John, I suggest you check the data.  The satellites DO show cooling in
the stratosphere.  However, before you start shouting "See I told you
so", the bad news is that it is off.  The IPCC predicted several
degrees of cooling but the satellites have detected only about 1
degree.  So the data do not validate the hypothesis (i.e. time to head
back to the drawing board).

Further, I see no ethical problem since there is considerable
uncertainty as to whether or not surface temperatures are increasing
simply as a result of an increase in greenhouse gases.  You know as
well as I do that much of the warming for the early part of this
century can be attributed to end of the Little Ice Age.  Note that
most of this warming was occuring at a time when there was very very
very very little anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

In fact, I would argue that you may have the ethical problem given
that we know so little about atmospheric dynamics, cloud formation,
etc. it is amazing you can be so certain as to the magnitude of the
effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.  You state as fact that
which should be proven...or at least good evidence should be presented.

Steve

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no
scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect." Richard Benedict,
State Dept. employee working on assignment from the Conservation
Foundation 

"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of
global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms
of economic policy and environmental policy." Timothy Wirth, former
U.S. Senator
(D-Colorado)

"The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with
an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change". James Hansen,
1998






---John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Yes Steve, I agree with you on the theory and practice. The
stratosphere
> should cool as a result of increased greenhouse gases. I guess this
is want
> concerns me with the science that Christy is protraying. There is an
> ethical problem with an institution as such that publishes data
stating
> that the stratosphere is cooling and then states that this is
evidence that
> increased greenhouse gase concentrations are not causing higher
surface
> temperatures at the earth. There are two reasons why the satellites
measure
> lower temperatures in the stratosphere and they both support the
science of
> climate change  resulting from anthropogenic gas emissions. 
> 
> Greenhouse gases work through infrared apsorbancy, that is, they
abosrb
> infrared radiation. Infrared radiation when it strikes atoms, for
instance
> in your skin, causes you to feel sensible heat. That is what happens
when
> short wave radiation from the sun strikes the surface of vegetation,
rocks
> and water. Some of that UV or short wave radiation is re-emitted
back to
> the atmosphere in the form of long wave radiation, and some UV or
short
> wave radiation is reflected as well unaltered. This is why you get a
> sunburn from being at the beach or on the snow more easily than
sitting on
> the grass. 
> 
> CO2 has a the ability to trap long wave radiation or sensible heat 
at a
> rate of about 90 times greater than other atmospheric gas like
nitrogen.
> Other anthropogenic gases such as Nitrous oxide have greater
greenhouse
> warming potential than CO2., by about 9-10 times. In fact N2O has
290 times
> or more infrared abosrption capacity than the atmosphere alone. 
> 
> That is why the stratosphere 20-30 kilmometers should be cooler, not
hotter
> with increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
> 
> john
> 
> ----------
> > From: Steve <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Earth Temperature Trends
> > Date: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 10:38 PM
> > 
> > Both in terms of theory and practice the stratosphere should cool
as a
> > result of higher greenhouse gas concentrations. The satelittes are
> > correct
> > here but the trend of lower temperatures should be lower than
> > indicated by
> > Scotty and folks. 
> > 
> > Perhaps 2000-2100 will be the "madhouse century" that the Hadley
> > Institute
> > is predicting based on the largest computer in the world. It has
> > recently
> > predicted a global temperature rise of 6 degrees celsius. 
> > 
> > 
> > John, did your write the above?  It is my understanding that the
IPCC
> > and the computer models predict cooling in the stratosphere.  Also,
> > the satellites seem to be pretty damned accurate when you compare
them
> > to weather balloon data...or is that data bad too?
> > 
> > Steve
> > _________________________________________________________
> > DO YOU YAHOO!?
> > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> > 
> 

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%