Clouds of Doom
From the Daily Mail

Rare clouds could indicate global warming

Rare, mother-of-pearl coloured clouds caused by extreme weather conditions above Antarctica are a possible indication of global warming, Australian scientists have announced.

??????????????????

Known as nacreous clouds, the spectacular formations showing delicate wisps of colours were photographed in the sky over an Australian meteorological base at Mawson Station on July 25.

Nacreous, or noctilucent clouds have been observed by Westerners since 1885. They're not exactly a new phenomenon. They are somewhat of a mystery because according to our present understanding of the upper atmosphere there shouldn't be enough water up that high (upper stratosphere/lower mesosphere) to form clouds.

The clouds can only form in temperatures lower than minus 80 degrees Celsius (minus 112 Fahrenheit). Meteorologist Renae Baker who photographed the clouds, said a weather balloon sent up about 12 miles above the Earth's surface measured temperatures as low as minus 87 Centigrade (minus 124.6 F).

Yes, it does get quite cold in the upper atmosphere. It's even colder in space. So what?

"They reveal extreme conditions in the atmosphere, and promote chemical changes that lead to destruction of vital stratospheric ozone," Baker said.

WTH? I think he's confusing them with PSCs - Polar Stratospheric Clouds which form in the spring over the South Pole (and to a much lesser extent the North Pole). These have been implicated in the formation of the dreaded ozone hole (heard much about that lately?) but they are a NATURALLY OCCURRING YEARLY PHENOMENON. The two types of clouds, nacreous and PSCs, are not necessarily related.

Australian scientist Andrew Klekociuk said said temperatures in the stratosphere, between 5 and 31 miles above Earth, would be expected to drop as global warming increases. Data collected over the past 25 years had reflected this.

"Over that time there has been a small decrease in temperature and that change is actually occurring faster than the warming at the surface of the Earth," he said.

Let's look at some actual data, shall we? Here's a graph of stratospheric/tropospheric temperatures (larger, clearer version here ) Blue lines are stratospheric temperatures, red ones surface temps from 1978 t0 2004. The boxes mark two volcanic eruptions (Pinatubo and El Chichon) and an El Nino event. Do you see surface warming tracking with stratospheric cooling? No? Neither do I. So what was this article trying to prove? That any atmospheric phenomenon that we don't really understand is related to global warming? Please, let's stop trying to get our names in the papers and stick to actual science, OK?