NP Rank:
Global warming: Lower atmosphere, upper atmosphere
As the deniers continue to spread their poison, many people are left unprepared when dealing with their lies. There are many well-known facts about global warming; but there is one that is not widely known, and it offers conclusive refutation to those who claim that it's the sun or cyclical fluctuations.
Want to know a way to talk back to people who claim such things? All you need to know is just one fact:
The lower levels of the atmosphere have been shown to warm, and the upper levels of the atmosphere have been shown to cool, over recent decades.
If it was the sun, or anything cyclical, the whole of the atmosphere would have warmed. Instead, lower levels have warmed and upper levels have cooled.
There is only one possible mechanism for this:
Carbon dioxide and methane accumulating in the atmosphere to reflect sun's rays bouncing off the Earth's surface back to the Earth, causing the lower atmosphere to become hotter -
While allowing fewer of them to escape into the upper atmosphere, causing it to cool.
So anytime anyone claims that it's the sun, or that it's cyclical fluctuations, have this simple fact as response.
Just as much as the right response to the claim that it's a UN hoax is the simple fact that science knew about it long before UN had anything to do with it, and UN took it on before the American Right because the UN is more rational and responsible than the American Right.


Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (4)
at 16:11 on April 19th, 2011
You know, if you are going to try to be insulting to your opposition, it helps if you tell the truth. The AGW theory does predict stratospheric cooling, but it also predicts that the upper troposphere will warm at 1.5 to 2 times the rate of the lower atmosphere. This hasn't happened so the best you can claim for the theory is a half mark. Now you might think that being maybe half right is good enough, but many of us differ. I add that very few sceptics think that we have no effect, we disagree on the amount of the effect and the probable outcome. Remember that the outcome is based on the projections of models that incorrectly predict greater warming in the lower atmosphere.
at 18:11 on April 20th, 2011
Useful info on this subject:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/34398
at 05:09 on April 23rd, 2011
The Sherwood 2008 paper? Surely you jest.
For those unfamiliar with it, the paper makes the rather startling claim that air temperature in the upper troposphere can be more accurately guaged by the airspeed of the weather balloon than by the thermometers actually carried by the weather balloon.
This is a purely mathematical construct that was considered "right" solely because it agreed with "the models", it doesn't agree with the actual measurements made by the instruments on board. Note that the article you linked to says "the next step is to confirm Allen and Sherwood’s findings with direct temperature records." The paper came out in 2008 and is still not "confirmed" by any actual, real measurements of real instruments in a real world. I add that we already have "direct temperature records" because of the thermometers carried by the weather balloons used in the A&S study. Unfortunately these weren't deemed good enough because they disagreed with what the models predicted.
But let's keep this simple. If you want to know what the temperature is, do you read a thermometer or a wind guage? I go for the thermometer, you appear to prefer the wind guage.
at 17:51 on April 26th, 2011
The article goes on to say that the precision of the temperature measurements themselves was affected by them being in a balloon. I suppose a better way to test this would be to send thermometers in other objects that don't get affected this way, if that is possible. As for wind measurements, these can in fact be used to deduce temperature changes: particles heating means more air movement.