Recent Comment
Share
A new study done by the University of Reading and the Met Office looked at the likely changes in solar activity over the next 90 years and whether a decrease would offset global warming by any significant measure. The answer: no.
The study found that the sun's output is likely to decrease until 2100, but that decrease will only lead to a global temperature reduction of 0.08 °C. Compared to the forecasted warming of at least 2.5 °C over the same period from greenhouse gases, a solar activity decline doesn't get us very far.
The study found that even if the sun's output fell to it's lowest known levels that occurred between 1645 and 1715, global temperatures would still only be reduced by 0.13 °C.
While the study's authors concede that their model doesn't fully capture all of the uncertainties in the climate system and solar output, the results do certainly let us know that a decline in solar activity is no match for greenhouse gas emissions.
via Physorg
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Ronald Brak, January 26, 2012
Hmmm... It seems that there are a variety of accepted methods used to reconstruct the past output of the sun, and a lot of people have put a lot of hard work into this and have attempted to make the reconstructions as accurate as possible. It seems that I no longer have a reason to feel smuggly superior for being smart enough to catch them in a lie. It's amazing what you can learn in five minutes of googling.
-
- +6
-
-
written by Simon, January 30, 2012
And yes, you are right, the reconstructions are junk science.
-
- -3
-
-
written by Felicia , January 30, 2012
-
- +9
-
-
written by JanS, January 31, 2012
Obviously some of you have absolutely no clue what they are talking about, sorry guys!
I'm a geoscientist and I work on a Project that deals with the climate evolution in the last 12.000 years (the Holocene). The solar activity is regarded as one of the most influential climate forcings (influences on the climate).
Can you proof that? Probably not, but we search for models and explanations. Do you believe that the inner core of the earth consists of iron and nickel? Nobody can really proof that but it's a model and as long as there is no proof against it, it will remain.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Ronald Brak, January 31, 2012
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Now here's the part where you say NASA is lying. Or maybe you'll just say that thermometers are unreliable. Personally, I think you'll go for NASA is lying, and so I will be forced to make a choice - who is more believable, you or NASA? But I think you will then follow it up by saying the data is unreliable, which would mean that it is impossible to state that there has been no warming, but I doubt that contradiction will worry you. Anyway, have fun!
-
- +7
-
-
written by Sapoty Brook, February 03, 2012
-
- +4
-
-
written by Walter R. Rice, February 03, 2012
-
- +1
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Here's a toast to getting rid of the world's biggest pieces of liberal propaganda:
Volcanoes,
Pangaea,
Dinosaurs,
Asteroids,
and that devil of devils, Evolution!