Is the cooling of the upper atmosphere the final nail in the anthropogenic global warming denial coffin?

Question

"The trends described above form a consistent pattern of global change in the upper atmosphere at heights above 50 km (see arrows in the figure). The upper atmosphere is generally cooling and contracting, and related changes in chemical composition are affecting the ionosphere. The dominant driver of these trends is increasing greenhouse forcing"

http://80.33.136.211/hosting/GEO6/sections/publications/Iono-Science-November24-2006.pdf

Figure available in the link below. Blue arrows indicate cooling, green = no change, red = warming.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5803/1253/F1

Basically the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory predicts that the upper atmosphere will cool. If warming were due to the Sun, all layers of the atmosphere would warm. This study shows that the upper atmosphere is cooling as predicted by the AGW theory.

Is this the final nail in the global warming denial coffin? Can the deniers explain away upper atmospheric cooling?

Answer 1

I like the way you use "nail in the coffin"  It makes it look so final.  Maybe such terminology can fool people who have bought in the "the debate is over"  propaganda, and have not research the subject, but you cannot fool the rest of us. Not by a long shot.  

In the past we have given you proof, but you ignore them.  So I am not going to waste my time going into a detailed explanation.  Senator Inhof has published a list of 400 skeptical scientists.  Before that you were going around saying there was only a dozen.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

But do you really expect us to believe they got their info listening to right wing radio talk shows and reading blogs?  They got their info reading peer review journals.  In case you want to read their reviews go to this site and read them.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Techn...

Edit:  Not at all.  You are confusing an academic debate with proof.  You simply state one's person opinion and say it is proof.  If a provide you with a link challenging the AGW theory, it is up to you to say why you think he is wrong.  But you never provide proof.  What you provide is links to theories without proof.

Answer 2

The upper atmosphere has always been cold . An Astronaut in orbit high above the earth . His sunny side can be 300 deg.F.  hot and on his shady side a -200 deg.F.

The upper atmosphere cannot be affected by the heavy gas such as CO2 . CO2 is so heavy it can put out a hot fire as it smothers it.

Answer 3

I think if they can't see it ,touch it ,they'll never understand it! Some people grow up being very proud of how their particular form of ignorance defines their individual identity. For some reason they are generally found in this category. I call them"Flat Earthers". You have little chance of ever reaching them with logic or scientific proof. Sad!

Answer 4

The deniers have long since been disproven. Their coffins were nailed years ago. But they don't care. THey have motives other than the truth.

"A spokesman for the Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific academy, said: "At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change.

"They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day.

Isn't it interesting that the same people who denied the link between cigarettes and cancer are the same people denying global warming? One must really hate America and our children to be working so hard to destroy it. I guess patriotism goes out the window when it conflicts with a paycheck.

"We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous."

"

Answer 5

From a scientific standpoint, it would seem so:

"Laštovička et al point out that cooling trends are exactly as predicted by increasing greenhouse gas trends, and that the increase in density that this implies is causing various ionspheric layers to 'fall'. This was highlighted a few years back by Jarvis et al (1998) and in New Scientist in 1999 (and I apologise for stealing their headline!)."

"The changes in the figure are related to the cooling seen in the lower stratospheric MSU-4 records (UAH or RSS), but the changes there (~ 15-20 km) are predominantly due to ozone depletion. 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."

A more detailed description of what's going on is included in this article from NASA Goddard Flight Center:

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/atmo...

“Climate models show cooler stratospheric temperatures happen when there is more water vapor present”

“The stratosphere is the typically dry layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere, where temperatures increase with height.”

A simple way to think about it is that as tropospheric CO2 increases, more heat is trapped within the troposphere and less heat escapes the troposphere, resulting in less heat available for the stratosphere and beyond.  The process is reinforced by a resulting increase in upper atmosphere water vapor as heating occurs, a positive feedback that increases the (lower atmosphere and surface) warming:

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/atmo...

“According to Shindell there are two driving forces behind the change in stratospheric moisture. ‘Increased emissions of the greenhouse gas, methane, are transformed into water in the stratosphere’, Shindell said, ‘accounting for about a third of the observed increase in moisture there.”

“The second cause of change in the upper atmosphere is a greater transport of water from the lower atmosphere, which happens for several reasons. Warmer air holds more water vapor than colder air, so the amount of water vapor in the lower atmosphere increases as it is warmed by the greenhouse effect. Climate models also indicate that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane may enhance the transport of water into the stratosphere”

"When more water vapor works its way into the stratosphere, the water molecules can be broken down, releasing reactive molecules that can destroy ozone. Shindell noted that his global climate model agrees with satellite observations of the world's stratospheric ozone levels when the water vapor factor is increased in the stratosphere over time. Shindell said, 'If the trend of increasing stratospheric water vapor continues, it could increase future global warming and impede ozone stratospheric recovery.'"

"The impact on global warming comes about because both water vapor and ozone are greenhouse gases, which trap heat leaving the Earth. "When they change, the Earth's energy balance changes too, altering the surface climate," said Shindell. Increased water vapor in the stratosphere makes it warmer on the ground by trapping heat, while the ozone loss makes it colder on the ground. Water vapor has a much larger effect, so that overall the changes increase global warming. Shindell stressed that although ozone depletion cools the Earth's surface, repairing stratospheric ozone is very important to block harmful ultraviolet radiation, and other greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced."

However, the goal of denial is to justify ones own inaction.  The ends (satisfaction at avoiding responsibility) justify the means (or at least rationalize them well enough to allow the reward the denial and encourage it to continue).  That's why scientists and most governments don't engage or try to convince anyone; it's pointless to argue rationally with someone who is not influenced by reason.  No amount of evidence willb enough for some people. They can get dragged kicking and screaming into the solution with everyone else.  They'll make the right choices when the financial incentives warrant them

- shrinking oil supplies dramatically increases gasoline costs,

- declining hydro increases power costs,

- declining snowpack increases water and food costs,

- rising gas prices increase manufactured goods and food costs.

The underlying trends are moving in those directions regardless of whether people acknowledge global warming or not.  It would be less costly if we would all support conservation efforts now, but we'll all get there soon enough regardless of how the public perception of global warming goes.

Answer 6

I would suggest that CO2 levels have obviously increased.  They have increased naturally and we have added some.  It is therefore possible that the natural increase in CO2 has helped in moderating the temperatures and adding a slight warming (and cooling to the upper atmosphere).  Even without human emitted CO2, the upper atmospheric cooling should have taken place since CO2 levels have obviously increased even without the help of humans.  Your "final nail" would be probably be true whether humans were emitting CO2 or not.   So the answer is, NO!

Answer 7

We're simply frogs in a pond that keep thinking it's not too bad to keep doing what we're doing until tragedy strikes.

Answer 8

"If warming were due to the Sun, all layers of the atmosphere would warm."

Wrong, the atmosphere is essentially invisible to incoming solar radiation, that is the basis of the greenhouse process. And your paper only speculates that the alledged upper atmosphere cooling is associated with CO2. Changes in the ozone layer and changes in the geomagnetic field are also listed as possible causes for the density change in the upper atmosphere.  Clearly the stratosphere has been warming for the last 14 years, do you think that extra heat captured by the stratosphere and consequently missing from the mesosphere might have something to do with your cooling anamoly?

So to answer your question No, you are grasping for straws.

.

Answer 9

How high were CO2 levels 500 million years ago?  20 times higher if you want to look it up.   How did it get so high?  The only difference is between now and then is 'Man' right, so it doesn't count right...  Cherry picked data...?  

I'm not denying that man pollutes too much, I'm with everyone else when it comes to reducing, reusing and recycling.

No personal attacks here, but I sometimes wonder.  Is this all that people have to do with their time all day is ask hypothetical questions about AGW and GW?  I mean hypothetically speaking...

I stopped posting here, because it was ridiculous.  My point of view was being shut out, there is no debate from the AGW and GW crowd, therefore I don't exist.  I was either stupid or ignorant.

There are even people out ther advocating the elimination of some 17 million people in Great Britain, all for "Gaia".   Please tell me you're not "One of those"...  

There, I've stepped off my soap box now...  Can you?

Answer 10

Dana:

No matter how you slice it, the fact that sea ice reforms in the arctic during the boreal winter, or that some uncorrected analyses of tropical tropospheric temperatures don't show enough warming, or that paleo-climates that were not being forced by increases in atmospheric CO2 could warm or cool without changes in CO2, completely negates *any* evidence you provide that increases in atmospheric CO2 in the present could possibly be radiatively forcing the planet and changing climate.

If you would get that through your head, your forehead wouldn't be so flat from beating it against a wall.

Remember, I'm here to help, and be a jerk.  It's a 30/70 thing.

Answer 11

They found the same trend on Mars...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob...

So, the upper levels of the Martian atmosphere can cool while the polar ice caps shrink....sound familiar?  Water vapor and microwaves generated by the Sun...there's your greenhouse gas.

Answer 12

This particular coffin has more nails than wood.