That sort of variation is not possible without the absorbtion of radiation from above or below. The stratosphere absorbs OLR and shows a strong temperature response in mid year. At 100hPa it seems to reflect the rate at which the Earth sheds heat due to the ozone response to OLR. This same response is not evident at 200hPa as, by now, I hope you realize, but just in case you don’t, here is the data.
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg220/erlandlong/100hPaNHFebandJuly.jpg

Leif Svalgaard (10:09:19) :
Greenhouse theory posits the absorption of outgoing long wave ‘radiation’ by carbon dioxide with consequent atmospheric warming amplified by a supposed increase in atmospheric water vapour content.

However, radiation, as a process of cooling begins where cooling via evaporation, by contact and convection slows (because unobstructed radiation becomes possible) and this is at at an elevation where water vapour content is both very small and rather invariable.

Wherever long wave radiation is ‘difficult’, due to atmospheric density and composition, convection is active.

A classic test, and evidence of failure, of greenhouse theory lies in the strong temperature response to OLR at 100hPa and the failure of this energy to propagate downward to 200hPa as can be seen in this data.
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg220/erlandlong/Nopropogationdown.jpg

So, with the sun driving temperature change via albedo modification and the sun settling into a quiescent period there is nothing to worry about on that front.

And the cooling at 100hPa is excellent evidence that the store of warmth in the oceans is running down. We can trust the ozone reaction to OLR to tell us what is happening to the Earths heat budget.

vukcevic (02:53:51) :
“Cross correlating sunspot number vs. IHV, they found that the IHV predicts the amplitude of the solar cycle 6-plus years in advance with a 94% correlation coefficient. We don’t know why this works,” says Hathaway. The underlying physics is a mystery. “But it does work”.
Except when it doesn’t. And the coming cycle 24 is predicted from the IHV [or aa-index, doesn't matter which] peak in 2003 [one of the highest ever] to be of the biggest ever. So far, the Sun has not been very cooperative in that regard, and the correlation may very fail this time around. This is the usual problem with correlations that seem to work, but for which “we don’t know why this works”.

Leif Svalgaard (12:40:54) :
The article you cite is not relevant.

The argument as to whether the climate models predictions of a warmer mid to upper troposphere over time and whether the data sets will support a conclusion one way or the other is immaterial. The CO2 hypothesis flawed. The notion that heat is dissipated from the surface via radiation is incorrect.

What I see in the data sets is declining specific humidity since 1948 upwards of 700hPa (2.5km). Most of the weather action is below this level and water is the prime agent of heat transfer. At 10° to 20°South and at 1000hPa we have 16gr/kg and at 700hPa we have 4.1gr/kg of specific humidity. Average relative humidity drops from 80% at 1000hPa to 45% at 700hPa.

So above 700hPa we have a pattern of uneven relative humidity across the tropics depending upon rain shadow effects, water temperature and evaporation rates. There are areas that support ice cloud formation and others that do not. The relatively cloud free areas simply expand and contract as the temperature rises and falls. This graph tells a story.
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg220/erlandlong/RH700hPaagainst200hPatemp.jpg

But this is not a one way street as we see here:
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg220/erlandlong/RH700hPaandSH700hPa.jpg

Above 700hPa cloud albedo is largely a function of air temperature.

For the latitude 40°N to 40°S the relationship between surface temperature and that at 200hPa and 100hPa is shown at:
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg220/erlandlong/100200hPaandsurfaceNHSH0-40Lat.jpg

I don’t think anyone looking at the data would support your assertion that the atmosphere is heated solely from the surface.