Climate change: Stratospheric cooling

[Sea of red]

The cooling of the stratosphere is something the contrarians in climate change discussions can never really fully explain. The issue? The stratosphere is cooling rather than warming, as one would expect if solar related forcings were to blame for the observed warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere. It's also the case, that the leveling off of the warming in the troposphere as the tropopause begins is within predictive theory; this would require a very technical explanation for most of you but the research is out there, and the models are within observed readings.

The banning of CFC's in the 1987 has lead to the recover to the ozone layer. Problem is, the recover is slowing down due to the radiative transferring increasing the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the troposphere. And it's about the rate we would expect from human caused climate change.



http://www.wunderground.com/resource...to_cooling.asp

Sorry, the science is pretty settled at this point.

[tabibito]

Food for thought.

[shunyadragon]

The cooling of the stratosphere is something the contrarians in climate change discussions can never really fully explain. The issue? The stratosphere is cooling rather than warming, as one would expect if solar related forcings were to blame for the observed warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere. It's also the case, that the leveling off of the warming in the troposphere as the tropopause begins is within predictive theory; this would require a very technical explanation for most of you but the research is out there, and the models are within observed readings.

The banning of CFC's in the 1987 has lead to the recover to the ozone layer. Problem is, the recover is slowing down due to the radiative transferring increasing the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the troposphere. And it's about the rate we would expect from human caused climate change.



http://www.wunderground.com/resource...to_cooling.asp



Sorry, the science is pretty settled at this point.

Neat!

[Jichard]

Food for thought.

You said:

"The only part of the Global Warming that I dispute (or rather, question) is the extent of the role human activity plays in climate change."

Yet there's abundant scientific evidence showing that humans are responsible for most of the recent global warming. I have pointed out this scientific evidence to you:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...222#post232222

So, do you now accept that humans are responsible for most of the recent global warming?

[tabibito]

No. I do not regard it as proven. However, the data presented here does make the concept more tenable than any that has heretofore been presented.

[Jichard]

No. I do not regard it as proven. However, the data presented here does make the concept more tenable than any that has heretofore been presented.

If by "proven" you mean something like what "proven" means in math or logic, then your standard is inapplicable since science is not in the business of providing claims like math or logic does. So you shouldn't expect science to me that standard.

If by "proven", you instead mean something like strong evidence, statistically significant evidence that's been shown, then you'd be incorrect since such evidence has already been provided to you. The evidence is clear and overwhelming.

What grounds do you have for claiming it has not be "proven"? Because the vast majority of the scientific community disagrees with you, in light of the evidence I mentioned there. And I'm beginning to suspect that you have some impossibly high standard that a claim needs to be meet in order to be "proven", a standard that no amount of scientific would ever suffice for. And that seems a bit unfair.

[tabibito]

If by "proven" you mean something like what "proven" means in math or logic, then your standard is inapplicable since science is not in the business of providing claims like math or logic does. So you shouldn't expect science to me that standard.

If by "proven", you instead mean something like strong evidence, statistically significant evidence that's been shown, then you'd be incorrect since such evidence has already been provided to you. The evidence is clear and overwhelming.

What grounds do you have for claiming it has not be "proven"? Because the vast majority of the scientific community disagrees with you, in light of the evidence I mentioned there. And I'm beginning to suspect that you have some impossibly high standard that a claim needs to be meet in order to be "proven", a standard that no amount of scientific would ever suffice for. And that seems a bit unfair.

By "proven", I mean with the "beyond reasonable doubt" - which is to say, to the point where entertaining doubt would be unreasonable. And I note, you managed to do that on your latest thread - at least* insofar as human activity being the predominant cause, beyond the combined sum of all other causes, is concerned.

at least* My convincability level seems to be a little higher than what most people consider reasonable. Particularly when a pro~ or anti~ group leaves off debate and starts screaming "heretic" at anyone who questions their decrees.

[Sea of red]

By "proven", I mean with the "beyond reasonable doubt" - which is to say, to the point where entertaining doubt would be unreasonable. And I note, you managed to do that on your latest thread - at least* insofar as human activity being the predominant cause, beyond the combined sum of all other causes, is concerned.

at least* My convincability level seems to be a little higher than what most people consider reasonable. Particularly when a pro~ or anti~ group leaves off debate and starts screaming "heretic" at anyone who questions their decrees.

Some climate scientists do in fact take it to far. The issue is that the science gets obfuscated by the handful of scientists that dispute human climate change. William Gray, Richard Lindzen, and Roy Spencer are the exception to the rule by a long shot, and all of the scientific institutions around the world have made clear of that issue.

Some of the people that dispute climate change like Lord Monckton and the guy that founded The Weather Channel, are not even scientists at all, and they peddle crap that's been addressed countless times. Why do they do that? Part of it's financial and part of it's political. They associate environmental policy of any kind with leftism - which is a complete misunderstanding of the issue. There's nothing in this science that contradicts any religion at all; and it's completely possible to be a Christian and take this seriously, as know many scientists that do.

[tabibito]

I don't know how this could become a religious issue.
I don't want to know how it could be done.

[robrecht]

I don't know how this could become a religious issue.

Because some religious people care more about politics than about God.

I don't want to know how it could be done.

Oops, sorry!

[shunyadragon]

I don't know how this could become a religious issue.
I don't want to know how it could be done.

The dominant rejection of the Global Climate Change or Global Warming is among Evangelical Christians in the USA. One thing is certain about this group is they are skeptical of science, and most likely reject the Science of Evolution.

[Duragizer]

I don't know how this could become a religious issue.
I don't want to know how it could be done.

I guess some Christians have a verse in their Bible which reads: "And on the eighth day, God equipped the Earth with an air conditioner.".

[tabibito]

The dominant rejection of the Global Climate Change or Global Warming is among Evangelical Christians in the USA. One thing is certain about this group is they are skeptical of science, and most likely reject the Science of Evolution.

The difficulty is determining where the science ends and the faith statement (hypothesising vis-a-vis theory) begins.

[shunyadragon]

The difficulty is determining where the science ends and the faith statement (hypothesising vis-a-vis theory) begins.

First, hypothesising vis-a-vis theory is not a faith issue nor a faith statement as far as science is concerning. One does not fly a jet airplane, operate a nuclear reactor, nor ride a rocket to the moon based on a faith issue in science. This a similar view of the Evangelical Christians toward the science of evolution, which is hocus bogus. This objection needs considerable more explanation to be meaningful.

Second, the reason are not totally clear why there is strong object of 'Global Warming' or 'Climate Change,' but the suspicion and rejection of science is high on the list. It is not because the actual physical evidence does not support it.

Maybe you can enlighten use for some of the reasons.

[tabibito]

The evidence for global warming was solid. The evidence for the cause was shrouded in controversy - and for the layman it was difficult to sift through claim and counter claim. How much of the claim - that the warming resulted from human activity - was derived from the data and how much was imposed on the data. And the pro-human-cause group didn't do itself any favours by (effectively) throwing around claims of heresy like so much confetti.
Data supporting human activity - no natural forcings that could account for warming -as the cause wasn't readily available.
So faith claims and solid theory weren't easily distinguishable.