Posted on 04/30/2012 5:48:34 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
On the battle between Arrhenius and Ångström.
Story submitted by John Kehr, The Inconvenient Skeptic
Any serious discussion about the Theory of Global Warming will eventually include the absorption band argument that started more than 100 years ago between Arrhenius and Ångström. One of the arguments presented by Ångström was that the main CO2 absorption band is between 14-16 micron and that band is also absorbed by water vapor (which is correct). The counter to this by Arrhenius was that it didn’t matter in the upper atmosphere where there was no water vapor. Of course none of this matters because radiative heat transfer is only 20% of the energy transferred to the atmosphere, but that is generally ignored by both sides of the argument.
At the time there was no way to measure the temperature in the upper atmosphere so there was no way to determine what was going on there, but of course now there are many ways to measure the temperature there. When I started looking at the annual temperature behavior of the stratosphere and the top of the troposphere I found something very interesting that is as usual, bad for the warmists.
Here is the average daily temperature of the troposphere (at ~4.2 km) and the stratosphere (41 km).
What makes this so interesting is that they are completely out of phase with each other.
The tropospheric temperature is matched to the natural global temperature cycle. This is highly dependent on the geography of the Earth’s surface. The stratospheric temperature is not in phase at all with the surface temperature. It is however in phase with the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. The distance the Earth is from the Sun determines how much energy the Earth gets from the Sun. Here is the stratospheric temperature and the solar constant over the course of the year.
While I would not say that the upper atmospheric temperature is completely independent, it is mostly independent of the of the lower atmosphere. The cooling in the stratosphere each spring is exactly what would be expected based on the changing solar constant. The warming that takes place in July is likely caused by the peak atmospheric temperatures in the NH that take place during the summer months. That warming stops in October, but by that point the increasing solar iconstant warms the stratosphere.
What determines the stratospheric temperature is absolutely critical to understanding why it has been cooling over the past 60 years (which is about how long it’s temperature has been measured). If the stratosphere’s temperature is primarily dictated by the incoming solar energy then the argument made by Arrhenius is meaningless. That is because the increase in CO2 would never have an impact on the temperature there, simply because so little of the energy needed to warm the stratosphere comes from the Earth’s surface.
Based on the scientific data, the stratosphere is mostly influenced by the solar constant (basically the distance from the Sun for this discussion). There appears to be some influence from the lower atmosphere, but it is clearly marginal. This is not really a surprise since the energy transfer mechanisms are very limited above 12km. The low atmospheric density results in low vertical mixing rates which only leaves radiative transfer which is a poor method for heat transfer when low absolute temperatures are involved.
When the temperature of the stratosphere and the troposphere are compared for the period from 2003-2011 it is also interesting to note that the peak stratospheric temperature was lowest of the whole period in early 2009. This also matches the period of minimal solar activity over the entire period of time. All of these pieces together clearly demonstrate the importance of the solar constant on the stratospheric temperature. This also means that any impact by atmospheric CO2 levels on the stratospheric temperatures is very limited.
Total Solar Insolation
******************************************EXCERPT***************************************
Faux Science Slayer says:
Knut Angstrom, son of Anders Jonas Angstrom, was the nemesis of Arrhenius. He challenged Svante immediately on the “absorptive powers of CO2″ when released in 1896. Due to the ‘horse-and-buggy’ peer review it took a while for universal rejection. See, US Monthly Weather Review, June 1901. page 268….
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/029/mwr-29-06-0268.pdf
Interestingly Svante was quoted as “knowing his work was correct from balloon temperature readings”. This would have been from manned observations in hot air balloons. In 1900 Svante was on the founding committee for the Nobel Prize. In 1903 he helped give himself a Nobel Prize in Chemistyr. In 1922 Svante was a founding member of the “State Institute for Racial Biology” and was worshipped by the Nazi for his Arian superiority beliefs. Curious choice for the biology diversity poster boy.
So much for Settled Science!!
I’ll jump ahead of your presumed ping E., and bookmark this one for a bit of more in-depth reading. I’m going to attempt to go to bed early for a change.
I think the Warmists have a problem with this....
Well,...you did get ahead of me.....just gettting back after an extended conversation with a neighbor...80 yr old guy who just got a paceaker implanted a few days ago.
**************************************EXCERPT***********************************
DR says:
Mosher,
*****************************
Mosher made a comment bit before this comment
*****************************************************
The “amplified” greenhouse effect ain’t happening. Sorry, it just ain’t.
BTW, this was also known since since at least 1964, but Raypierre seems to have forgotten.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6401.pdf
Please explain a) why the tropical troposphere is not warming as GCM’s predict and b) how the surface can warm at a faster rate than the troposphere based on greenhouse “theory”.
You have a propensity for doing drive-by posts, then disappear into the sunset.
****************************************EXCERPT********************************
DR says:
It’s odd KR. The only way to show the stratosphere cooling is to include the total of 30+ years of satellite data, with the first 1/2 (now less) dominated by effects of two large volcanoes followed by two step changes in temperature drops. It is NOT a linear trend in concert with CO2, nor does it verify any such “fingerprint” of AGW. RC may be food for useful idiots, but any interested honest person can look up the data.
The stratosphere has been warming since at least 1995 or so, exactly opposite climate model predictions. Your link to RealClimate is complete nonsense. This is just laughable as the tropical troposphere (hotspot) hasn’t warmed as advertised like we’ve been told would happen for the last 20+ years beginning with Hansen in 1989. Did you already forget Santer 08 and getting gobsmacked by McIntyre & McKitrick, albeit after 18 months of obfuscation and stalling by Santer, then being rejected by “peer review” (pal protection) because MM exposed the deception of S08.
Point out the error in this paper which clearly shows stratospheric warming for over 15 years and counting. Spencer and Christy have long ago smacked down Fu et al claiming the MSU MT was contaminated by “cooling” of the stratosphere (which isn’t happening) so don’t don’t bother resurrecting that.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/5_0_53/_pdf
Before the internet we were force fed the lies and unscrupulous scientists went unchallenged. Now it isn’t so easy to fool the public, but there will always be those who think bandwagon mentality is science.
Maybe you can answer the question of why the tropical tropospheric hot spot is missing, which as in Santer 05 (Gavin Schmidt co-author) clearly states is a prerequisite for AGW. That is why when Douglass 07 was published RC and the rest had to circle the wagons, isolate it, trash it and S08 was trotted out. Damn these people are dishonest.
Warmists seem to have a problem with empirical observations in general.
Thanks Ernest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.