Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics

Volumes 90–91, December 2012, Pages 9-14
  • National Institute of Geophysics, Geodesy and Geography, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 3 G. Bonchev, Sofia, Bulgaria

The strong sensitivity of the Earth’s radiation balance to variations in the lower stratospheric ozone—reported previously—is analysed here by the use of non-linear statistical methods. Our non-linear model of the land air temperature (T)—driven by the measured Arosa total ozone (TOZ)—explains 75% of total variability of Earth’s T variations during the period 1926–2011. We have analysed also the factors which could influence the TOZ variability and found that the strongest impact belongs to the multi-decadal variations of galactic cosmic rays. Constructing a statistical model of the ozone variability, we have been able to predict the tendency in the land air T evolution till the end of the current decade. Results show that Earth is facing a weak cooling of the surface T by 0.05–0.25 K (depending on the ozone model) until the end of the current solar cycle. A new mechanism for O3 influence on climate is proposed.



I disagree with the authors interpretation of the mechanism involved that is described in part as:  increase or decrease of the greenhouse effect, depending on the sign of the humidity changes. 

More simply, the Earths radiation balance is much affected by the degree to which incoming radiation is reflected by cloud cover.

I maintain (suggest is too weak a word) that ozone as an absorber of outgoing radiation by the Earth, radiation continuously, day and night,  impacting the temperature and relative humidity of the highly reflective ice-cloud-zone that is found from a couple of kilometres above the surface of the Earth unto the limits of the ‘weather-sphere’. The weather-sphere, I would describe as the zone that contains sufficient water vapour to promote the appearance and disappearance of  minute, highly reflective, multi-branching  (like the international space station) crystals of ice.

Ice crystals reflect and scatter incoming radiation,

There is no need to invoke carbon dioxide or its increasing presence in the atmosphere, or the notion of a greenhouse effect, to explain surface temperature variations. Insofar as carbon dioxide promotes the growth of vegetation and increases the mass of water in the hydro logic cycle it will promote humidity and the formation of more cloud.

The atmosphere ejects heat by virtue of convection. It lacks any of the properties of a greenhouse. The tragic failure of climate science, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is to misunderstand the physics of the atmosphere.

The wilfulness of ignorance and the determination to hang on to old dogma is astounding: this paper appeared in 2012.

13 thoughts on “Confirmation

  1. Looks like this paper is worthy of closer examination, Erl. It is clear that GCR has been steadily increasing for some time now. Attributed to the Low SSN or quiet sun. Cycle due to end in next few years. So lots of intensity to be absorbed by oxygen, thus ozone pressure. Cheers Macha.


  2. I have done some more reading and the theory of upwelling heating does not stack up if what I read is true, in so far as……
    In the stratosphere, the height of the maximum ozone heating rate is much higher than the height of the maximum ozone concentration. From TOA to the height of the maximum ozone concentration, the downward solar flux decreases but the ozone concentration increases. This results in opposite effects on the ozone heating rate. At the height of the maximum ozone heating rate, these two opposite roles are balanced.
    This can be intuitively understood that the exceedingly strong ozone absorption causes the incoming solar flux to be largely attenuated before it reaches the location of the maximum ozone concentration, and such attenuation is enhanced when solar zenith angle becomes larger.

    A simple parameterization for the height of maximum ozone heating
    rate. Feng Zhang a,b,⇑, Can Hou a, Jiangnan Li c, Renqiang Liu a, Cuiping Liu a
    Infrared Physics & Technology 87 (2017) 104–112

    So the corrolary is if the mechanism was from upwelling IR, why do we not see max heating rates at heights lower than the max ozone concentration?


  3. Macca, the article considers only one source of heating for ozone, namely solar radiation. It makes no reference to heating of the atmosphere by ozone via the absorption of radiation from the Earth itself.

    Heating by ozone reduces the lapse rate to zero at the tropopause that can be at 500 hPa in elevation (half the atmospheric depth) in high latitudes of the winter hemisphere in the absence of any form of solar radiation at all.

    There is very little ozone in the troposphere but I have read that there is as much atmospheric heating by ozone in the troposphere as in the stratosphere.

    The amount of heating by ozone is a function of atmospheric density. The ozone molecule has to be able to offload the energy responsible for its vibration before it can accept the energy that causes it to vibrate.

    Re direct heating by solar radiation alone. The height of maximum ozone concentration is lower than the zone of maximum heating of ozone from solar radiation due to the attenuation of the particular bands of radiation that are absorbed by oxygen and ozone as atmospheric density increases. For the ozone molecule to persist it must be free of the radiation that destroys it. This alone explains why the zone of heating is higher than the zone of maximum ozone concentration.


  4. The upward warming of Ozone is a subject that needs to be teased out into likely mechanisms and energy levels.
    For starters: IR – Window surface return of radiation. Are the frequencies high enough to do the job, given radiation’s negative 4th Power effects as a weak force.
    The conductive power of KE transfer from convected gases including WV.
    WV Latent Heat radiation at tropospheric to tropopausal levels. There is a lot of it.

    What energy is needed for effect, when it may (or may not?) be only relative to cool zones below?
    Enough for now, thoughts please? Brett


  5. Hi Brett,
    In this post I write” The atmosphere ejects heat by virtue of convection. It lacks any of the properties of a greenhouse.”.

    I reject any notion that Earth and atmosphere emitted infrared radiation can be responsible for increase in the temperature of layers of the atmosphere at any level below the point of excitation.

    Its a matter of observation. Here is the proof:

    Does that answer the question?

    Also relevant

    in particular under the heading: MORE OBSERVATION: OZONE HEATING AT 200 hPa IN WINTER

    For the same reason I reject the notion that the release of latent heat in the atmosphere via condensation phenomena (say at 850hPa where most cloud condensation occurs) can be responsible for an increase in the temperature of the air at the surface via back radiation.

    I reject the notion that the presence of cloud anywhere in the atmosphere can be responsible for warming at the surface. For sure, a cloudy atmosphere is usually a warmer atmosphere, but its warm due to the fact that it comes from a warm moist place (the tropics) and is moving towards higher cooler latitudes.

    If that puts me out of step with 99% of thinkers (Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen included) I simply don’t mind. I am looking at the data and I can’t see any evidence for these notions.


  6. Erl, that is exactly what my take on the Physics tells me too. Reference to latent heat was concerning effects from below warming Ozone, among potential agents for your ideas. I do know that the Gas laws, Poisson Relationship, and LOTD as Maxwell determined, preclude GHE. I still need proof of IR upward warming of ozone but that is your job……


  7. Further to my last, no, it is the job of us all. But you may have ’empiricised’ the upward ozone warming already, before I chanced along…..
    The Swedes have put an Icebreaker and a floe camp at the North Pole to study cloud/mist action in the Arctic. This latent energy transfer makes the place seem ridiculously hot on modelled maps, but we know better. I have hopes for this Study, and maybe it could help yours too. Getting data from CAGW addicts when it contradicts them is hard, but maybe Caleb and Friends on his ‘Sunshine’s Swansong’ Blog, or Tony Heller, will dig it out. Maybe the Swedes’s are still honest Scientists, we shall see.


  8. Brett, Surface temperature won’t vary due to the presence or absence of ozone aloft…..unless there is a change in cloud cover allowing more solar radiation to reach the surface.


  9. What I had in mind was the latent heat release as that mist freezes out near the Poles. It should radiate into the Ozone, then what? Or is all ozone locked out by the vortex? Just wondering. Maybe cold air is warmed enough, midtroposphere, say, to rise and thermalise the ozone the few degrees that it does appear to increase.


  10. Brett, there is very little moisture in the air in the vicinity of Antarctica to release any latent heat. The air is freeze dried before it gets to Antarctica.

    Ozone is mixed into the vortex from the circulation at high elevations. The uplift that is the product of ozone heating produces high concentrations of ozone at 1hPa. ‘By your works shall I know thee.’ That ozone rich air folds into the down-welling vortex from above.

    Its a different story in the Arctic which is a lot warmer so the air is not so much freeze dried. So, the polar cyclones in the northern hemisphere have warmer cores due to the contribution of latent heat release.

    Ozone is energised to warm adjacent molecules via the absorption of up-welling long wave radiation from the surface of the Earth, land and ocean, in all latitudes. Hence the reversal of cooling with increasing altitude that creates the stratosphere. The other main source of heating is via compression of air in the high pressure cells of the mid latitudes. Its the mid latitudes that are the source of most long wave radiation that makes its way to ‘space’.

    So, in the broad scheme of things ozone heating and release of latent heat, together with contact of the air with warm surfaces drives movement of the air…..the planetary and local winds. And where this occurs there is little long wave radiation to space with the best illustration the equatorial parts where , despite the warmth, there is little radiation to space.


  11. Erl, as it sinks in, I think your reply will help answer much of my questioning, thanks. The low equatorial LW Emf may add another question so I guess we see advection polewards of low-ozone diatomic gases. mainly. Cheers, Brett


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s