BethesdaWX Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Then why does UAH show stratospheric temperatures to be stable since 1995? Shouldn't they be falling due to carbon emissions blocking heat from being radiated from the troposphere? Yes, they should have continued to fall since around 2000. There is no natural driver that has modulated the Stratospheric temperature profile upward since that time, nothing's changed actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Then why does UAH show stratospheric temperatures to be stable since 1995? Shouldn't they be falling due to carbon emissions blocking heat from being radiated from the troposphere? Already answered above. Ozone concentrations are rising slowly and have essentially canceled since 1995. If you read the article I posted it is all explained quite clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I guess you didn't read what you posted. Direct quote from the study you just posted: "the trends in the winter polar temperature and the NAM index can reasonably be attributed to the radiative cooling of the stratosphere, due possibly to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and ozone depletion" It reaffirms exactly what I have said.. trends in stratospheric temperature are due to a combination of CO2 and Ozone. This is actually a pretty early study (2001) and advances have been made since then. Such as the 2006 study I posted. Also, this was not posted in Science. This was published in the journal of Climate. The authors are well established mainstream climatologists that have published other articles relating to AGW, including coauthoring articles with RealClimate author Gavin Schmidt. Winter Polar Temperatures in the North Annular Mode !!!! dude read the f**king paper regarding energy transfer via Planetary Waves. Mechanisms dude...calm down, chill, and read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Its already been explained by NASA not to be CFC related, and more related to the Solar Minimum I believe. There was no "arctic ozone hole" until very recently, in times of lower CFC conentration. The arctic ozone hole is specifically caused this year by the cold stratosphere due to the Niña/+QBO which led to an enhanced polar vortex. Overall, however, the reduction in ozone globally has been due to CFC emissions prior to the Montreal Protocol. Chlorine atoms rip apart O3 in extremely cold temperatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Winter Polar Temperatures in the North Annular Mode !!!! dude read the f**king paper regarding energy transfer via Planetary Waves. Mechanisms dude...calm down, chill, and read. "the trends in the winter polar temperature and the NAM index can reasonably be attributed to the radiative cooling of the stratosphere, due possibly to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and ozone depletion" I already did read. Perhaps you should. It says quite clearly that the cooling of the stratosphere is due to BOTH ozone AND GHGs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Already answered above. Ozone concentrations are rising slowly and have essentially canceled since 1995. If you read the article I posted it is all explained quite clearly. This makes sense, but it's a bit confusing since we have been talking in this thread about short-term ozone depletion this winter....I wonder if last year's Strong El Niño also had a role in ozone depletion that was enhanced this year by the extreme cold ENSO and +QBO. Ozone should be recovering some since CFCs were phased out in the late 80s/early 90s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 "the trends in the winter polar temperature and the NAM index can reasonably be attributed to the radiative cooling of the stratosphere, due possibly to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and ozone depletion" I already did read. Perhaps you should. It says quite clearly that the cooling of the stratosphere is due to BOTH ozone AND GHGs. To be fair, it also says that the mechanism of changing planetary waves influencing the stratospheric temperatures, which was theorized as a part of AGW, has not come to pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 This makes sense, but it's a bit confusing since we have been talking in this thread about short-term ozone depletion this winter....I wonder if last year's Strong El Niño also had a role in ozone depletion that was enhanced this year by the extreme cold ENSO and +QBO. Ozone should be recovering some since CFCs were phased out in the late 80s/early 90s. Yes until Bethesda derailed it by talking about long-term stratospheric temperatures and the lack of predicted cooling.. which is of course completely incorrect and another widely propagated skeptic myth. There is no missing cooling of the stratosphere. Stratospheric temperatures can only be accurately modeled including CO2, O3, and volcanoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Already answered above. Ozone concentrations are rising slowly and have essentially canceled since 1995. If you read the article I posted it is all explained quite clearly. You realize the Stratospheric trend since 1995 is actually Up since 2002, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 "the trends in the winter polar temperature and the NAM index can reasonably be attributed to the radiative cooling of the stratosphere, due possibly to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and ozone depletion" I already did read. Perhaps you should. It says quite clearly that the cooling of the stratosphere is due to BOTH ozone AND GHGs. Dude, do you know what the NAM is? This is not just a Global Stratospheric Cooling Article . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 To be fair, it also says that the mechanism of changing planetary waves influencing the stratospheric temperatures, which was theorized as a part of AGW, has not come to pass. No it doesn't. Please provide quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Yes until Bethesda derailed it by talking about long-term stratospheric temperatures and the lack of predicted cooling.. which is of course completely incorrect and another widely propagated skeptic myth. There is no missing cooling of the stratosphere. Stratospheric temperatures can only be accurately modeled including CO2, O3, and volcanoes. RSS does clearly show the stratosphere has cooled since 1979: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Dude, do you know what the NAM is? This is not just a Global Stratospheric Cooling Article . Yes, "Dude" It says trends in the NAM are related to trends in stratospheric temperatures which are in turn related to CO2 and Ozone. Perhaps zucker with his super awesome reading comprehension from journalism camp can explain to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 No it doesn't. Please provide quote. Our results demonstrate that there is no evidence indicating a decrease of planetary wave activity from the troposphere into the stratosphere over decadal timescales. Both E–P flux across the tropopause and planetary wave amplitudes in the lower stratosphere do not show significant changes in the past few decades. This disagrees with the speculation that planetary wave activity in the stratosphere might have been reduced by altered climate conditions in the upper troposphere due to the greenhouse effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 RSS does clearly show the stratosphere has cooled since 1979: Yes indeed. Bethesda said there is missing cooling. There isn't. What is your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Yes indeed. Bethesda said there is missing cooling. There isn't. What is your point? There is missing cooling. What does 1979 have to do with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Yes, "Dude" It says trends in the NAM are related to trends in stratospheric temperatures which are in turn related to CO2 and Ozone. Perhaps zucker with his super awesome reading comprehension from journalism camp can explain to you. Journalism camp? I worked as a sportswriter for a local newspaper for four years...although it's mostly writing skills, not reading comprehension, that get fine-tuned... Yes indeed. Bethesda said there is missing cooling. There isn't. What is your point? I am just saying that overall the trend supports GHGs (and CFCs) altering stratospheric temperatures, even though the rising levels of ozone have capped it off somewhat. Despite two large volcanoes in 1982 and 1991, the trend has been down since 1979. Some of the plateau in recent years may be due to the fact that the Earth hasn't been warming as fast, which is what Bethesda might be getting at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Our results demonstrate that there is no evidence indicating a decrease of planetary wave activity from the troposphere into the stratosphere over decadal timescales. Both E–P flux across the tropopause and planetary wave amplitudes in the lower stratosphere do not show significant changes in the past few decades. This disagrees with the speculation that planetary wave activity in the stratosphere might have been reduced by altered climate conditions in the upper troposphere due to the greenhouse effect. Yes.. I read that. That's not what you said. You said that the greenhouse effect alters planetary waves which alters stratospheric temperatures. What the above says is that the greenhouse effect doesn't affect planetary wave activity in the stratosphere. See the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Yes, "Dude" It says trends in the NAM are related to trends in stratospheric temperatures which are in turn related to CO2 and Ozone. Perhaps zucker with his super awesome reading comprehension from journalism camp can explain to you. What is the NAM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Yes.. I read that. That's not what you said. You said that the greenhouse effect alters planetary waves which alters stratospheric temperatures. What the above says is that the greenhouse effect doesn't effect planetary wave activity in the stratosphere. See the difference? huh???? What the f**k? Energy doesn't = temperature? The reason temperatures would be altered would be altered energy concentrations. I guess AGW is not real then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Journalism camp? I worked as a sportswriter for a local newspaper for four years...although it's mostly writing skills, not reading comprehension, that get fine-tuned... I am just saying that overall the trend supports GHGs (and CFCs) altering stratospheric temperatures, even though the rising levels of ozone have capped it off somewhat. Despite two large volcanoes in 1982 and 1991, the trend has been down since 1979. Some of the plateau in recent years may be due to the fact that the Earth hasn't been warming as fast, which is what Bethesda might be getting at. No, what Bethesda has said is that the stratosphere has not cooled as expected since 1995. Which is just false. There is no expectation of cooling since 1995, since ozone has been recovering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 What is the NAM? the northern annular mode.. strongly related to the NAO and AO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 No, what Bethesda has said is that the stratosphere has not cooled as expected since 1995. Which is just false. There is no expectation of cooling since 1995, since ozone has been recovering. It hasn't you numbnut, because the Mechanisms you're referencing don't fit into how they've trended Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Yes.. I read that. That's not what you said. You said that the greenhouse effect alters planetary waves which alters stratospheric temperatures. What the above says is that the greenhouse effect doesn't effect planetary wave activity in the stratosphere. See the difference? What it really says is that waves that cause interactions between the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere have not been altered, as some theorized they would in conjunction with global warming. I don't know if these planetary waves are supposed to affect stratospheric temperatures, or are an entirely different case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 the northern annular mode.. strongly related to the NAO and AO. You are confusing "stratospheric cooling" with "changes in the NAM". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 What it really says is that waves that cause interactions between the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere have not been altered, as some theorized they would in conjunction with global warming. I don't know if these planetary waves are supposed to affect stratospheric temperatures, or are an entirely different case... I know that.. that's exactly what I just said. It's not what you said originally, which is why I corrected it. You also replaced the word "speculated" with "theorized" which have very different implications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 No, what Bethesda has said is that the stratosphere has not cooled as expected since 1995. Which is just false. There is no expectation of cooling since 1995, since ozone has been recovering. The Lastovicka paper (2006) does say "The upper atmosphere is cooling and contracting as a result of rising greenhouse gas concentrations." This may not be the most accurate statement considering UAH doesn't show a trend in stratospheric temperatures since 1995. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Will now Re-post this Do you know how transferred energy between the Tropopause & Stratosphere have to do with the NAM Directly?? (as an index) The NAM involves the QBO & HLB...aka...Polar. Using 51-yr NCEP–NCAR reanalysis data, we have studied the interannual and long-term variations of planetary wave activity, stratospheric cooling, and NAM. Our results demonstrate that there is no evidence indicating a decrease of planetary wave activity from the troposphere into the stratosphere over decadal timescales. Both E–P flux across the tropopause and planetary wave amplitudes in the lower stratosphere do not show significant changes in the past few decades. This disagrees with the speculation that planetary wave activity in the stratosphere might have been reduced by altered climate conditions in the upper troposphere due to the greenhouse effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 You are confusing "stratospheric cooling" with "changes in the NAM". Perhaps zucker can do some sentence mapping of the subjects, direct objects and verbs in this sentence. Apparently you don't understand it. What it says is that the cooling of the stratosphere is due to GHGs and ozone. The cooling of the stratosphere has affected the NAM. "the trends in the winter polar temperature and the NAM index can reasonably be attributed to the radiative cooling of the stratosphere, due possibly to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and ozone depletion" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 The Lastovicka paper (2006) does say "The upper atmosphere is cooling and contracting as a result of rising greenhouse gas concentrations." This may not be the most accurate statement considering UAH doesn't show a trend in stratospheric temperatures since 1995. Most likely it either means long-term, or is speaking in relative terms (IE relative to if GHGs were not increasing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.