From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Tue Nov 20 2001 - 14:13:15 MST
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> Spudboy100@aol.com wrote,
> > <http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/11/16/solar.cycles.ap/index.html>
> >
> > The cycle of sunlight intensity roughly follows a 1,500-year pattern,
> based on
> > analysis of the past 12,000 years. But the difference from the top of the
> cycle
> > to the bottom is very small, with less than a 0.1 percent difference in
> energy
> > levels, he said...
>
> Contrary to first appearances, this may actually be used to help support the
> global-warming theory. This analysis not only showed the 1/10% variation in
> sunlight, but also showed that there has not been any larger variation than
> that for the past 12,000 years. This means that sun cycles do not account
> for global warming more than 1/10% variation. Other causative factors must
> be at work to explain changes in global climate.
Uh, no. Ever heard of feedback effects? Compound interest? The claims
are that we've seen a 1 degree increase in global temps over the past
century, and this is completely ignoring the several degrees additional
the world has warmed since the middle ages period of the "Little Ice
Age", which it can be demonstrated we are on the tail end of.
1/10% additional solar flux in a year, with no change in albedo or
insolation results in 1/10% additional retained heat, plus the next
year, and so on. In a century, all else being equal, the earth is
retaining 10% more heat than it once did (which is a heck of a lot more
than a measely 1 degree), and if there is a positive feedback effect, it
could actually be higher. If there is a negative feedback effect (there
are likely many of both) the increase would be less than 10%, but even a
few percent additional retained heat means several degrees of warmer
temperatures.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:03 MST