> There would be a rapid increase in forcing, but in broad terms this
> would only result in a change in the _rate_ of warming, not a step
> change in the temperature itself.
Presumably because of thermal lag of the oceans.
Is that sufficient though to prevent a step change (?), thermal
inertia of the atmosphere is virtually zero, and I am not sure how
efficient heat transfer to the oceans would be.
Thermal lag gets me to an interesting point I've recently seen made
about cosmic rays: It's not necessary for (at least much or some of)
recent warming to be explainable by cosmic rays that there's a recent
trend in cosmic rays. It's entirely sufficient for them to have gone
up a few decades ago, and thermal (and other?) lags will mean
continued temperature increases.
Of course that in no way proves that the cosmic ray theory is anything
but hogwash, but it's still an interesting point.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
