiated back into space. Are they really claiming the Earth is absorbing energy and not re-emitting it?

“As a result, an increase in greenhouses gases like carbon dioxide means more heat is lost to space”

Huh??? But they just said little heat gets to the upper atmosphere!

“At most altitudes, the mesosphere cooled as carbon dioxide increased.”

OH! Well, if there is correlation then of course one causes the other!

“but also leaving more space junk in low-Earth orbit.”

Ah! So more CO2 results in more space junk…OK, time to ban all fossil fuels then.

“We understand the physics of these clouds”

ROFL

“The only way you would expect them to change this way is if the temperature is getting colder and water vapor is increasing,” Russell said. Colder temperatures and abundant water vapor are both linked with climate change in the upper atmosphere.”

Well of course they, there can be no other explanation…because you want it to link to CO2 in the atmosphere. Great science there – start with an answer and back your way into explanations that support it.

I really am disgusted with NASA these days.

Mr.
Reply to  Robert of Texas
July 1, 2021 12:24 pm

I bet there are many dedicated NASA people who would love to see their agency disconnect the GISS parasite.

ResourceGuy
July 1, 2021 10:15 am

It’s the first test of the cooling excuse engine.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  ResourceGuy
July 1, 2021 3:31 pm

Now that there is insight to the level of true prescience!

July 1, 2021 10:24 am

The upper atmosphere has been contracting due to the low solar cycles…

Michael S. Kelly
July 1, 2021 10:51 am

Randy Marsh: By now, the global warming has shifted the climate, bringing on a new ice age. Within the hour, the temperature outside will fall to over 70 million degrees below zero!”

We didn’t listen!

July 1, 2021 11:01 am

Earth’s upper atmosphere expands from the heat, and contracts when it’s been released. The fluctuation corresponds with the sun’s own solar wind cycles…./
ehhh…ehhh….ohhh….

It is globally cooling…..

Reply to  HenryP
July 1, 2021 11:11 am

Seems you are right:

comment image

whiten
Reply to  HenryP
July 1, 2021 12:55 pm

Mate,
like you, maybe even love you, but got to ask this of you,
in consideration of your comments… and claims of yours offered;

Do you really know what ‘nihilism’ really is or what it may really mean???

Nihilism, begets ‘Nihilism’!

Just sayind and asking too.

Reply to  whiten
July 1, 2021 1:36 pm

Did you just hear / learn a new word and poudly present it here ?? 😀

whiten
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 1, 2021 1:58 pm

That is me in full, as contemplated.

Be real, if you can,
That is all..

whiten
Reply to  whiten
July 1, 2021 1:59 pm

Do you dislike me?

Krishna,
the very fake one, Krishna.!

Oh well, it is just a playground, is not it!

Last edited 25 days ago by whiten
meab
July 1, 2021 11:09 am

Satellites DO NOT interact with the Mesosphere. The lowest possible circular satellite orbit is about 93 miles (150 km) high. A satellite cannot stably orbit below that level without propulsion because of atmospheric drag. The Mesosphere’s highest point is far below that altitude at 50 miles where the air is much denser. Once an object’s orbit decays to 50 miles it will reenter within minutes. The statement that the Mesosphere’s (putative) shrinking will increase space junk is pure bunk – a statement fabricated to (falsely) make it seem that there will be a bad consequence from CO2’s effect on the Mesosphere.

Reply to  meab
July 1, 2021 1:39 pm

Concerning satellites, they interact with the thermosphrere, and the thermosphere is shrinked now because of missing UV radiation thanks low solar activity. It’s explained above in a link to spaceweather.com and the TCI explanation.

meab
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 1, 2021 2:26 pm

Yes, the thermosphere is above the mesosphere.

Doonman
July 1, 2021 12:33 pm

10 hours and 88 comments later, and not a single post by “Racehorse” Nick Stokes claiming how inaccurate all microwave sounding units of satellite temperature measurements of the earths atmosphere are.

Radiosonde measurements aboard balloons can never make it into the mesosphere, so mesosphere satellite measurements can never be independently correlated.

You’d think Nick would jump all over that immediately, but instead, crickets.

Pat Frank
July 1, 2021 2:13 pm

Scientists have long predicted this effect of human-driven climate change, but it has been difficult to observe the trends over time.
and
This cooling and contracting didn’t come as a surprise. For years, “models have been showing this effect,” said Brentha Thurairajah,…”

So radiation physics made a successful prediction. The cooling of the stratosphere and mesosphere has nothing whatever to do with “human-driven climate change.”

It has to do with human CO2 emissions, which have increased stratospheric [CO2]. CO2 following collision with a (very rare) O2 or N2 will uptake of some kinetic energy and become vibrationally excited.

The excited CO2 will radiate that energy off into space and revert back down into its ground-state energy. So, the stratosphere cools because total K.E. is lessened.

Calling this an effect of climate change is forcing a square pseudo-science plug into round physics box.

And, pace Brentha Thurairajah, but it doesn’t take climate models to predict that effect. It takes basic radiation physics.

None of these people are behaving as scientists. They’re all acting as AGW advocates, touting the politically required subjectivist narrative.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 1, 2021 4:46 pm

Pat, I thought the article’s reference to noctilucent clouds seemed familiar and, sure enough, I found a series of articles posted on the subject during 2019-20 on Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog. Like you, he didn’t ascribe anything nefarious to the recent prominence of these clouds, just the impacts of CO2, methane and, of course, lower solar activity.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 1, 2021 9:41 pm

Good catch, Frank, thanks. These people never seem to lose an opportunity to betray scientific ethics.

Robber
July 1, 2021 2:28 pm

I thought the models indicated an upper tropospheric hotspot that hasn’t been found? So now we have a cold spot?

jmorpuss
Reply to  Robber
July 3, 2021 3:18 am

The first diagram here looks like hotspots to me and not just one of them

TRANS EQUATORIAL RADIO PROPAGATION
SWS – Other Topics – Transequatorial Radio Propagation (bom.gov.au)

Last edited 24 days ago by jmorpuss
jmorpuss
July 1, 2021 5:07 pm

Climate change is being promoted to coverup what is really going on.

Interdepartmental Committee on Atmospheric Sciences —- PRESENT AND FUTURE PLANS OF FEDERAL AGENCIES IN W EATHER-CLIMATE MODIFICATION June 20, 1966 Prepared by the ICAS Select Panel on Weather Modification

This report was prepared by the ICAS Select Panel on Weather modification for consideration by the Interdepar-tanental Committee on Atmospheric Sciences as requested by the Chairman at the ky 13, 1966, meeting. summary of the goals, program approach and facilities of the Federal Departments and Agencies engaged in weather and climate modification activities for FY 1967 and FY 1970. A brief summary statement by each Department or Agency is also included to supplement the budgetary material. It presents a budget Attention is invited to the following points of interest illustrated by the matrix presentation. 1. The primary emphasis of the Federal goals in weather modification appears to be in the category of precipitation modification. FY 1967 FY 1970 $4.70 million out of $9.33 million total ‘$99.60 million out of $146.83 million total 2. The largest percentage and over-all increases from FY 1967 to FY 1970 in weather modification are planned by ESSA and the Bureair of Reclamation. ESSA – $1.55 million in 1967 to $59.70 million Bureau of Reclamation – $3.00 million in 1967 in 1970 60 $70.00 million in 1970 3. The .Department of Agriculture is planning to support a reasonably broad-based weather modification program by FY 1970 (from ‘$0.5 million to $9.35 million) expanding into hail suppression, biological aspects, and boundary layer exchange. 4. The Department of Defense is holding level and will not expand significantly unless a mission breakthrough is ‘imminent. 5. Field experiments show as one would expect–very expensive. /–c &&..A /.j 9 ~(/L+–+ /* 4-LEarl G. Droessler Chairman, ICAS Select Panel on Weather Modification . June 20, 1966 

19680002906.pdf (nasa.gov)

Barium

Barium is used to study the motion of both ions and neutrals in space. A fraction of a barium cloud ionizes quickly when exposed to sunlight and has a purple-red color. Its motions can be used to track the motion of the charged particles in the ionosphere. The remainder of the barium release is neutral, having a different color, and can be used to track the motion of the neutral particles in the upper atmosphere. A small quantity of strontium or lithium is sometimes added to the barium mixture to enhance the neutral barium emissions, making it easier to track the neutral cloud. Since the observer must be in darkness while the barium cloud is in sunlight, the technique is limited to local time observations near sunset or sunrise.

Tracers – Clouds and Trails | NASA

Barium Salts and Chemtrails
Barium

Barium levels found in chemtrail samples were at 6.8 ppm or “more than six times the toxic level set by the EPA.”Barium is toxic to humans and animals and causes a dramatic drop in potassium levels in the body. For this reason (and others), barium is known to considerably increase the frequency of heart attacks in persons 65 years and older.

Barium can be compared to the toxicity of arsenic. Barium is known to adversely affect the heart. Aluminum has a history of damaging brain function. Independent researchers and labs continue to show off-the-scale levels of these poisons. A few “anonymous” officials have acknowledged this on-going aerosol spraying.

Barium is toxic to humans and animals and causes a dramatic drop in potassium levels in the body. For this reason (and others), barium is

known to considerably increase the frequency of heart attacks in persons 65 years and older

Chemtrails and Barium Salts – Chemtrails Spraying and Barium Salts – BARIUM SALTS Chemtrail Information – Stop Chemtrail Spraying in California! (stopsprayingcalifornia.com)

Prjindigo
July 1, 2021 5:55 pm

adding heat energy to an open system causes gas to contract.. right

whoever wrote that should be on criminal charges

Ozonebust
July 1, 2021 6:00 pm

Chart for
CO2 at 80, 90 and 100km
http://saber.gats-inc.com/images/wn_0315_2.png
The article from the paper
http://saber.gats-inc.com/news.php

Currently the total of CO2, CH4 and N2O = 560 ppm. We are there at the doubling.
Lets celebrate.

Robber
July 1, 2021 7:20 pm

Oh no, the atmosphere is contracting. It’s an emergency! When are we going to run out of air?

markl
July 1, 2021 8:19 pm

Every time data, usually from a new sensor application, is introduced someone tries to explain it. Usually that explanation is nothing more than theory and such is the case here.

Paul Redfern
July 1, 2021 9:03 pm

Quantum Mechanics and Raman Spectroscopy Refute Greenhouse Theory
Blair D. Macdonald
https://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-Macdonald-Quantum-Raman-Atmosphere.pdf

N2 and the entire atmosphere absorbs IR
radiation directly from the Sun and other matter. With these findings,
greenhouse theory as it stands is misconceived – all gases are greenhouse gases
– and the theory is in need of review.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Paul Redfern
July 4, 2021 8:09 am

Thanks for the link PR. I hadn’t seen this before. It sure does
raise some interesting questions about the physics of the climate models.

AndyHce
July 1, 2021 11:05 pm

This posting presents a good opportunity to ask abut something that has bothered me for some time; a good opportunity to parade my ignorance.

Start with something much denser: water. Sunlight penetrates water, depending upon what is suspended in the water, at least as much as 100 meters if I remember correctly. While more and more of the energy is absorbed as depth increases, what penetrates the furthest is the shortest wave lengths, the most energetic part of the spectrum: the UV that makes it through the atmosphere to the water.

On the other hand, the even shorter wave length, even more energetic UV is almost entirely absorbed in the least dense part of the upper atmosphere. Up there, molecules tend to be relatively far apart. For most human purposes it qualifies as a good vacuum. So how is it these few molecules, so thinly distributed, are able to gobble up all the good UVC while letting the more casual UVA slip by? Somehow this seem not very consistent with CO2 molecules are far apart up there so the lumbering, long wave IR gets through with little interference.

jmorpuss
Reply to  AndyHce
July 2, 2021 4:05 am

As the charged particles of solar winds and flares hit the Earth’s magnetic field, they travel along the field lines.Some particles get deflected around the Earth, while others interact with the magnetic field lines, causing currents of charged particles within the magnetic fields to travel toward both poles — this is why there are simultaneous auroras in both hemispheres. (These currents are called Birkeland currents after Kristian Birkeland, the Norwegian physicist who discovered them — see sidebar.)When an electric charge cuts across a magnetic field it generates an electric current (see How Electricity Works). As these currents descend into the atmosphere along the field lines, they pick up more energy.When they hit the ionosphere region of the Earth’s upper atmosphere, they collide with ions of oxygen and nitrogen.The particles impact the oxygen and nitrogen ions and transfer their energy to these ions.The absorption of energy by oxygen and nitrogen ions causes electrons within them to become “excited” and move from low-energy to high-energy orbitals (see How Atoms Work).When the excited ions relax, the electrons in the oxygen and nitrogen atoms return to their original orbitals. In the process, they re-radiate the energy in the form of light. This light makes up the aurora, and the different colors come from light radiated from different ions.

What causes auroras? | HowStuffWorks

AndyHce
Reply to  jmorpuss
July 4, 2021 11:34 am

This relates to how lower frequencies of UV reach deep into the oceans while higher frequencies of UV are all absorbed in very tenuous atmosphere? I don’t see any connection.

July 2, 2021 12:02 am

Article on atmosphere size and the mesosphere with no mention of the solar cycle? No mention of solar wind? Utter laughable junk. Do these bimbos imagine that such politically inconvenient phenomena just disappear if they are not mentioned? You can do that to people, but not the universe or reality.

bdgwx
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
July 2, 2021 10:01 am

It is mentioned…several times actually. In fact, the first mention is right there in the introduction at section 1, paragraph 3, line 12. Hervig 2019 and Li 2020 are references that specifically focus on the solar cycle and its effects on the mesosphere.

Reply to  bdgwx
July 2, 2021 11:37 am

I was referring to the journalist’s homily, not the paper. The homily mentions greenhouse warming in practically every paragraph. But the solar cycle or even the words “solar” or “sun” or “sunspot” – not once.

Olavi Vulkko
July 2, 2021 5:38 am

It’s the SUN stupid.

July 2, 2021 9:32 am

[[Since the mesosphere is much thinner than the part of the atmosphere we live in, the impacts of increasing greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, differ from the warming we experience at the surface. One researcher compared where we live, the troposphere, to a thick quilt.
“Down near Earth’s surface, the atmosphere is thick,” said James Russell, a study co-author and atmospheric scientist at Hampton University in Virginia. “Carbon dioxide traps heat just like a quilt traps your body heat and keeps you warm.” In the lower atmosphere, there are plenty of molecules in close proximity, and they easily trap and transfer Earth’s heat between each other, maintaining that quilt-like warmth.
That means little of Earth’s heat makes it to the higher, thinner mesosphere. There, molecules are few and far between. Since carbon dioxide also efficiently emits heat, any heat captured by carbon dioxide sooner escapes to space than it finds another molecule to absorb it. As a result, an increase in greenhouses gases like carbon dioxide means more heat is lost to space — and the upper atmosphere cools. When air cools, it contracts, the same way a balloon shrinks if you put it in the freezer.]]

Like the fabled Devil, the IPCC lie machine knows it’s in its last days and is stirring up great trouble while it can keep stealing trillions. It just can’t give up their big CO2 global warming fake physics hoax while the cash registers are ringing.This time it’s trying to claim that cooling is proof of warming, but not at the surface where all weather is, but way up 30 mi. (48 km) high.

CO2 molecules easily trap and transfer Earth’s heat between each other to maintain quilt-like warmth? An ice quilt maybe. They do nothing to change Earth’s atmospheric lapse rate, which drops the Earth’s surface temperature by 80C (20C to -60C) in the first 14 km (8 mi.) of altitude. By only 4 km altitude air temperatures drop to 0C, despite CO2. What universe does the IPCC live in?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/adiabatic-lapse-rate

For the umpteenth time, CO2 doesn’t absorb, store, or emit heat. Its only infrared absorption/emission wavelength is 15 microns, which has a Planck temperature of -80C, colder than dry ice, and is way outside Earth’s surface temperature range of -50C to +50C,meaning that each day Earth’s real surface heat radiation travels right through it untouched.Only the Sun’s radiation warms the Earth’s surface, and the atmosphere just cools it by several processes including radiation, evaporation, and convection, none of which can rewarm it, much less raise the temperature higher than the Sun did. All real weather is at the surface where we live, not way up in the sky where we don’t. How desperate the IPCC has become to keep scaring people into accepting being robbed.

-80C is a joke to call heat. Why doesn’t the giant army of well-paid IPCC so-called climate scientists address this little problem? Because it spells the end of their careers and of their trillion dollar power grab. So many big plans built on a hoax, what a bold Marxist swindle.Hardcore Marxists always have pushed any hoax if it advances their political ambitions. Too bad, with help of Big Tech shadow banning, they’re winning walking away with their swindle by feeding their herds of useful idiots ridiculous lies like this one while muting critics.

http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-concentration-of-CO2-in-the-atmosphere-when-it-becomes-saturated-and-adding-more-CO2-would-have-no-additional-effect-on-global-warming/answer/TL-Winslow

jmorpuss
Reply to  TL Winslow
July 2, 2021 4:53 pm

For the umpteenth time, CO2 doesn’t absorb, store, or emit heat. Its only infrared absorption/emission wavelength is 15 microns,

Here’s why co2 is the boooogyman, first you have to put the pieces together.

Consider the CO2 molecule ( Figure 7-10 ). Its vibrational state is defined by a combination of three normal vibrational modes and by a quantized energy level within each mode. Vibrational transitions involve changes in the energy level (vibrational amplitude) of one of the normal modes (or rarely of a combination of normal modes). In the “symmetric stretch” mode the CO2 molecule has no dipole moment, since the distribution of charges is perfectly symmetric; transition to a higher energy level of that mode does not change the dipole moment of the molecule and is therefore forbidden. Changes in energy levels for the two other, asymmetric, modes change the dipole moment of the molecule and are therefore allowed. In this manner, CO2 has absorption lines in the near-IR. Contrast the case of N2 ( Figure 7-10 ). The N2 molecule has a uniform distribution of charge and its only vibrational mode is the symmetric stretch. Transitions within this mode are forbidden, and as a result the N2 molecule does not absorb in the near-IR.


anything above VHF frequencies is a problem for CO2 UHF is the starting point for millimeter waves 1m-0.1mm
Radio spectrum – Wikipedia

Health Impacts

  • Every antenna on cell phone tower radiates electromagnetic radiation (power).
  • One cell phone tower is being used by a number of operators, more the number of antennas more is the power intensity in the nearby area.
  • The power level near towers is higher and reduces as we move away.
  • EMR may cause cellular and psychological changes in human beings due to thermal effects that are generated due to the absorption of microwave radiation.
  • The exposure can lead to genetic defects, effects on reproduction and development, Central Nervous System behaviour etc.
  • EMR can also cause non-thermal effects which are caused by radio frequency fields at levels too low to produce significant heating and are due to movement of calcium and other ions across cell membranes.
  • Such exposure is known to be responsible for fatigue, nausea, irritability, headaches, loss of appetite and other psychological disorders.
  • The current exposure safety standards are purely based on the thermal effects considering few pieces of evidence from exposure to non-thermal effects.

Impact on birds

  • The surface area of a bird is relatively larger than their body weight in comparison to the human body, so they absorb more radiation.
  • Also, the fluid contained in the body of the bird is less due to small body weight, so it gets heated up very fast.
  • The magnetic field from the towers disturbs birds’ navigation skills; hence when birds are exposed to EMR they disorient and begin to fly in all directions.
  • A large number of birds die each year from collisions with telecommunication masts.

Radioactive Pollution: Ionizing & Non-Ionizing Radiation | PMF IAS

jmorpuss
Reply to  TL Winslow
July 2, 2021 10:17 pm

Is this just coincidental or is there a reason the temperature of the tropopause (Earths first electromagnetic field line) over the equator is close to the same temperature at which CO2 freezes.

Typically, the tropopause temperature is -50°C over the poles and –80°C over the equator. Another feature of the tropopause is that, rather than show a gradual change in height between the equator and the poles, there are breaks in the tropopause where large temperature differentials occur.

Tropopause (code7700.com)

At What Temperature Does CO2 Freeze?. Part of the series: Chemistry & Biology. CO2, or carbon dioxide, will freeze at -78 degrees Celsius at normal pressure…

At What Temperature Does CO2 Freeze? – YouTube

July 2, 2021 10:18 am

At all heights above the emission level, CO2 cools the atmosphere as the data show.

Over these altitudes CO2 also contributes to IR albedo. Incoming solar IR is re-radiated back to space by CO2. So rising CO2 slightly increases global albedo (the IR part) and decreases total incoming solar energy.

Josh
July 2, 2021 2:08 pm

I think this article was originally published in The Onion.

RoHa
July 2, 2021 10:06 pm

Yay! The Warmists got a prediction right.

At last.

July 4, 2021 4:03 am

Upper atmosphere cooling by CO2 is a thing on Venus also:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/95RG00118

July 4, 2021 4:46 am

Benestad 2016 in a statement of the greenhouse effect says that:

The reason is that an increase in ZT 254K [the emission height] will lead to a warming at the surface as long as the lapse-rate γ is approximately constant.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00704-016-1732-y.pdf

But if the CO2-IR effect is to make the lower atmosphere (below emission height) warmer and the upper atmosphere cooler then – that assumption is destroyed. The lapse rate has been increased.

Something is wrong.

The GHE predicted respond to elevated emission level is the opposite – a warming of the newly raised emission height to restore radiative balance which represents a reduction, not increase, in the lapse rate.

There’s another big factor here that we are not seeing.

Last edited 23 days ago by Hatter Eggburn
%d bloggers like this: