If human greenhouse gas emissions aren't causing global warming, why is the upper atmosphere cooling?

Question

I ask this question periodically, and never seem to get a straight answer from the AGW doubters.

The Earth's upper atmosphere is cooling. I'm not just talking about the stratosphere, whose temperature is complicated by interactions with ozone and water vapor.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/atmos/ozone.htm

But also the mesosphere, thermosphere, and ionosphere.

"Laštovička et al point out that cooling trends are exactly as predicted by increasing greenhouse gas trends"

"The higher up one goes, the more important the CO2 related cooling is. It's interesting to note that significant solar forcing would have exactly the opposite effect (it would cause a warming) - yet another reason to doubt that solar forcing is a significant factor in recent decades."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/

So for those who remain unconvinced by the AGW theory, how do you explain this upper atmosphere cooling which AGW predicts accurately?

Answer 1

Its space dude.

Answer 2

I dont know what AGW is, but maybe Santa Clause fell on the AC button!>>.HA ha

Answer 3

I fail to see where this directly attributable to CO2. Perhaps you could enlighten me with some empirical evidence that links CO2?

The Laštovička 2004 paper (and the 2006 paper, which I believe used the upper atmosphere trends ending in 1997) mentions that geomagnetic and solar activity have played some role in the cooling upper atmosphere, but there hasn't been any particularly good assessment of the extent of their roles. And increased water vapor likely makes up a majority of the rest. Maybe CO2 is playing a role, and it is likely, but we just don't know.

Beyond that, the SSU data shows a lack of cooling for at least 12 years at altitudes of 50km--well into the upper stratosphere and generally high enough to remove the influences of the H2O/ozone interaction. Above that, we have no temperature record, and I have yet to see a more up to date assessment of the trends.

"The higher up one goes, the more important the CO2 related cooling is. It's interesting to note that significant solar forcing would have exactly the opposite effect (it would cause a warming) - yet another reason to doubt that solar forcing is a significant factor in recent decades."

Read the climate commitment studies of Wigley, et al, and Meehl, et al, to understand how the argument that recent solar activity has not increased is simplistic and wrong. If the level of solar forcing reached prior to 1940 continues (which is unlikely per Solanki), then there will be a solar contribution to the energy imblance resulting in sea level rise for several more centuries. Presumably most of the temperature response occurs in the first few decades, although arguably, that response was delayed by the causes of the midcentury cooling (aerosols, among other things).

Answer 4

Mount Zion's response is awesome.

A model is not fact nor is it proof. I can model anything I want it doesn't make it true.

I also love all the words/statements in the first link like "may", "Though not fully understood", "hough some studies conflict with lower stratospheric observations of water vapor trends"...how could there be conflicting studies? I thought the science was settled, for that matter why keep studying, it is settled.

Answer 5

If you throw out increasing concentration of radiative trace species as an explanation, there isn't a decent alternative theory for why the upper stratosphere is cooling.  That's why the skeptics ignore the upper stratosphere and focus on the lower stratosphere, where the cooling is "confused" by the effects of sulfate injection from volcanoes.  At least lower down there is enough impact of volcanoes they can argue the cooling hasn't been uniform so it can't be due to CO2.

Answer 6

The models predicted that the upper atmosphere should be warming too, but they have since "fixed" them.  As always, models predict the past very accurately.  Only now that the data show upper atmospheric cooling HAS BEEN happening, do the models "predict" it.

From your link:  "Climate models show cooler stratospheric temperatures happen when there is more water vapor present, and water vapor also leads to the breakdown of ozone molecules,"

What climate models?  There are hundreds of them.  You just don't get the "backfitting" thing, do you?

Answer 7

It might be due to increasing CO2 concentrations.  That doesn't mean that the increased CO2 is driving the warming of surface temperatures.  In fact the general warming might be driving the increased CO2, at least partially.  Increased CO2 should have a moderating effect of temperature with most of the average warming coming by raising the coldest winter and night time temps.   (It always helps to make that point to show that increased CO2 has many ignored benefits.  Temperature is never static for long.  Change is the norm.  If it warms that can be blamed on man and if it cools that too will be blamed on man (well at least men living in the western free societies).

Answer 8

Yes, yes, about once every two weeks you "ask" this.

In addition to the water vapor /ozone issue is the historic lows in aerosols making the upper atmosphere it's most transparent.