Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Climate change: Stratospheric cooling

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Climate change: Stratospheric cooling

    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

    However, this recovery of the ozone layer is being delayed. A significant portion of the observed stratospheric cooling is also due to human-emitted greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane. Climate models predict that if greenhouse gases are to blame for heating at the surface, compensating cooling must occur in the upper atmosphere. We need only look as far as our sister planet, Venus, to see the truth of this theory. Venus's atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide, which has triggered a run-away greenhouse effect of truly hellish proportions. The average surface temperature on Venus is a very toasty 894 °F! However, Venus's upper atmosphere is a much colder than Earth's upper atmosphere. The explanation of this greenhouse gas-caused surface heating and upper air cooling is not simple, but good discussions can be found at Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and realclimate.org for those unafraid of radiative transfer theory. One way to think about the problem is that the amount of infrared heat energy radiated out to space by a planet is roughly equal to the amount of solar energy it receives from the sun. If the surface atmosphere warms, there must be compensating cooling elsewhere in the atmosphere in order to keep the amount of heat given off by the planet the same. As emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise, their cooling effect on the stratosphere will increase. This will make recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer much slower
    Sorry, the science is pretty settled at this point.

  • #2
    Food for thought.
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
      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!
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        Food for thought.
        You said:

        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?
        "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

        Comment


        • #5
          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.
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            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.
            Last edited by Jichard; 08-29-2015, 12:37 AM.
            "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jichard View Post
              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.
              Last edited by tabibito; 08-29-2015, 01:05 AM.
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                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.
                Last edited by Sea of red; 08-29-2015, 04:17 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I don't know how this could become a religious issue.
                  I don't want to know how it could be done.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    I don't know how this could become a religious issue.
                    Because some religious people care more about politics than about God.
                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    I don't want to know how it could be done.
                    Oops, sorry!
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      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.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        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.".
                        "When the Western world accepted Christianity, Caesar conquered; and the received text of Western theology was edited by his lawyers…. The brief Galilean vision of humility flickered throughout the ages, uncertainly…. But the deeper idolatry, of the fashioning of God in the image of the Egyptian, Persian, and Roman imperial rulers, was retained. The Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar."

                        — Alfred North Whitehead

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          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.
                          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                          Scripture before Tradition:
                          but that won't prevent others from
                          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                          of the right to call yourself Christian.

                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            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.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-30-2015, 08:55 AM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              135 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              46 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X