Tropopause height as a climate metric

Posted: September 17, 2015 by oldbrew in atmosphere, climate
Tags:

[image credit: B. Geerts and E. Linacre]

[image credit: B. Geerts and E. Linacre]


Having recently noted the existence of this 2011 paper on Talkshop Suggestions, contributor Roger Clague replied to say he felt it could make for an interesting discussion, and put forward some challenging initial thoughts.

Abstract. We present a seasonal climatology of tropopause altitude for 78◦ N 16◦ E derived from observations 2007–2010 by the SOUSY VHF radar on Svalbard. The spring minimum occurs one month later than that of surface air temperature and instead coincides with the maximum in ozone column density. This confirms similar studies based on radiosonde measurements in the Arctic and demonstrates downward control by the stratosphere.

If one is to exploit the potential of tropopause height as a metric for climate change at high latitude and elsewhere, it is imperative to observe and understand the processes which establish the tropopause – an understanding to which this study contributes. [bold added]


[The paper makes the customary over-confident claims about so-called greenhouse gases, but nothing that hasn’t been churned out in countless other papers as a matter of course. Absence of such ritualistic jargon would no doubt be a negative for reviewers.]

Their closing remark: ‘All mechanisms controlling the tropopause location exhibit particularly strong seasonal variations at high latitude; this study contributes to our understanding of these mechanisms – necessary if we are to employ tropopause altitude as a metric for climate change.’

Note – this topic was previously addressed here:
Tropopause Height Becomes Another Climate-Change “Fingerprint”
http://str.llnl.gov/str/March04/Santer.html

A student’s brief guide: The height of the tropopause

Related Talkshop post: Why is the troposphere 8km higher at the equator than the poles?

Comments
  1. Tropopause anomalies are what matters. With warming height anomalies will increase with cooling height anomalies will decrease over the globe as a whole.

  2. Kristian says:

    The authors of the 2011 paper write:

    One would expect prima facie, that the meteorological tropopause height, essentially being the temperature minimum between the adiabatic tropopause and the region of positive temperature gradient of the lower stratosphere, is a reflection of the troposphere thickness. Given a constant lapse rate through the troposphere and ignoring boundary layer inversions, variations in tropospheric thickness and therefore tropopause height could be expected to occur simultaneously with surface temperature variation.

    The surface cools much faster than the tropospheric column above it, especially in the polar regions in winter, where there is no surface heating and the air is very clear and dry. The tropopause as a thermal gradient boundary between the normal troposphere and stratosphere is in fact slowly erased during these times, because of the circumstance of the environmental lapse rate, without surface heating, and hence convective movement/mixing of the air, gradually tending towards an isothermal condition (progressively slower radiative cooling rates the higher up in the air column you get).

    So there is no reason to expect the minimum surface temp and the minimum tropopause height in these regions to coincide. The one month lead/lag relationship actually sounds pretty reasonable. The troposphere’s thickness is simply and only determined by the troposphere’s own temperature and degree of humidity/deep moist convection.

    Further:

    While troposphere temperature does indeed strongly influence the tropopause altitude, it is not, however the only governing factor as both the ozone concentration in the stratosphere and the solar UV flux vary strongly with season, particularly at high latitude. In spring, breakdown of the polar vortex gives rise to entrainment of ozone in the polar cap and around the same time (depending on latitude), solar flux increases suddenly as the polar night ends. The resulting heating of the stratosphere tends to displace the tropopause downwards competing with the onset of spring warming and expansion of the troposphere (e.g. Highwood et al., 2000). The effects of tropospheric warming and stratospheric ozone content on tropopause altitude are discussed by, for example, Santer et al. (2003).

    I really don’t get this strange (but, as it seems, persistent) idea that the rarefied stratosphere should somehow expand downwards upon heating, suppressing the thicker troposphere underneath it. There is no physical logic in this. As long as it’s free to expand upwards, lifting away the lighter air masses above.

    The thing that could happen, if the troposphere cools and the stratosphere warms, is that the temperature in the upper reaches of the troposphere (around the tropopause) drops somewhat less with altitude. Which on a temperature chart would seem to suggest that the tropopause boundary (defined as the line where the temperature gradient falls below a certain value) had been suppressed. But physically, in the real world, this wouldn’t make much sense. The air would still be ‘tropospheric’. You have simply defined a lower tropopause.

  3. “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments,
    and they wander off through equation after equation and
    eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”— Nikola Tesla

    Roger Clague says: September 17, 2015 at 11:15 am

    “I don’t agree with the discussion and conclusions. What is the cause of the htrop ?
    This sentence illustrates their dilemma.
    The Ttrop lags by 1 month Tsurface in Spring and Autumn.
    O3 lags T surface by I month in Spring but by 3 months in Autumn
    They have found that T trop is caused by troposphere temperature,But they have also found:
    1. Ttrop and O3 conc are both caused by the sun.
    2. O3 conc. does cause Ttrop
    That is they find that Ttrop is only caused by T surface and is there is no control by O3 in the stratosphere. They claim to confirm the consensus but in my opinion they disprove the theory that O3 causes the tropopause I think if the paper is made a head post it will create debate.”

    Indeed Roger, They only stomp on own tongue! Then puff up further:

    ‘This confirms similar studies based on radiosonde measurements in the Arctic and demonstrates downward control by the stratosphere.’

    Where does this article confirm anything? It is but fantasy of radar measurement of the increasing temperature with altitude in the stratosphere, with further conjecture as to reason for such temperature increase. This is followed by some claim of stratospheric lowering the tropopause with nothing at all to support such claim!

    Then puff up further: ‘If one is to exploit the potential of tropopause height as a metric for climate change at high latitude and elsewhere”

    An admission that this paper is only to “exploit the potential of tropopause height as a metric for climate change”

    Then even more: ‘it is imperative to observe and understand the processes which establish the tropopause’

    Indeed! When will someone begin to observe and understand the processes which establish the tropopause? So far this paper only repeats the false claims of others:

    Puff up nonsense:’The resulting heating of the stratosphere tends to displace the tropopause downwards competing with the onset of spring warming and expansion of the troposphere (e.g. Highwood et al., 2000). The effects of tropospheric warming and stratospheric ozone content on tropopause altitude are discussed by, for example, Santer et al. (2003).’

    What nonsense!!! All to perpetuate the myth/fraud of CAGW.

  4. ren says: September 18, 2015 at 10:28 am

    “Let’s compare 2014 and 1979.”

    Looks like was warmer at 35 km!!
    Do you have any idea of what it is that they call temperature at 35Km? Is that the lateral radiance of something at some frequency through a optical path greater than 200 km? What emissivity for that path and frequency are they using? Are your “atmospheric physicists” ALL that incompetent?😦

  5. oldbrew says:

    Robinson and Catling say the troposphere of planetary bodies ends at 0.1 bar pressure.

    ‘Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency’
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n1/full/ngeo2020.html

    ‘A minimum atmospheric temperature, or tropopause, occurs at a pressure of around 0.1 bar in the atmospheres of Earth, Titan, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, despite great differences in atmospheric composition, gravity, internal heat and sunlight.’

  6. ren says:

    Will Janoschka the temperature increase on that a height means an increase of the kinetic energy of the molecules.
    The energy comes from the photochemical process of ozone formation and cosmic radiation.

  7. oldbrew says: September 18, 2015 at 11:17 am

    ‘Robinson and Catling say the troposphere of planetary bodies ends at 0.1 bar pressure.’

    OK Lapse rate magnitude is down to -2C/km at 0.2bar pressure altitude (meteorological tropopause). The minimum temperature is closer to 0.1bar pressure altitude.

    ‘Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n1/full/ngeo2020.html

    So claimed by Tyler Robinson and David Catling!!! No one has discovered a way to confirm or falsify that conjecture of set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency!

    ‘A minimum atmospheric temperature, or tropopause, occurs at a pressure of around 0.1 bar in the atmospheres of Earth, Titan, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, despite great differences in atmospheric composition, gravity, internal heat and sunlight.’

    That the minimum is repeatable at 10kPa pressure across the atmosphere of 6 planets is quite significant! Whether the cause is EMR related remains only speculation. The variance of EMR in/out flux and actual temperatures among the six indicates that 100kPa variable wavelength IR optical depth, with variation from 2 meters (14.6 micron CO2) to 8 km (8-13 micron window), makes any claim of radiative greenhouse effect highly suspect.
    From 20kPa pressure altitude a linear lapse rate of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric pressure/density and fixed gamma sets a tropopause pressure without reference to convection or EMR efficacy! R&C2012 is not in error, except for the conclusions involving the Schuster Schwarzschild approximation for EMR exitance! For thick atmospheres, an estimation of wide band atmospheric emissivity of 0.63 gives the proper result.
    All the best! -will-

  8. ren says: September 18, 2015 at 12:16 pm

    “Will Janoschka the temperature increase on that a height means an increase of the kinetic energy of the molecules. The energy comes from the photochemical process of ozone formation and cosmic radiation.”

    Fine! Each molecule, even UF6, has kT worth of energy! What is the temperature of the 5 meter vacuum mean free path between molecules? Molecules may have temperature, as they are claimed to have some mass? What does gas temperature mean to anyone at a gas pressure of 100Pa?
    All the best! -will-

  9. oldbrew says:

    Will J: R&C’s data and calcs with graphics are here (33 pages + refs.).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION – DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2020
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n1/extref/ngeo2020-s1.pdf

    Note: ‘Section S.5. Venus: A Test Case of k/strato Determining whether a Tropopause Occurs’

    ‘The global average temperature profile for Venus possesses an extremely weak or non-existent tropopause temperature minimum. However, latitudinally-resolved retrievals of the thermal structure of the Venusian atmosphere show a distinct tropopause temperature minimum near 0.1 bar at high latitudes, between 55° and 85° (Tellmann et al. 2009). The location of this temperature minimum is thus consistent with our 0.1 bar tropopause rule.’

    Whether that’s adequate evidence is for the reader to weigh up.

  10. ren says:

    Will Janoschka this is interesting, how measures the increase in speed of the particles.

  11. Roger Clague says:

    Will Janoschka says:
    September 18, 2015 at 11:00 am

    Do you have any idea of what it is that they call temperature at 35Km?

    ren says:
    September 18, 2015 at 12:16 pm

    the temperature increase on that a height [35km] means an increase of the kinetic energy of the molecules.

    The radiation temperature at 35km is calculated from a measurement of radiation energy received by a remote satellite. Kinetic energy (of motion) of O3 at 35km height is not measured.

    At height below 20km kinetic T is measured directly from the impact of molecules on a sensor.

    Temperatures above and below the tropopause have different meaning and should not be put on the same diagram or graph.

    The energy comes from the photochemical process of ozone formation and cosmic radiation.
    So O3 energy is not from the sun?

  12. Roger Clague says:

    The important property of the tropopause is not the pressure or the height.
    The height is set by the tropopause temperature.

    The tropopause temperature is 220K.
    This is the effective emission temp. It is less than the S-B calculated 255K because the atmosphere is a volume and emitting more than an S-B surface can.

  13. oldbrew says:

    If at the tropopause boundary the trop temp is a constant and the trop height is a variable, doesn’t the interest lie in what the variable is doing?

  14. ren says:

    “As we climb beyond the tropopause, temperatures start to increase again. We are now in the stratosphere, a region extending from a nominal 15 km (9 mile) up to the stratopause at 50 km (31 mile).

    Oxygen molecules, O2, iIn the upper stratosphere absorb short wavelength ultraviolet radiation (<200 nm) and dissociate into highly reactive oxygen atoms*. The atoms diffuse through the stratosphere and at heights of mostly 30-50 km many eventually combine** with more oxygen molecules to produce the reactive oxygen allotrope, ozone.

    Ozone, O3 ,is a strong absorber of longer wavelength (200-340 nm) UV radiation and the absorbed energy heats the atmosphere. The ozone layer is responsible for the stratosphere's increasing temperature with height***. Without ozone, mixing between the troposphere and stratosphere would be much faster and the structure of our atmosphere quite different."
    http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/hozon.htm

    Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have produced differing temperature datasets. Among these are the UAH dataset prepared at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the RSS dataset prepared by Remote Sensing Systems. The satellite series is not fully homogeneous – it is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for orbital drift and decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

  15. ren says:

    The ozone in the stratosphere is produced by photochemical reactions involving O2. When diatomic oxygen in the stratosphere absorbs ultraviolet radiation with wavelengths less than 240 nm, it breaks apart into two oxygen atoms.
    This, too, is an exothermic reaction. The overall effect of this reaction and the previous reaction is the conversion of light energy into heat. Thus, ozone in the stratosphere prevents highly energetic radiation from reaching the Earth’s surface and converts the energy of this radiation to heat.
    http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/ozone/ozone.html

  16. ren says:

    Temperature changes in the ozone area are of major importance, as they cause pressure changes in the atmosphere.

  17. ren says:

    On these charts very visible impact of solar activity.

  18. ren says:
    September 18, 2015 at 2:04 pm

    “Will Janoschka this is interesting, how measures the increase in speed of the particles.

    Ren,
    If you are a sloppy neuvo physicist, or meteorologists, never measure, you must use a formula. KE = kT = (mv^2)/2 or (2kT/m)^(1/2). Then you can claim this noise velocity must be correct, without ever trying to consider what velocity might be, after all Kinetic theory says so! This leads to whopping errors for gas mixtures like He plus SF6. For an atmosphere, it is even worse as energy is no longer linear with temperature like with Cv or Cp!.
    In an troposphere you have pressure/density being a constant between 1.333 and 1.666. this is known as gamma (chemistry) or isentropic exponent (engineering). For N2 + O2 this 1.4 dropping to 1.3998 @ 30C, 80% RH. As you move atmosphere around in the atmosphere without adding sensible heat, and no work, the noise velocity does not change. The temperature changes (lapse rate), because both P, and rho decrease with altitude, but P/rho remains constant. You can think of it as ‘energy density’ spontaneously decreasing linearly with altitude. For real weirdos, think, with constant velocity, but the mean free path increases with increasing altitude. Be sure to account for skinny but speedy He, among fat lumbering SF6.
    All the best! -will-

  19. Roger Clague says: September 18, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    “The important property of the tropopause is not the pressure or the height.
    The height is set by the tropopause temperature.”

    According to your favourite UN-WMO Earth tropopause begins at the lowest altitude with a lapse rate less than 2C/km!

    “The tropopause temperature is 220K. This is the effective emission temp.”

    Average tropopause temperature is 233K. At the poles is is down to 220K. At the equator, tropopause temperature has been measured as low as 197K, at 18 km!

    “It is less than the S-B calculated 255K because the atmosphere is a volume and emitting more than an S-B surface can.”

    True! Earth’s atmosphere also has large 3D structures called clouds that dispatch flux to space from their optical depth into the whole 2 PI steradians of space.
    All the best! -will-

  20. Roger Clague says:

    oldbrew says:
    September 18, 2015 at 2:47 pm

    If at the tropopause boundary the trop temp is a constant and the trop height is a variable, doesn’t the interest lie in what the variable is doing?

    According to my theory Ttrop is constant. it depends on suns output
    T trop is the starting point for analysis. What happens when the height changes?

    http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_struct.html

    Let us compare polar and mid-latitude (60% of surface).
    Tropical is different because of Hadley cell.
    The end point Ttrop, T minimum, and the slope, lapse rate is fixed.
    Increased energy from sun expands (kinetic theory of gas) the atmosphere
    This causes Tsurface to increase

  21. oldbrew says:

    Roger C says:
    ‘Increased energy from sun expands (kinetic theory of gas) the atmosphere
    This causes Tsurface to increase’

    What effect does that have on the height of the troposphere? It’s obviously temp related as the graphic in the post shows (lower at high latitudes than at equator).

    For tropospheric height to be a climate metric, changes in its height have to tell us something ‘useful’.

  22. I’ve been pointing this out for years.

    Conduction and convection from the surface push the tropopause up.

    Ozone creation in the stratosphere pushes the tropopause down.

    See here as to how that can affect the climate if solar variations alter the balance of ozone creation / destruction:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/

  23. Roger Clague says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    September 20, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    Ozone creation in the stratosphere pushes the tropopause down.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/

    “An increase in ozone warms the stratosphere or mesosphere, which pushes the tropopause lower. There is thus a solar induced see-saw effect on the height of the tropopause, which causes the climate zones to shift towards then away from the equator, moving the jet streams and changing them from “zonal” jet streams to “meridonal” ones.”

    How does O3 push the tropopause lower?

    You explain here
    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/greenhouse-gases-and-the-ideal-gas-law/

    “We see the same process in the stratosphere where ozone (a GHG) warmed by the sun actually reverses the lapse rate so that temperature increases with height up to the stratopause. The expansion of the stratosphere can push both up and down because there is no solid surface beneath it and that results in some interesting features of our climate system that are beyond the scope of this article.”

    I have 2 objections to this theory
    1. The data in this paper show the sun directly expands and contracts the atmosphere. Tropopause height, in summer and winter lags surface temperature by 1 month.

    In summer the O3 conc. responds after the height.
    Therefore O3 does not cause the change in tropopause height.

    2.The theory is physically implausible. If the stratosphere expand it would be upward into less dense air, not downwards against denser air.

  24. Roger:

    The height of the tropopause is set by the size of the temperature differential
    between surface and stratosphere. For a uniform body of air basic physics
    applied to the characteristics of the Earth’s atmosphere dictate a fixed rate of
    cooling as one goes higher. That is known as the lapse rate. Thus if the
    temperature differential between the surface and the stratosphere increases the
    tropopause must rise. If the differential decreases then the tropopause must fall.

    “Suppose, for example, that the surface temperature and the tropospheric
    temperature gradient are given and that the temperature of the stratosphere
    varies. Then, a cold stratosphere will be associated with a high tropopause (low
    tropopause pressure), and a warm stratosphere will correspond to a low
    tropopause (high tropopause pressure).”

    from here page 14: link

  25. Kristian says:

    Stephen Wilde says, September 21, 2015 at 2:13 pm:

    “The height of the tropopause is set by the size of the temperature differential between surface and stratosphere.”

    Er, no. The height of the tropopause is set simply by the temperature and humidity of the troposphere underneath plus the degree, power and persistence of convective uplift/mixing within the same troposphere. The stratosphere lies on top of the troposphere and is moved up and down WITH it. Just like the atmospheric layers above the stratosphere are moved higher and lower with it. The stratosphere doesn’t get heavier if it cools and lighter if it warms. Why? Because its total mass remains the same. And so it can’t and won’t push the troposphere down, nor can or will it lift it up. Which means, in this case, we are only defining – on paper – a lower or higher tropopause, like I wrote above:

    The thing that could happen, if the troposphere cools and the stratosphere warms, is that the temperature in the upper reaches of the troposphere (around the tropopause) drops somewhat less with altitude. Which on a temperature chart would seem to suggest that the tropopause boundary (defined as the line where the temperature gradient falls below a certain value) had been suppressed. But physically, in the real world, this wouldn’t make much sense. The air would still be ‘tropospheric’. You have simply defined a lower tropopause.

    It is the end of tropospheric processes that physically marks the tropopause, hence the name. And these are determined by upward energy transfer mechanisms operating from the surface and up through the tropospheric column. The stronger these are, the higher the tropopause, no matter how much ozone there is in the stratosphere and/or how warm the stratosphere is. You see this most clearly in the tropics (the Hadley cells), where thunderstorms regularly push the tropopause higher simply through their massive upward momentum. They don’t care if the temperature gradient falls below some specified value up there. Their upward momentum is all that matters. The gradient drops up there because tropospheric air masses from below normally won’t move higher and hence cannot maintain an average tropospheric lapse rate beyond this level. It’s not like they can’t move higher because the gradient drops. That’s turning it all on its head. And still, sadly, this is what people seem to be thinking, that there is some kind of “gradient ceiling” just placed somewhere up in the atmospheric column, stopping convection short.

    Convection stops when there is no more excess (originally tranferred) energy left to drive it. Then the rising air’s upward momentum is exhausted, and convective uplift stops. The highest atmospheric level at which this condition is realised is the tropopause.

  26. Kristian,

    Sadly, you are wrong and it is a pity that the link I referred to no longer seems to work.
    [link OK but corrupted by wordpress, now corrected – mod]

    Tropopause height is a consequence of both troposphere AND stratosphere temperatures.

    The words in parentheses taken from page 14 of the relevant paper are perfectly clear.

    It isn’t a matter of the WEIGHT of the stratosphere but rather a matter of the point along the mass/gravity induced lapse rate slope that the temperature rises above the ‘correct’ temperature for that height so a warmer stratosphere causes that point to be reached at a lower height or at ‘high tropopause pressure’ as the paper puts it.

    No matter how pwerful a convective updraft might be a warmer stratosphere puts a stop to it at a lower level than would a colder stratosphere.

    Any residual energy in the updraft then gets diverted laterally.

    The stratosphere presents a physical ‘lid’ to upward convection. Upward convection does not just peter out when the upward forces are exhausted as you suggest. That would only happen in the absence of a temperature inversion at the tropopause.

    The presence of a temperature inversion high up which reverses the ‘ideal’ lapse rate slope sets the height of the tropopause and not the power of uplift from the surface.

    There is indeed a gradient ceiling the height of which is set by ozone amounts absorbing solar radiation directly from above. That is what the tropopause is.

    Basic meteorology and long established basic science.

  27. The proof of what I say is the observation of thunderstorm anvil clouds which clearly show the lateral spreading of unspent upward forces when the rising column hits the gradient ceiling.

    The greater the unspent upward force the larger the anvil relative to the width of the rising column.

  28. oldbrew says:

    ‘The level where the temperature sounding first becomes isothermal or becomes an inversion in the upper troposphere is denoted as the tropopause level.’ = TP

    ‘The tropopause represents an upper level barrier to convection since its very high stability decelerates updrafts rapidly as they move into this region. The TP is at a higher elevation and lower pressure level in the warm season as compared to the cool season. ‘
    http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/291/

  29. Kristian says:

    oldbrew says, September 21, 2015 at 5:08 pm:

    “‘The tropopause represents an upper level barrier to convection since its very high stability decelerates updrafts rapidly as they move into this region.'””

    The radiative loss to space is what sets the tropopause. It is what determines how high convection will go in the troposphere. When this level is established, then the temperature inversion can quietly develop above it and stabilise in its position. The tropopause is not what stops convection. It is itself set by, a direct corollary of, convection topping out.

    “‘The TP is at a higher elevation and lower pressure level in the warm season as compared to the cool season.‘”

    Exactly. In summer, the surface is warmer, which means the troposphere also gradually becomes warmer (and more humid), a result of the tight convective coupling between the surface and the air masses above. Convection will also happen more frequently and/or steadily and possess more upward momentum in summer than during winter. All of which translate into a higher tropopause. If the tropopause represents an upper level “barrier to convection”, then how come the troposphere and its lapse rate reaches higher during the warm summer than during the cold winter? Because the upward movement of air in the troposphere is generally able to go higher.

  30. Kristian,

    It isn’t denied by me or oldbrew that the power of convection from the surface is relevant to tropopause height.

    The point is that tropopause height is a BALANCE between the power of convection and the amount of stratospheric warming caused by ozone.

    ANY ozone and ANY warming in the stratosphere provides a gradient ceiling and the more ozone there is, the warmer the stratosphere is, the lower that ceiling is relative to the power of convection.

    The radiative loss is a factor but only a small one. The vertical temperature profile would be much the same with no GHGs at all beneath the tropopause because the cooling gradient is caused primarily by expansion with height and not by radiative loss to space.

  31. wayne says:

    This disagrees Stephen… not ozone. Have you any data backing up your claim except for your boilplate words of “Basic meteorology and long established basic science”?

    http://www.ugamp.nerc.ac.uk/research/review/thuburnt.htm

  32. oldbrew says: September 18, 2015 at 7:20 pm

    “For tropospheric height to be a climate metric, changes in its height have to tell us something ‘useful’.”

    This thread is only about tropospheric height to be a climate metric! The referenced paper nowhere shows that such a metric may be obtained. Such is a fantasy!

    Stephen Wilde says: September 20, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    “I’ve been pointing this out for years. Conduction and convection from the surface push the tropopause up. Ozone creation in the stratosphere pushes the tropopause down.”

    You have indeed been claiming such nonsense fantasy for years!

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
    An increase in ozone warms the stratosphere or mesosphere, which pushes the tropopause lower.”

    Notice how well Stephen’s nonsense was then crushed at the Jo-Nova blog!

    Roger Clague replied: September 21, 2015 at 10:25 am

    “How does O3 push the tropopause lower? You explain here:
    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/greenhouse-gases-and-the-ideal-gas-law/

    SW:(“We see the same process in the stratosphere where ozone (a GHG) warmed by the sun actually reverses the lapse rate so that temperature increases with height up to the stratopause. The expansion of the stratosphere can push both up and down because there is no solid surface beneath it and that results in some interesting features of our climate system that are beyond the scope of this article.”)

    Stephen’s so called ‘article’, his own “Greenhouse Gases and the Ideal Gas Law” has no scope whatsoever! This article clearly demonstrates that Stephan has no understanding of the ideal gas law!

    RC: “I have 2 objections to this theory
    1. The data in this paper show the sun directly expands and contracts the atmosphere. Tropopause height, in summer and winter lags surface temperature by 1 month.

    In summer the O3 conc. responds after the height.
    Therefore O3 does not cause the change in tropopause height.

    2.The theory is physically implausible. If the stratosphere expand it would be upward into less dense air, not downwards against denser air.”

    Quite so. Both Stephen’s article and the reference of this thread are but fantasy and of no relevance to this Earth’s atmosphere!

    Stephen Wilde Replies to RC: September 21, 2015 at 2:13 pm

    Roger:
    SW: “The height of the tropopause is set by the size of the temperature differential
    between surface and stratosphere. from here page 14:”
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%282001%29014%3C3117%3ATTITPR%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    A much more covoluted article claiming:
    ‘The thermal tropopause definition is based on the fact that the stratosphere is more stably stratified than the troposphere. In terms of the lapse rate, which is defined as the vertical temperature gradient multiplied by -1,this means that the stratospheric lapse rate is lower than
    the tropospheric one. According to WMO (1957), the thermal tropopause is defined as ‘‘the lowest level at which the lapse rate decreases to 2K/ km or less, provided also the average lapse rate between this level, and all higher levels within 2 km does not exceed 2K/km.’

    With this definition, the stratosphere and its temperature can play no part in the determination of the level of the thermopause! This is the reverse of what Stephen and the reference in this thread falsely claim!

    Kristian replies to SW: September 21, 2015 at 4:12 pm

    “Er, no. The height of the tropopause is set simply by the temperature and humidity of the troposphere underneath plus the degree, power and persistence of convective uplift/mixing within the same troposphere. The stratosphere lies on top of the troposphere and is moved up and down WITH it. Just like the atmospheric layers above the stratosphere are moved higher and lower with it. The stratosphere doesn’t get heavier if it cools and lighter if it warms. Why? Because its total mass remains the same. And so it can’t and won’t push the troposphere down, nor can or will it lift it up. Which means, in this case, we wj you are only defining – on paper – a lower or higher tropopause.”

    Stephen certainly likes to invent his own definitions! Perhaps the lawyer in him!

    Stephen Wilde in his insistance replies: September 21, 2015 at 4:34 pm

    “Kristian,
    Tropopause height is a consequence of both troposphere AND stratosphere temperatures….
    No matter how powerful a convective up-draft might be a warmer stratosphere puts a stop to it at a lower level than would a colder stratosphere….. There is indeed a gradient ceiling the height of which is set by ozone amounts absorbing solar radiation directly from above. That is what the tropopause is. Basic meteorology and long established basic science.”

    Stephen certainly likes to invent his own definitions! Perhaps the lawyer in him! He now also defines his version of “Basic meteorology and long established basic science.”

    oldbrew chimes in: September 21, 2015 at 5:08 pm

    ” ‘The level where the temperature sounding first becomes isothermal or becomes an inversion in the upper troposphere is denoted as the tropopause level.’ = TP ”

    Yet another personal preference for a definition of tropopause by:
    http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/291/

    Stephen Wilde must again repeat ad nauseum: September 21, 2015 at 6:14 pm

    “The point is that tropopause height is a BALANCE between the power of convection and the amount of stratospheric warming caused by ozone. ANY ozone and ANY warming in the stratosphere provides a gradient ceiling and the more ozone there is, the warmer the stratosphere is, the lower that ceiling is relative to the power of convection.”

    Of course, no one ever,ever has demonstrated that any of Stephen Wilde’s FANTASY has any actual presence anywhere in the Earth’s atmosphere!

    wayne finally says: September 21, 2015 at 8:44 pm

    “This disagrees Stephen… not ozone. Have you any data backing up your claim except for your boilplate words of “Basic meteorology and long established basic science”?”
    http://www.ugamp.nerc.ac.uk/research/review/thuburnt.htm

    Thank you Wayne,
    It seems that some are beginning to realize the limits of understanding this atmosphere. Still a model rather than measurement. Just more CAGW nonsense!
    All them best! -will-

  33. oldbrew says:

    Will J says: ‘This thread is only about tropospheric height to be a climate metric! The referenced paper nowhere shows that such a metric may be obtained. Such is a fantasy!’

    It’s called the tropopause. Are you saying that doesn’t exist?

  34. wayne,

    I have no intention of wasting time trying to address the comments of someone who leaves ozone out as a cause of the temperature inversion in the stratosphere.

    I see the usual meteorology deniers are now piling in on this thread.

  35. wayne,

    Is that text saying anything about real world observations anyway ?

    It reads like the ‘findings’ are just within a model, presumably a flawed model.

  36. oldbrew says: September 21, 2015 at 9:17 pm

    (Will J says: ‘This thread is only about tropospheric height to be a climate metric! The referenced paper nowhere shows that such a metric may be obtained. Such is a fantasy!’)

    “It’s called the tropopause. Are you saying that doesn’t exist?”

    The WMO definition is fine, as it is a measurement of this atmosphere! That does not make it a climate metric, it is only the tropopause, as defined. The pressure of that tropopause also appears, ‘without verification so far’, the pressure where the increasing mean free path for each molecule with increasing altitude (much decreased molecular density) starts to loose the effect of the rate of change of molecular momentum, the real kinetic energy by. definition.
    Both F. Miskolczi and the Connolly family, had much to say about this effect in their writings. They used balloon measurements to indicate no thermal electromagnetic radiation from the surface is needed for the accumulating atmospheric exitance all the way through the stratosphere. The variable atmospheric water vapour strictly controls the energy leaving this planet in a very stable (overall) thermodynamic equilibrium. No other feedbacks, forcing, or other claptrap need be invented! There is no actual absorption of thermal radiant energy by a gas at, or tending to thermal equilibrium, as per Gus Kirchhoff!
    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/newton-einstein-watson-and-crick-were-not-peer-reviewed/#comment-1471229
    All the best! -will-

  37. oldbrew says:

    Will J: re ‘That does not make it a climate metric, it is only the tropopause, as defined.’

    The report says there’s a *potential* to be a climate metric, so no-one’s arguing that it has already been proved to be one. We’re asking what, if any, potential there might be.

  38. Stephen Wilde says: September 21, 2015 at 9:59 pm

    “wayne, I have no intention of wasting time trying to address the comments of someone who leaves ozone out as a cause of the temperature inversion in the stratosphere. I see the usual meteorology deniers are now piling in on this thread.”

    Is there anyone else that that thinks some stratospheric increase in temperature is required or desired? O3 is a good absorber of solar UV, and the reason for its occurrence. At 10.6 micron O3 is a poor emitter of that power! CO2 exitance limits the stratospheric temperature. The stratospheric temperature has little or no significance to the location of the tropopause, or any temperature below the tropopause. the stratosphere simply has no heat!🙂

  39. tallbloke says:

    Stephen Wilde says: September 20, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    “I’ve been pointing this out for years. Conduction and convection from the surface push the tropopause up. Ozone creation in the stratosphere pushes the tropopause down.”

    Would this be better phrased as: Ozone creation in the stratosphere leads to greater absorption of incoming solar radiation there, bringing about surface cooling due to reduced surface insolation, which causes the tropopause to form at a lower altitude.

    Talk of ‘pushing’ seems to be the root of the problem here.

  40. oldbrew says: September 21, 2015 at 10:54 pm

    (Will J: re ‘That does not make it a climate metric, it is only the tropopause, as defined.’)

    “The report says there’s a *potential* to be a climate metric, so no-one’s arguing that it has already been proved to be one. We’re asking what, if any, potential there might be.”

    That *potential* is the claim! But there is no substantiation for such a claim in that report, or in any of the replies on this thread. That is why Roger Clague brought it up. To wit:
    ‘That is they find that Ttrop is only caused by T surface and is there is no control by O3 in the stratosphere.They claim to confirm the consensus but in my opinion they disprove the theory that O3 causes the tropopause. I think if the paper is made a head post it will create debate.’

    We have such debate ‘twixt defenders of some obscene version of meteorology, i.e. CAGW, and those that wish to defeat such profound fraud. Opposing lies are just as bad as original lies!

    tallbloke says: September 21, 2015 at 11:03 pm

    “Would this be better phrased as: Ozone creation in the stratosphere leads to greater absorption of incoming solar radiation there, bringing about surface cooling due to reduced surface insolation, which causes the tropopause to form at a lower altitude?”

    Do you have any evidence that the tropopause, (the pressure, not altitude, where the lapse rate first goes below 2K/km) is affected by EMR in or out, on the known planets that have a lapse rate and tropopause? Scale temperature throughout the troposphere seems to be the only result of insolation.
    All the best! -will-

  41. tallbloke says:

    Will J: Do you have any evidence that the tropopause, (the pressure, not altitude, where the lapse rate first goes below 2K/km) is affected by EMR in or out, on the known planets that have a lapse rate and tropopause? Scale temperature throughout the troposphere seems to be the only result of insolation.

    I would expect more EMR in to raise temperatures, and that might increase outgassing, which would increase atmospheric mass, which would increase surface pressure. That would in turn raise surface temperature, and that would raise the altitude (not pressure) at the tropopause.

  42. tallbloke says: September 21, 2015 at 11:40 pm

    (“Will J: Do you have any evidence that the tropopause, (the pressure, not altitude, where the lapse rate first goes below 2K/km) is affected by EMR in or out, on the known planets that have a lapse rate and tropopause? Scale temperature throughout the troposphere seems to be the only result of insolation.”)

    “I would expect more EMR in to raise temperatures, and that might increase outgassing, which would increase atmospheric mass, which would increase surface pressure. That would in turn raise surface temperature, and that would raise the altitude (not pressure) at the tropopause.”

    That is quite convoluted. Not quite as bad as a SF6 atmosphere would greatly increase the mass of the planet increasing the surface pressure, thus increasing surface temperature,etc,etc. All the water condensate, other airborne mass; insects, birds, aircraft, reindeer; also increase atmospheric density thus surface temperature and pressure (by 2.9 kPa) theoretically. So what? The temperature of the whole atmospheric column would increase, thus increasing EMR exitance to space, thus lowering the temperature of everything. Are we having fun yet?
    Please give your best guess why the highest altitude (17km) but lowest temperature (197K) tropopause always sits on top of the ITCZ at local mid afternoon! All I can say is that those designer guys know a whole lot more about atmospheres than I will ever learn. I am not even sure, they are done tinkering! God is likely goading them on with “what ifs”, and “Hey Ma watch this”!
    All the best! -will-

  43. tallbloke says:

    Will J: “The temperature of the whole atmospheric column would increase, thus increasing EMR exitance to space, thus lowering the temperature of everything. Are we having fun yet?”

    It’d still equilibriate at a higher surface temperature if EMR-in increased (at TOA) due to an increase in solar output or lowering of Earth’s orbit.

    “Please give your best guess why the highest altitude (17km) but lowest temperature (197K) tropopause always sits on top of the ITCZ at local mid afternoon!”

    I’d guess it was due to the overshooting momentum of rising water vapour.

  44. tallbloke asked:

    “Would this be better phrased as: Ozone creation in the stratosphere leads to greater absorption of incoming solar radiation there, bringing about surface cooling due to reduced surface insolation, which causes the tropopause to form at a lower altitude.”

    Does ozone in the stratosphere cause surface cooling ?

    It distorts the lapse rate slope rather than providing a new starting temperature at the surface does it not ?

    The surface temperature at any given level of insolation being set by mass and gravity then suggesting that radiative ozone alters surface temperature is similar to conceding that GHGs in general can alter surface temperature. That is basically the AGW theory but reversed as regards the sign of the thermal effect.

    Either mass and gravity sets the surface temperature or it does not and the evidence that it does is discerned from the vertical temperature profiles of a variety of planets.

  45. tallbloke says: September 22, 2015 at 5:16 am

    (Will J: “The temperature of the whole atmospheric column would increase, thus increasing EMR exitance to space, thus lowering the temperature of everything. Are we having fun yet?”)

    “It’d still equilibriate at a higher surface temperature if EMR-in increased (at TOA) due to an increase in solar output or lowering of Earth’s orbit.”

    Yes, indeed! that means that orbital distance may be a climate metric. Do you also insist that tropopause height or stratospheric O3 must be a climate metric?

    (“Please give your best guess why the highest altitude (17km) but lowest temperature (197K) tropopause always sits on top of the ITCZ at local mid afternoon!”)

    “I’d guess it was due to the overshooting momentum of rising water vapour.”

    OK, thank you. I do not know of any WV at 17km altitude, 197K temperature with a 430 m/s, 100Mph upward air water laden mass velocity at 7 km altitude. This is the production of stratospheric ice precipitation for both poles! Academic meteorologists have not a clue!
    All the best! -will-

  46. Stephen Wilde says: September 22, 2015 at 7:41 am

    “Either mass and gravity sets the surface temperature or it does not and the evidence that it does is discerned from the vertical temperature profiles of a variety of planets.”

    What Stephen Wilde fantasy! Gravity, independent of atmospheric mass sets lapse rate. Such defined lapse never determines surface temperature as is noticed from the ‘actual’ vertical temperature profiles of a variety of planets. 🙂

  47. oldbrew says:

    From the pro-AGW Santer research (2004) linked in the post:

    ‘The tropopause lies about 18 kilometers above the Earth’s surface at the equator in the summer and 8 kilometers above the poles in winter. The height of the tropopause is sensitive to temperature changes in the troposphere and stratosphere. Warming the troposphere or cooling the stratosphere tends to increase tropopause height. Conversely, cooling the troposphere or warming the stratosphere lowers tropopause height. (See the box below.)’

    ‘According to Santer, direct observations from weather balloons and re-analyses—optimal combinations of weather observations and numerical weather forecasts—show that the tropopause has risen about 200 meters since 1979.’

    So has the tropopause height ‘paused’ in recent years?

  48. oldbrew says:

    This paper says the tropopause height is more correlated with what the stratosphere is doing than it is with the troposphere.

    ‘The observed correlation of tropopause height trends with stratospheric temperature trends, plus observation of a significant QBO signal in tropopause height time series, suggest that at these lowest frequencies the tropopause is primarily coupled with stratospheric temperatures. Conversely, tropopause height trends and tropospheric temperature trends are uncorrelated (although the smallness and uncertainties in the latter may influence this result). Therefore, as an indicator of climate change, long-term changes in the tropopause may carry less information about changes throughout the vertical temperature profile than has been suggested by previous studies using reanalyses and global climate models.’ [bold added]

    http://acd.ucar.edu/~randel/SeidelAndRandel.pdf

  49. Ben Wouters says:

    Kristian says: September 21, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    “The tropopause is not what stops convection. It is itself set by, a direct corollary of, convection topping out.”
    1400+ plus posts about convection and you still come up with this nonsense.

    Convection will only continue as long as the temperature (~density) of the adiabatically cooling rising air is higher than the temperature of the surrounding ‘static’ air. Any temperature inversion will suppress/stop convection. like the nocturnal inversion, subsidence inversion (eg the Trade Wind inversion), inversion ahead of a warm front etc.
    The temperature inversion in the stratosphere is just the ‘mother of all inversions’, because it extends so far vertically and exists over almost the entire planet.

    Most convection is restricted to the boundary layer, and never comes even close to the tropopause.
    So yes, the occasional convective cell that does make it all the way to the tropopause is stopped by the temperature inversion that begins there.

  50. tallbloke says:

    Will J: I do not know of any WV at 17km altitude

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/5181/2015/acp-15-5181-2015.pdf

    “Furthermore, in the Southern Hemisphere the storms reach
    higher cloud top altitudes than in the Northern Hemisphere
    ocean basins, indicating that possible overshootings overpass
    the climatological tropopause
    more deeply at extratropical
    latitudes. The comparison of the TC thermal structure
    with the respective monthly mean tropopause altitude allows
    for a detailed analysis of the probability for possible overshooting.
    While the co-locations between GPS ROs and TC
    tracks are well distributed in all the ocean basins, conditions
    for possible overshootings are found to be more frequent in
    the Southern Hemisphere basins and in the northern Indian
    Ocean basin. However, the number of possible overshootings
    for high intensity storms (i.e., TC categories 1–5) is the highest
    in the western Pacific Ocean basin.”

  51. Kristian says:

    Ben Wouters says, September 22, 2015 at 3:36 pm:

    ““The tropopause is not what stops convection. It is itself set by, a direct corollary of, convection topping out.”
    1400+ plus posts about convection and you still come up with this nonsense.

    Convection will only continue as long as the temperature (~density) of the adiabatically cooling rising air is higher than the temperature of the surrounding ‘static’ air. Any temperature inversion will suppress/stop convection. like the nocturnal inversion, subsidence inversion (eg the Trade Wind inversion), inversion ahead of a warm front etc.
    The temperature inversion in the stratosphere is just the ‘mother of all inversions’, because it extends so far vertically and exists over almost the entire planet.

    Most convection is restricted to the boundary layer, and never comes even close to the tropopause.
    So yes, the occasional convective cell that does make it all the way to the tropopause is stopped by the temperature inversion that begins there.”

    Yawn!

    Ben, you continue to nag on about your narrow definition of “convection” when what I talk about is still “tropospheric circulation” – general movement of air. The movement of air in the troposphere is what sets the tropospheric ELR, in combination with the radiative loss to space. This seems completely beyond you. You seem to think that it’s just there, magically appearing out of hydrostatic equilibrium itself. And that is why you keep on bickering with your “convection mostly occurs within the boundary layer” tripe.

    We’re past that, Ben. Got it?

  52. tallbloke says: September 22, 2015 at 4:00 pm

    (‘Will J: I do not know of any WV at 17km altitude’)

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/5181/2015/acp-15-5181-2015.pdf

    Thank you!
    “indicating that possible overshootings overpass the climatological tropopause”

    Overshootings galore for any Cb cloud mass! However below 218 Kelvin neither WV no liquid water can exist. Lotsa invisible snow at 17 km going poleward. 🙂

  53. tallbloke says:

    Will J: I doubt a mass of water vapour upwelling fast enough to overshoot the tropopause is going to have got that cold already.

  54. tallbloke says: September 22, 2015 at 8:30 pm

    “Will J: I doubt a mass of water vapour upwelling fast enough to overshoot the tropopause is going to have got that cold already.”

    At 5km altitude 48 m/s, 100Mph vertically all the way to lateral dispersion. In the tropics It is not WV that is upwelling. It is H2O condensate, higher momentum than the gas. It is the remaining liquid turning solid above the actual 1st tropopause. This stuff is not a gas, does not condense with sensible heat release does not obey gas laws, but is deliberately ignored by your meteorology buddies. look at the so called temperature anomalies in your reference:
    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/5181/2015/acp-15-5181-2015.pdf
    Why do these meteorological fraudsters refer to anomalies, rather than temperatures? Plausible deniability, or incompetence, your pick! They revel in ignorance. I am tired of it!
    All the best! -will-

  55. tchannon says:

    ” It is H2O condensate, higher momentum than the gas.”
    Condensible gas and condensed gas has identical mass.

  56. tchannon says: September 23, 2015 at 2:18 am

    (” It is H2O condensate, higher momentum than the gas.”)
    “Condensible gas and condensed gas has identical mass.”

    Even in the tropics, WV is limited to 2.2% of atmospheric mass because of temperature.
    Near the ITCZ there is another 9% of airborne mass that is liquid condensate, parts of the Cb cloud. This is the junk that gets thrown into the stratosphere to be carried to some pole by the QBO. The cloud top disappears as the condensate freezes solid.
    All the best! -will-

  57. tchannon says:

    Stuff in clouds is very complex.
    Includes supercooling.
    Includes sublimation.
    Double phase changes make thermal flows a bit tricky.
    Brave to even try to work it out.

  58. tallbloke says:

    Tim C: Condensible gas and condensed gas has identical mass.

    But less air resistance?

  59. Ben Wouters says:

    Kristian says: September 22, 2015 at 4:57 pm

    “Yawn!

    Ben, you continue to nag on about your narrow definition of “convection” when what I talk about is still “tropospheric circulation” – general movement of air. The movement of air in the troposphere is what sets the tropospheric ELR, in combination with the radiative loss to space. This seems completely beyond you. You seem to think that it’s just there, magically appearing out of hydrostatic equilibrium itself. And that is why you keep on bickering with your “convection mostly occurs within the boundary layer” tripe.

    We’re past that, Ben. Got it?”

    Your ignorance and arrogance still match nicely.

    35+ years personal experience tells me that above the boundary layer not much vertical movement is happening. The few CB’s that reach the tropopause are few and far between.
    The largest SINGLE convective event on this planet IS a CB. Hurricanes etc are systems consisting of many CB’s together.
    Global circulation cells, jet streams etc. are all driven by pressure differences at tropopause levels, which are obviously caused by temperature gradients plus the Coriolis effect.

    “You seem to think that it’s just there, magically appearing out of hydrostatic equilibrium itself. ”
    No, I DO think that the warming from the solar heated surface balances the radiative loss to space through the atmosphere, with the troposphere settling in hydrostatic equlibrium and the accompanying temperature profile.
    And yes, the warming in the stratosphere IS caused by solar UV interacting with oxygen and ozone.

  60. Ben Wouters says:

    tallbloke says: September 23, 2015 at 8:48 am

    “Tim C: Condensible gas and condensed gas has identical mass.

    But less air resistance?”

    Are you serious?? WV is an integral part of the gas mix. So you’re basically asking for the air resistance of air. Condensation creates water DROPLETS, that are no longer part of the gas mix, and ‘fall’ towards the surface.

    http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section3.html#precipitation

  61. Ben Wouters says: September 23, 2015 at 11:40 am

    tallbloke says: September 23, 2015 at 8:48 am

    (“Tim C: Condensible gas and condensed gas has identical mass.
    But less air resistance?”)

    “Are you serious?? WV is an integral part of the gas mix. So you’re basically asking for the air resistance of air.”

    The resistance to atmospheric movement is a combination of viscosity and sheer forces in the atmosphere. A subject ignored by meteorology.

    “Condensation creates water DROPLETS, that are no longer part of the gas mix, and ‘fall’ towards the surface.”

    Only in defunct meteorology! Condensation creates airborne water condensate that are certainly part of the compressible fluid atmosphere Such is not as gas does not obey any gas laws, but is part of the atmosphere, just like your aircraft is when flying! This atmosphere caries with it 2.7 cm of column water, enough for 9 days rainfall at all time. In the ITCZ the mass of airborne water condensate (not a gas) exceeds the mass of WV (gas) by 12 times. This in spite of the fact that precipitation is 8 times the global average in the ITCZ.

  62. ren says:

    It seems that the density of the stratosphere affects the height of the tropopause?

  63. Kristian says:

    ren says, September 23, 2015 at 2:59 pm:

    “It seems that the density of the stratosphere affects the height of the tropopause?”

    How?

  64. ren says: September 23, 2015 at 2:59 pm
    ‘It seems that the density of the stratosphere affects the height of the tropopause?’

    From your own charts and the reference to zonal mass, (whatever meteoro-fools mean by that), observe that at whatever latitude the charts indicate a slight increase in high altitude stratospheric (40 km) pressure at NH summer. This also displays a slight decrease in low altitude stratospheric (18 km) pressure at NH summer. This also displays the constant lowest temperature altitude tropopause at (15 km,100 mbar). This also displays the constant WMO defined tropopause at (11 km,200 mbar).This also displays the total uselessness of meteorological global anything, (averaged over latitudes).😦
    All the best! -will-

  65. ren says:

    Kristian
    the temperature rise ozone give a lower density and can see an increase in the tropopause height.

  66. ren says: September 23, 2015 at 7:44 pm

    “Kristian ,the temperature rise ozone give a lower density and can see an increase in the tropopause height.”
    Please give your interpretation as to what this idiot reanalysis may mean if anything?

  67. ren says: September 23, 2015 at 7:44 pm

    “Kristian, the temperature rise ozone give a lower density and can see an increase in the tropopause height.

    Your chart: Where is the WMO tropause? What does the white contour mean? What does the purple contour mean? What does the dark blue contour mean? What does the medium blue contour mean ?What does the light blue contour mean? is the tropopause the upper or lower parts of the blue contours? Why do you claim the polar (Arctic) tropopause is at a higher level? The temperatures at high polar stratosphere are caused by the returning mass flow from the ITCZ (high altitude inversion in mid summer) not some elevation in tropopause by O3! The endless meteorological reanalysis charts are always colourful, but intentionally hide any real meaning. Ren: You can do much better interpretation of the meaning behind!
    All the best! -will-

  68. Kristian says:

    ren says, September 23, 2015 at 7:44 pm:

    “the temperature rise ozone give a lower density and can see an increase in the tropopause height.”

    ren, here’s the NH (from your own source):

    And here’s the SH:

    Notice something? In the NH, the troposphere predictably expands (the tropopause lifts) during the summer months (~May-Oct). That’s from surface heating, ren. And in the SH, the tropopause also lifts during the summer months, only here they’re at the opposite side of the year, from Nov to Apr. And this period just so happens to be the time when surface heating is at its strongest down under.

    The stratosphere doesn’t set the tropopause height, ren. Surface heating/cooling -> larger and lesser degree of tropospheric heating, moistening and convective power, does. I would say the connection is trivially obvious.

    That’s why I asked you “How?” By what physical mechanism would a denser stratosphere affect tropopause height (push it down or lift it up)?

  69. oldbrew says:

    Kristian: the abstract says ‘The spring minimum [of tropopause altitude] occurs one month later than that of surface air temperature and instead coincides with the maximum in ozone column density.’

    The ozone column density is in the stratosphere?

  70. oldbrew says: September 23, 2015 at 11:09 pm

    “Kristian: the abstract says ‘The spring minimum [of tropopause altitude] occurs one month later than that of surface air temperature and instead coincides with the maximum in ozone column density.’ The ozone column density is in the stratosphere? ”

    Stewart,
    What do you use for tropopause definition? The WMO minimum for less than 2C/km lapse definition or the altitude of minimum temperature between tropo and strato-sphere? The article seems specifically written with the purpose to confuse any possible meaning for climate metric!!
    Please show the mechanism whereby the maximum stratospheric ozone column density, still less dense than the troposphere can somehow depress the pressure altitude of the troposphere. What can possibly be the meaning of ozone column density? Density is a function of variable stratospheric volume. I can understand column ozone mass. It is like column H2O mass. Do you enjoy being lead astray?
    All the best! -will-

  71. ren says:

    Will Janoschka look at the white area above the equator and temperature. This is the tropopause.

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/

  72. ren says:

    Will Janoschka the white area indicates no ozone. You have a site with historical data. I think that the satellites do not lie.

  73. ren says: September 24, 2015 at 5:30 am

    “Will Janoschka look at the white area above the equator and temperature. This is the tropopause.”

    That is the composite altitudes of minimum temperature between tropo/strato-sphere. Just who or WMO, says this is the equatorial tropopause, which is at a lower altitude? Please describe what you mean, rather than use terms from those intent on confusion, please. Notice the huge lapse inversion in the equatorial stratosphere! Is that stratospheric ozone? Does stratospheric temperature have any meaning? Just what can the stratospheric mass heat or cool, (work)?
    Stratospheric temperature is a radiometric expression for the various stratospheric gas molecules. Such temperatures have no thermodynamic meaning. All is fraud!

    ren says: September 24, 2015 at 5:39 am

    “Will Janoschka the white area indicates no ozone. You have a site with historical data.”

    It appears that the white is the below off scale of the temperature bar, in every case. What is your reference to “no ozone”?

    “I think that the satellites do not lie.”

    This is true! They do not have that capability. The US interpreters of satellite data always lie, that is their paid for job! This is the whole purpose for the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research!
    The guys at JPL still lie to bureaucrats and media, but will supply unvarnished unknowns, to those that have demonstrated polite understanding of the difficulties in measurement!
    All the best! -will-

  74. oldbrew says:

    Will J says: ‘What can possibly be the meaning of ozone column density? ‘

    NOAA provides stats for ozone column density in the atmosphere.

    ‘Here you can find the total column ozone amount over any point on Earth’
    http://ozoneaq.gsfc.nasa.gov/tools/ozonemap/

    NOAA says – ‘Note: This is not the amount of ozone that causes smog (tropospheric ozone), but rather a measure of ozone density through an entire column of atmosphere, from ground to space. This measurement is dominated by high altitude ozone (stratospheric ozone). See the Dobson unit entry in Wikipedia for more detail.’

  75. oldbrew says: September 24, 2015 at 8:56 am
    (Will J says: ‘What can possibly be the meaning of ozone column density? ‘)

    “NOAA provides stats for ozone column density in the atmosphere.”

    Stewart, Only in your fantasy of illogical, deceptive word combinations.!!

    ‘Here you can find the total column ozone amount over any point on Earth’
    http://ozoneaq.gsfc.nasa.gov/tools/ozonemap/

    Column ozone, like column water is the total mass of some atmospheric substance within a fixed area, under gravitational force from Earth’s surface to the approximate distance of Earth’s Moon. That is the apparent pressure in force per square centimetre converted back to grams mass.

    “NOAA says – ‘Note: This is not the amount of ozone that causes smog (tropospheric ozone), but rather a measure of ozone density through an entire column of atmosphere, from ground to space.”

    NOAA in their intent to deceive, via screwy words, cannot ever produce the volume of such a column “to space”. There can not be a mass density without a defined volume. You are being thoroughly and intentionally scammed!

    “This measurement is dominated by high altitude ozone (stratospheric ozone). See the Dobson unit entry in Wikipedia for more detail.”

    This is never a measure of anything. Even my kitten clearly understands deliberate nonsense. She shakes head, licks ass, and presents a definitive “where’s my food”?
    All the best! -will-

  76. oldbrew says:

    Will J says: ‘This is never a measure of anything.’

    Some people say it is…

    ‘The Dobson unit (DU) is a unit of measurement of the columnar density of a trace gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. It originated, and continues to be widely used, as a measure of total-column ozone, which is dominated by ozone in the stratospheric ozone layer. One Dobson unit refers to a layer of gas that would be 10 µm thick under standard temperature and pressure,[1] sometimes referred to as a ‘milli-atmo-centimeter.’ For example, 300 DU of ozone brought down to the surface of the Earth at 0 °C would occupy a layer only 3 mm thick. One DU is 2.69×1016 ozone molecules per square centimetre, or 2.69×1020 per square metre. This is 0.4462 millimoles of ozone per square metre.’

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobson_unit

    ‘The Dobson unit is named after Gordon Dobson, who was a researcher at the University of Oxford. In the 1920s, he built the first instrument to measure total ozone from the ground, now called the Dobson ozone spectrophotometer.’

    Here’s the device itself.

  77. Roger Clague says:

    Kristian says:
    September 18, 2015 at 7:28 am

    I really don’t get this strange (but, as it seems, persistent) idea that the rarefied stratosphere should somehow expand downwards upon heating, suppressing the thicker troposphere underneath it.

    The theory of tropopause height caused by ozone in the stratosphere is promoted by CO2/AGW warmists such as Santer.
    The more physical theory that the 99% of the mass of the atmosphere below 20km has more influence than the 1% of mass above 20km is not attractive to those with radiative prejudices.

    Referring back to the original paper:
    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/5485/2011/acp-11-5485-2011.pdf

    Consider Fig.5 :

    In summer/autumn the O3 changes in October after the Tropopause temp.
    Tropopause temperature changes in August.
    Cause must come before effect
    O3 does not cause tropopause height

    In my opinion stratosphere temperatures are not comparable to troposphere temperatures.
    The pressure at 20km. is 1/200 of the pressure at the surface.

  78. oldbrew says: September 24, 2015 at 11:34 am

    (Will J says: ‘This is never a measure of anything.’)

    “Some people say it is…
    ‘The Dobson unit (DU) is a unit of measurement of the columnar density of a trace gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. It originated, and continues to be widely used, as a measure of total-column ozone, which is dominated by ozone in the stratospheric ozone layer. One Dobson unit refers to a layer of gas that would be 10 µm thick under standard temperature and pressure,[1] sometimes referred to as a ‘milli-atmo-centimeter.’ For example, 300 DU of ozone brought down to the surface of the Earth at 0 °C would occupy a layer only 3 mm thick. One DU is 2.69×1016 ozone molecules per square centimetre, or 2.69×1020 per square metre. This is 0.4462 millimoles of ozone per square metre.’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobson_unit.’

    Indeed, that is all physically and geometrically dimensionality correct. except for the idiot reference to density. Columnar density which was never done by Dobson, but instead by neuvo science, insisting on dumbing down all understanding. Columnar mass is understandable. ‘Columnar density’ is but a deliberate attempt to defraud.

    ‘The Dobson unit is named after Gordon Dobson, who was a researcher at the University of Oxford. In the 1920s, he built the first instrument to measure total ozone from the ground, now called the Dobson ozone spectrophotometer.’

    Indeed, a clever instrument designed to measure atmospheric columnar ozone mass. Please, what does this have to do with some insane concept of ozone atmospheric density?🙂

  79. The U-2, now TR-1, the SR-71, was rs-17, except for the presidential dyslexia goof off. Were designed, constructed by, and verified by those that accepted many, many aw shits per hour! But were determined to do, in spite of! How different than the academic know it all!

  80. Ben Wouters says:

    ren says: September 23, 2015 at 2:59 pm

    “It seems that the density of the stratosphere affects the height of the tropopause?”

    The atmosphere is mostly warmed from below by the solar heated surface, giving decreasing temperatures with increasing altitude. Without solar UV interacting with oxygen and ozone we wouldn’t see a temperature increase as we see in the stratosphere. Temperatures would just continue to decrease.
    The stratosphere is apparently the place with just enough density to enable UV to interact with O2/O3. In the lower stratosphere most UVC and UVB are absorbed, so the warming effect decreases again.
    The tropopause is just the boundary between the two warming effects, and its altitude varies according to the strength of the two competing effects.

  81. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: September 24, 2015 at 11:39 am

    “O3 does not cause tropopause height”

    I thought that in your theory the sun heats the atmosphere, and then the atmosphere heats the surface?
    Here we have a measurable warming by solar UV and now you’re saying it is not happening???

  82. Ben Wouters says: September 24, 2015 at 2:27 pm
    Roger Clague says: September 24, 2015 at 11:39 am
    ( “O3 does not cause tropopause height”)

    ” I thought that in your theory the sun heats the atmosphere, and then the atmosphere heats the surface Here we have a measurable warming by solar UV and now you’re saying it is not happening???”

    Undefined “warming” again, along with undefined “heats” with only the intent, to confuse! The troposphere at whatever temperature has no mass, no sensible heat, no capability of “warming” anything! Can you never try to communicate? Why always only the preaching from some ‘recreational flying bible?😦

  83. ren says:

    Ben Wouters, ozone transfer heat to the environment as a result of a chemical reaction.
    “These reactions, proposed by Sydney Chapman in 1930, explain the presence of ozone in the stratosphere. Oxygen molecules can be photolysed by UV radiation to form oxygen radicals in reaction 1. In reaction 2, these reactive oxygen radicals can combine with a oxygen molecule to form ozone. The �M� in this reaction is any third molecule: M absorbs the heat from this reaction. The increasing temperature profile of the stratosphere results from this reaction. In reaction 3, ozone is destroyed by UV light to form an oxygen radical and an oxygen molecule. Ozone can also be destroyed by combination with a radical, as seen in reaction 4”.
    http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/molsim/teaching/fall2008/ozone/Ozone%20website_files/Page603.htm

  84. Ben Wouters says:

    ren says: September 24, 2015 at 3:40 pm

    “Ben Wouters, ozone transfer heat to the environment as a result of a chemical reaction.”

    Obviously, otherwise we would need another explanation for the rising temperature vs altitude in the stratosphere.

  85. Will Janoschka says:
    September 24, 2015 at 12:38 pm

    oldbrew says: September 24, 2015 at 11:34 am

    One DU is 2.69×1016 ozone molecules per square centimetre, or 2.69×1020 per square metre. This is 0.4462 millimoles of ozone per square metre.’

    So you must agree A DU is not a measurement or unit of mass density or molar density! Do a dimensional analysis on the word density. Mass or count per unit volume!!

  86. oldbrew says:

    Will J: the way Wikipedia describes it is that the DU is the unit, the column contains the volume.

    ‘A special type of area density is called column (mass) density (also columnar mass density), denoted ρA or σ. It is the mass of substance per unit area integrated along a path;[1] It is obtained integrating volumetric density \rho over a column:[2]’
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_density#Column_density

    More about Dobson units here:
    http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/dobson.html


    ‘If all of the air in a vertical column that extends from the ground up to space were collected and squeezed together at a temperature of 0 degrees Celsius and a pressure of 1 atmosphere, that column would be 8 kilometers thick (or about 5 miles). Compare that to the 3 millimeters described above, and you may realize just how tenuous the Earth’s ozone layer is.’

  87. oldbrew says:

    tchannon says: September 25, 2015 at 12:34 am

    Interesting stuff Tim. Also came across this:

    ‘Prof Ozone and his garden shed’

  88. oldbrew says: September 25, 2015 at 10:02 am

    Will J: the way Wikipedia describes it is that the DU is the unit, the column contains the volume.

    ‘A special type of area density is called column (mass) density (also columnar mass density), denoted ρA or σ. It is the mass of substance per unit area integrated along a path;[1] It is obtained integrating volumetric density \rho over a column:[2]’
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_density#Column_density

    For that wiki: ‘This page was last modified on 19 September 2015, at 16:42.’

    I see Wm Connolley (stoat) is still hard at work!!

    The revisions to prop up CAGW are endless. An atmospheric column has no known volume. The term is column (whatever), with no density term. For gas it is compressed to a height at STP with no area, for liquids it is the heignt in mm/cm again no area. Global column(H20) is 2.4-2.7 cm. Tropospheric column(H2O) can be as high as 20 cm, mostly rain. Go ask your meteorologist buddies the value for tropospheric column(ice)! Watch them scatter!! Meteorology says none. Aircraft engine makers use such as measurable engine coolant. It goes through the bypass, gobbling waste heat in sublimation, increasing thrust, then reforms back to invisible snow 200 meters behind the craft. No contrails are generated. Stratospheric temperature increases, slightly.
    All the best! -will-

  89. oldbrew says:

    Will J: I don’t have any ‘meteorologist buddies’ to ask😦

    But I agree the ‘vertical’ column they refer to doesn’t seem to have any ‘horizontal’ dimensions, which is a bit strange.

  90. ren says:

    In summer, the density of the stratosphere is significantly increased, because the density of ozone is greater than that of other gases.

  91. ren says: September 26, 2015 at 10:50 am

    “In summer, the density of the stratosphere is significantly increased, because the density of ozone is greater than that of other gases.”

    This could be true if you assume ideal gas properties, i.e. equal volume for each molecule.
    Why would anyone assume such, at such low pressures in a gravitational field?😦

  92. ren says:

    Most ozone is concentrated in the lower stratosphere, even though it is formed in the upper stratosphere.

  93. ren says: September 26, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    “Most ozone is concentrated in the lower stratosphere, even though it is formed in the upper stratosphere.”

    Indeed, that is the strato by density! Much lower (75m AGL) is the CO2sphere, The trees gobble it all up, creating nice firewood and much free O2 to dance with all nice critters, that for some reason fear earthlings. Why is that? Coal is but firewood that has not caught fire yet!🙂

  94. Roger Clague says:

    Ben Wouters says:
    September 24, 2015 at 2:27 pm

    I thought that in your [ RogC] theory the sun heats the atmosphere, and then the atmosphere heats the surface?
    Here we have a measurable warming by solar UV and now you’re saying it is not happening???

    I don’t think of heating the stratosphere is like heating the troposphere.
    The tropopause is the tropohalt. It is the final lowest temperature of the 99% mass of the atmosphere.
    Temperature above 20km at <1/200 of surface pressure is not temperature as we know it. It is not something which can be felt by a person. It is felt by a sensor on a satellite as a frequency.

  95. oldbrew says:

    Stratosphere temperature is below zero C so talk of ‘heating’ it is a bit misleading.

  96. oldbrew says September 28, 2015 at 4:34 pm

    “Stratosphere temperature is below zero C so talk of ‘heating’ it is a bit misleading”

    Indeed! In thermodynamics, or in electro-magnetics (EMR), temperature can be never a cause of anything. Temperature can only be a result of else!🙂

  97. Roger Clague says:

    Will Janoschka says:
    September 26, 2015 at 1:17 pm

    This could be true if you assume ideal gas properties, i.e. equal volume for each molecule.

    Even without gas laws the concept (metric?) volume per molecule is important.

    Number of particles ( n ) per volume, number density, n/v is more fundamental than mass

    http://milesmathis.com/uft2.html

    “He [ Newton] should have written each mass as a density and a volume. Mass is not a fundamental characteristic, like density or volume is. To know a mass, you have to know both a density and a volume. But to know a volume, you only need to know lengths. Likewise with density. Density, like volume, can be measured only with a yardstick. You will say that if density and volume can be measured with a yardstick, so can mass, since mass is defined by density and volume. True. But mass is a step more abstract, since it requires both measurements. Mass requires density and volume. But density and volume do not require mass.”

    Number density has dimensions of number, n, and length, l^3
    V has dimension l^3
    Mass = n/v x v
    mass = n

    Mass is number ? .

  98. Will Janoschka says:

    Roger Clague says: September 29, 2015 at 3:17 pm

    “Number density has dimensions of number, n, and length, l^3
    V has dimension l^3
    Mass = n/v x v
    mass = n
    Mass is number ? .”

    You lost me there between velocity and volume symbols! However the number without mass is quite true and always must be remembered, especially gas thermodynamics! Each gas molecule has only noise power kT/t, which some mistakenly claim as mass energy kT. That little change includes monumental changes in scientific concepts, as there is no need (so far) for conservation of power. This puts into question the whole kinetic theory of gas as the Newtonian kinetic can no longer be mv^2/2, or some function of average speed of molecular mass. That noise power can only be related to the rate of change of momentum, but with no actual need for mass! This properly can be related to rate of change in particle vector velocity that must linearly determine the molecular temperature of kT/t. Now since we have two linear time rate functions Temperature must be a linear function of change in particle vector velocity, or direction, quite independent of mass.
    Before we all squawking like chickens. Please, such can ‘only’ apply to the truly random resulting in temperature. This has nothing to do with Newtonian kinetic of group vector velocity, momentum (mv in one direction) that requires mass, and finally vector acceleration, to get to any group energy (mv^2/2). Perhaps only group energy needs be conserved. Thermal energy can be discarded via spontaneous EMR flux in any direction that will have it! The automagical disposition of accumulating entropy. Why cannot that happen with accumulating stupidity?🙂
    The Sun deliberately increases Earth’s randomness (temperature) via EMR. The atmosphere reduces such randomness (temperature) via spontaneous EMR exitance! Can the current top predator, earthlings, figure this out?, never with this monumental increase in stupidity!

    Roger Clague says: September 29, 2015 at 4:24 pm

    “The sun in August 2015 and the climatic UV amplifier in the stratosphere
    http://notrickszone.com/2015/09/29/german-scientists-models-showing-bitter-winters-are-ahead-for-europe-current-solar-cycle-weakest-in-200-years/#sthash.WTnNq2uQ.
    Ozone affecting climate?”

    Why not? Certainly affects bronze tone vs white sunblock! Still no one has shown that ozone affects tropopause height!

  99. Brett Keane says:

    @Will Janoschka says:
    September 28, 2015 at 10:59 pm: So, when we think of T causing EMR, is it really KE, with T being a human notion? Or what?