Global warming on Neptune

[PeterMP]

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

He also warns, "That does not mean industrial pollution has not been a significant factor, Willson cautioned."

[Duncan]

How much more evidence do we need to downplay the raping of our planet?

Oh the drama :laugh:

So I guess you stopped driving and use a cistern and solar panels, right? What to you do personally, other than recycle your beer cans, to help stop the savage "raping" of our planet?

[Duncan]

He also warns, "That does not mean industrial pollution has not been a significant factor, Willson cautioned."

You and the IPCC, on the other hand, seem to think the irradiance data is not a factor at all. Wonder why?

[Johnny Punani]

Yes, there is lag between the local min and local max, but the local min to our knowledge has never coincided w/ a local max as appears to have happened in 2006.

Differences in intensity between solar maxes and trends of decreasing/increasing radiance would cause an oscillation in the over all cyclic pattern.

[PeterMP]

You and the IPCC, on the other hand, seem to think the irradiance data is not a factor at all. Wonder why?

I've never said that. I actually know enough to know that I don't know. You seem to be using his study to say that pollution isn't a problem, but he seems to disagree w/ you. I actually posted the link to an interview by him before you did. Go back up and look at my post.

[PeterMP]

Differences in intensity between solar maxes and trends of decreasing/increasing radiance would cause an oscillation in the over all cyclic pattern.

That seems reasonable, but what are the odds the changes in oscillation would match so that a low in sun spot activity corresponded to one of the highest temps on record. You can't tell me that isn't worrisome.

[SkinsTerps26]

burning of fossile fuel results in increased CO2 levels enough to cause climate change. why isn't this fact at all being credited by those that say the earths warming patterns are just a result of a normal solar system trend?

[Johnny Punani]

That seems reasonable, but what are the odds the changes in oscillation would match so that a low in sun spot activity corresponded to one of the highest temps on record. You can't tell me that isn't worrisome.

Well, if it's reasonable for the cycle to oscillate don't you think it's reasonable for it to oscillate into an inverse pattern? yeah...

[revallenjr]

They have soccer moms on Neptune?

[PeterMP]

Well, if it's reasonable for the cycle to oscillate don't you think it's reasonable for it to oscillate into an inverse pattern? yeah...

The fact of the matter is if you look at the graph in one of the links in my first post you will see it has always oscillated, but now you require it to oscillate exactly so that a min and max over lap, while that is possible it would depend on a great number of factors that are not constants (e.g. how long was the sun cycle (it does vary) and what is the increase in solar output independent of the sun cycle). The odds of all of those variables matching up so that you see the result that we seem to have is unlikely when they never have before seems very unlikely.

Don't you think that their are people in the field that would have thought this? Do you think the guy Wison isn't smart enough to test this?

[jbooma]

Yes, of course it is. It is the energy source for everything. I am not disputing that.

However, our daily temperatures and weather patterns are controlled by how much of that solar energy REMAINS on the planet rather than just bouncing back into space. Which is why we don't all freeze to death every night when the Sun is on the other side of the planet.

The point is, complicated global warming questions on Earth are not resolved by reference to the much simpler analysis of the temperature on a planet or moon without an atmosphere.

I know that you are a global warming sceptic, and that is fine. But you are also a weatherman. You understand that our weather comes from many sources such as the interaction of land masses and oceans, and so forth. You understand that you do not "debunk" the global warming arguments simply by saying that we have observed changes in the temperature on Mars or Triton because our weather is so much more complex. Right?

Actually to be honest and scientific here what is responsible for our weather and the oceans is actually the moon and the gravitational pull it has on the earth. Without the moon we would still be having 6 hour days instead of 24 hours, and the waves would be thousand of feet higher then currently.

The key to the atmosphere is the oceans, the key to the oceans is the moon. They have noticed that the moon might have been responsible for certain earthquakes such as oakland and pakistan etc...

I will also add if the sun expanded we would feel it here on earth even with our atmosphere Remember over the last couple of years we have had some of the largest activity on the sun

[PokerPacker]

What goes up, must come down. *cue cowbell*

Spin the data, to make it go round.

Talkin 'bout your troubles it's a cryin' sin.

Prove it's the sun that does this, what will the lib'rals do then?

Clorofloros and SUVs

Don't have the impact, the sun does you see.

Ninety-six million miles away,

Good luck, Mr. Liberal fixin' the sun today!

Would you mind a directing sign,

Bringing you back to re-a-li-ty?

Would you mind a reflecting sign?

Just let it shine, within your mind,

And show you...the science...that is REEEEEEEEALLLLL!

:laugh:

nice :laugh:

[Lowghost]

I don't know how much this would have an effect, but Jbooma's post reminded me that the our moon is moving away from us at a rate of 1 and a half inch a year.

We do need to start trying to cut down on the negative effect we are having on our environment. :2cents:

I do recycle and also treat my car with a bio-additive that makes it burn fuel more efficiently ( and cleaner). I get a lot better gas mileage using this, but I am still burning a fossil fuel so, I am not being helpful in that area.

The Earth will go through a climate change no matter what, we just got to quit trying to make that change happen faster than it should.

[Duncan]

I've never said that. I actually know enough to know that I don't know. You seem to be using his study to say that pollution isn't a problem, but he seems to disagree w/ you. I actually posted the link to an interview by him before you did. Go back up and look at my post.

You would be wrong to assume I don't think pollution is a problem. The health effects alone are worth reductions in emissions. Don't even get me started on GA Power's effects on trout streams in the north GA mountains or the code red alerts in Atlanta all summer. My family drives one car, a hybrid, and I hope one day a clean alternative is developed.

I just have a huge problem with sketchy science propping up a dubious political agenda. Almost as bad are those that claim skeptics are in favor of pollution. It’s a lot like calling someone opposed to affirmative action racist.

“Climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

Richard Kerr, Science magazine

[Duncan]

Double post

[JWB]

burning of fossile fuel results in increased CO2 levels enough to cause climate change. why isn't this fact at all being credited by those that say the earths warming patterns are just a result of a normal solar system trend?

Because CO2 levels play an extremely minimal role in climate change. It isn't even worth quoting statistics. The Sun and solar trends is a far more interesting discussion than the overused and misled CO2 discussion most try and push.

[PeterMP]

You would be wrong to assume I don't think pollution is a problem. The health effects alone are worth reductions in emissions. Don't even get me started on GA Power's effects on trout streams in the north GA mountains or the code red alerts in Atlanta all summer. My family drives one car, a hybrid, and I hope one day a clean alternative is developed.

I just have a huge problem with sketchy science propping up a dubious political agenda. Almost as bad are those that claim skeptics are in favor of pollution. It’s a lot like calling someone opposed to affirmative action racist.

“Climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

Richard Kerr, Science magazine

The problem is the science isn't that sketchy. When did Kerr say that? If that's the case, he should easily be able to show the flaws.

The American Chemcial Society (ACS) is an organization of chemist, run by chemist, for chemist. It gets a lot of its money from the chemical industry so is frequently criticized for being pro-industry, but it has concluded that global warming is real, partly caused by green house gases, and that efforts should be made to reduce green house gas emisions:

http://www.chemistry.org/portal/res...ate_chg_env.pdf

They certainly have no dubious political agenda w/ respect to global warminig.

What about Exon:

"The company told the Guardian it was determined not to change its position."Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change. This is an extremely complex issue but even with the scientific uncertainties, the risk [of global warming] is so great that it justifies taking action," the company said."

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1985715,00.html

What is their dubious political agenda?

And of course President Bush:

"Beginning in June 2001, President Bush has consistently acknowledged climate change is occurring and humans are contributing to the problem. Consider the following statements by the President:

• “First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming…There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming…And the National Academy of Sciences indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity.” – June 11, 2001
  
• “My Administration is committed to cutting our Nation's greenhouse gas intensity…by
  18 percent over the next 10 years. This will set America on a path to slow the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions and, as science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth of emissions.” – February 14, 2002
  
• “America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil….they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.” – January 23, 2007"
  

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20070207-5.html

Global warming is definitely helping him achieve his dubious political agenda.

The fact of the matter is every legitimate science organization for fields where people are involved in climate change (e.g. the American Chemical Society, the National Academy of the Sciences, etc.) have all concluded three things:

1. Global warming is real.

2. Greenhouse gases released by humans are contributing to the problem.

3. We should take real steps to curb the release of green house gases.

[Zguy28]

The fact of the matter is every legitimate science organization for fields where people are involved in climate change (e.g. the American Chemical Society, the National Academy of the Sciences, etc.) have all concluded three things:

1. Global warming is real.

2. Greenhouse gases released by humans are contributing to the problem.

3. We should take real steps to curb the release of green house gases.

Yes, but how much of the problem is to do with man? That's what I never hear.

On a utopian level, we all should limit our contributions to green house gases.

On a practical level, even if the US cuts emissions back (which we should), the biggest emitters, China and India, will NEVER stop.

[PeterMP]

Yes, but how much of the problem is to do with man? That's what I never hear.

On a utopian level, we all should limit our contributions to green house gases.

On a practical level, even if the US cuts emissions back (which we should), the biggest emitters, China and India, will NEVER stop.

So you only the do the right thing when everybody else does the right thing?

China is never going to recognize the basic human rights of their citizens so why should we?

Unfortunately, it is impossible to put an exact number on how much mans green house gas release has impacted global warming, but still there is wide agreement, even by somebody like the CEO of Exon, that we should reduce our release of green house gasses. If you believed we were having no effect, why would they make statements like that?

Exon for example is working on technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

[Duncan]

So you only the do the right thing when everybody else does the right thing?

China is never going to recognize the basic human rights of their citizens so why should we?

Unfortunately, it is impossible to put an exact number on how much mans green house gas release has impacted global warming, but still there is wide agreement, even by somebody like the CEO of Exon, that we should reduce our release of green house gasses. If you believed we were having no effect, why would they make statements like that?

Exon for example is working on technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

So the science isn’t sketchy yet it is impossible to put a number on the effect of man-made emissions?

The political machine behind the global warming hysteria is real and very powerful. 95% of the media never questions any of the science and the skeptics in the scientific community are dismissed as loons or tools of industry.

How many front-page USA Today or NYTimes stories have you seen with the following headline: NASA says sun can cause global warming?

I never saw the Gore propaganda film. Does he mention the sun’s effect at all?

It is clear that eventually the politician will cave so maybe the energy companies are investing in the technology so they can make money. That would be a prudent business move. I would guess that the head of PR might have had a say in the CEOs comments.

[rincewind]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Post of the day.

Thanks - I thought it was pretty funny. I'm glad at least one other person did.

[Duncan]

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

This is the IPCC 2007 summary and there is no mention of the effect of increased sun irradiance. If we are serious about global warming isn’t it wise to explore all possible causes?

[Pwyl]

http://www.chemistry.org/portal/res...ate_chg_env.pdf

This link is broken.

So you only the do the right thing when everybody else does the right thing?

China is never going to recognize the basic human rights of their citizens so why should we?

Unfortunately, it is impossible to put an exact number on how much mans green house gas release has impacted global warming, but still there is wide agreement, even by somebody like the CEO of Exon, that we should reduce our release of green house gasses. If you believed we were having no effect, why would they make statements like that?

Exon for example is working on technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

I would like to see a cost to benifit analysis of this situation. However, I don't think there is enough data to say that if the US decreased CO2 emissions by X amount, it would result in a Y amount decrease in the yearly increase in global temps.

[Predicto]

I would like to see a cost to benifit analysis of this situation. However, I don't think there is enough data to say that if the US decreased CO2 emissions by X amount, it would result in a Y amount decrease in the yearly increase in global temps.

Of course, we may not be able to get such precise data until it is much too late. Just saying.

[Ghost of]

Can I throw in that the US reduced greenhouse emissions at a faster rate than Europe in the years since the Kyoto hubbub and that China is set to overtake the US as #1 emissions source (they're already terrible with other pollution.)

I hate to break this to some of you but the US is not the problem here, in fact, many cars have to be modified from their European form to attain US standards (environmental/emissions.)

As for the sun's impact on the climate, I should go dig up that video from YouTube. It's of a British show on this very subject and they had IPCC people who said they did not at all agree with the idea that man-made emissions are driving global warming (in essence) and other scientists who discussed the strong possibility that it is the sun that drives climate change moreso than anthropogenic sources.