Global warming theorists hold the solar output as constant. Anybody who has taken any form of upper level undergraduate courses knows constants do not really exist. Even the dry adiabatic and moist adiabatic lapse rates are not constant, as well as latent heat values, and many many other values.
With the technology of today, scientists are able to observe solar output variations. An interesting correlation with global temperatures and sun spot/solar radiation levels has been the talk of global warming "skeptics" as of late.
Also of note is the 180-year solar cycle. A lot of talk has risen about how the solar cycle resembles a 180-year cycle closer than the 11-year cycle accepted today.
If the 180-year cycle is more accurate, the next 100 years should produce a decrease in solar activity. A question is will human impacts outweigh the impact by the sun? If not I hypothesize a slight cooling trend. Yet, if humans really have messed up, perhaps the next "little ice age" will be relatively warmer than the last one.
Would anybody like to comment on or refute my thinking?
Take a gander at the website ICECAP This is an interesting scientific site with constant discussions on global warming. Go ahead, click the link.
Nov 12, 2008
"Global Warming" Temperature Rises
A graph showing potential temperature increases from the present to 2100 shows temperature increases ranging from around 2 degree's Celsius to above 10 degree's Celsius. The graph was released by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
What the graph fails to show is 90 percent of the model runs were near the lower end of the range, while only 10 percent of the runs included the upper portions, said Dr. Lupo, an IPCC working group 1 scientist and professor of the University of Missouri-Columbia Atmospheric Sciences Department.
The graph was taken from the http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/101.htm
This graph was taken from the 2001 IPCC report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
