Global warming on Neptune

[PeterMP]

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?

I guess this particular group didn't. I don't know what their goal was, but WE are considering all possibilities. Wilson's study was funded by the federal goverment. WE are using satelites to measure solar intensity.

Actually, I looked around a little bit because it seemed there should have been more data since the Wilson study. Here's something from 2006

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/full/nature05072.html

I doubt you'll be able to get it. Here's the abstract:

"Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present."

There is no conspiricy to hide the effects of solar output, but study after study concludes that green house gasses are likely to play a role. In this last study, they conclude that at least solar output alone cannot explain global warming. Even Wilson who concluded that solar output could play a significant role in 2003 (at a high point in the cycle) warned not to ignore green house gases.

There are probably multiple factors involved in global warming. Solar output is one, but there is no reason to believe it is the only one, and green house gases are also likely to contribute. Why is that so hard to accept?

[PeterMP]

This link is broken.

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.

Sorry. Try the wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

No there is no such study, but there was no such study for the ozone layer and releasing CFC's, but we did it.

[sacase]

I love this arguement, people talking about things they really don't understand trying to sound all scientific. Here is my non-scientific opinion on the matter.

Is Global Warming happing? Yes

Is it the fault of man? No

Should we try to find cleaner fuel to stop Global Warming? Yes and no. We cannot stop it, its going to happen reguardless of what we do, but I do think we should stop the polution since it is just much better for everyone in general.

Look, I find it odd when Global Warming folks come out and say..."it hasn't been this hot in 800 years!!!!" ok and....? So how many soccer moms in SUV's were driving around 800 years ago? how much CO2 were we putting into the air?

The Earth is going to heat and cool reguardless of what we do. I have no doubts and some point much of North America will be covered in a Glacier. Just like I belive at somepoint it will be down right HOT. The only thing we can do is either adapt to our enviroment or die out like the dinosaurs. Luckily for us we can manipulate our enviroment somewhat.

[PeterMP]

I love this arguement, people talking about things they really don't understand trying to sound all scientific. Here is my non-scientific opinion on the matter.

Is Global Warming happing? Yes

Is it the fault of man? No

Should we try to find cleaner fuel to stop Global Warming? Yes and no. We cannot stop it, its going to happen reguardless of what we do, but I do think we should stop the polution since it is just much better for everyone in general.

Look, I find it odd when Global Warming folks come out and say..."it hasn't been this hot in 800 years!!!!" ok and....? So how many soccer moms in SUV's were driving around 800 years ago? how much CO2 were we putting into the air?

The Earth is going to heat and cool reguardless of what we do. I have no doubts and some point much of North America will be covered in a Glacier. Just like I belive at somepoint it will be down right HOT. The only thing we can do is either adapt to our enviroment or die out like the dinosaurs. Luckily for us we can manipulate our enviroment somewhat.

Unless something happens there is no reason to belive the Earth should get much warmer if we don't continue to change the atmosphere. We will at some point in time wobble in our orbit further from the sun, and the late 90's and early 2000's were a high point in the suns solar cycle so we SHOULD get cooler. It is possilbe that something will hit another object in the solar system (e.g. the moon) and change our orbit so that we get closer then we have in the past.

[PeterMP]

Look Exxon has admitted that global warming is real, that human release of green house gases is likely a contributing factor, and that the consequences are likely severe enough that something should be done. I gave the link before to an article in the Guardanian. Here is a link directly to an Exxon statement:

http://www.exxonmobil.co.uk/Corporate/Newsroom/NewsReleases/corp_nr_mr_climate_ipcc2.asp

I'm done here unless somebody can tell me why Exxon is wrong or would lie about the effects/causes of global warming. Which I don't think any of you can so keep making up your excuses to do nothing.

[sacase]

Unless something happens there is no reason to belive the Earth should get much warmer if we don't continue to change the atmosphere. We will at some point in time wobble in our orbit further from the sun, and the late 90's and early 2000's were a high point in the suns solar cycle so we SHOULD get cooler. It is possilbe that something will hit another object in the solar system (e.g. the moon) and change our orbit so that we get closer then we have in the past.

The Earth has been heating and cooling for millions of years and it will continue to do so for millions more reguardless of what man does. To think so is very elitest. I mean really, do you think the earth's climate is going to stay the same just because man is around now? Hell our continents are still not stable and they will not be where they are millions of years from now.

The earth has been hotter than it is now, just as it has been much colder. Change is enevidable, adapt or die off.

PLease by all means clean the air I am all for it, but to think we can change the climate is very elitest.

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

The warming on Neptune has to be from the emissions from Uranus. (Sorry had to say it)

[PeterMP]

The Earth has been heating and cooling for millions of years and it will continue to do so for millions more reguardless of what man does. To think so is very elitest. I mean really, do you think the earth's climate is going to stay the same just because man is around now? Hell our continents are still not stable and they will not be where they are millions of years from now.

The earth has been hotter than it is now, just as it has been much colder. Change is enevidable, adapt or die off.

PLease by all means clean the air I am all for it, but to think we can change the climate is very elitest.

Warmer periods in the past have almost always been related to higher levels of green house gases like CO2. I put a couple of stipulations on us not getting MUCH warmer and one was no changes in the atmosphere. I said we will get cooler. After that cooler period we should warm back to about the current state assuming a number of things that I outlined originally don't happen. This cycle is related to the solar cycle and the Earth's "wobble" in orbit. We can calculate the our orbit pretty well, and we are learning more about the suns cycle. Nothing we know suggest we should get much warmer then we are know w/o green house gas effects.

[Predicto]

The Earth has been heating and cooling for millions of years and it will continue to do so for millions more reguardless of what man does. To think so is very elitest. I mean really, do you think the earth's climate is going to stay the same just because man is around now? Hell our continents are still not stable and they will not be where they are millions of years from now.

The earth has been hotter than it is now, just as it has been much colder. Change is enevidable, adapt or die off.

PLease by all means clean the air I am all for it, but to think we can change the climate is very elitest.

That makes little sense to me. I don't think we can control the earth's climate from big long term changes, but I do think that we can make things worse a lot FASTER than the earth itself would have if we weren't here mucking things up. Having the glaciers melt 25 years from now rather than 2500 years from now kind of sucks if you are here NOW.

[Predicto]

Sorry. Try the wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

No there is no such study, but there was no such study for the ozone layer and releasing CFC's, but we did it.

Good point.

[DjTj]

You just said that we can't change the environment,

to think we can change the climate is very elitest.

but in your previous post you said we could.

Luckily for us we can manipulate our enviroment somewhat.

I think it's ridiculous to think that humans are the only thing affecting global climate, but it's just as ridiculous to think that we absolutely no effect. :2cents:

[sacase]

You just said that we can't change the environment, but in your previous post you said we could.I think it's ridiculous to think that humans are the only thing affecting global climate, but it's just as ridiculous to think that we absolutely no effect. :2cents:

Do you understand the difference between climate and enviroment. HUGE difference. Just like weather is not the same thing as climate.

Ok, a 116 year record was broke in Russia today. WHat happend 116 years ago to make it just as hot as today?

[DjTj]

Do you understand the difference between climate and enviroment. HUGE difference. Just like weather is not the same thing as climate.

But weather is a part of climate, and climate is a part of the environment ... I think it's certainly true that humans are not capable of preventing the next ice age, but I think it's in the realm of possibility that we could put enough stuff in the atmosphere to raise global temperature a degree it two.

Ok, a 116 year record was broke in Russia today. WHat happend 116 years ago to make it just as hot as today?

116 years ago I imagine a high pressure zone was sitting in southern Russia that pushed the cold air far up towards the Arctic and brought warmer temperatures to Moscow - probably the exact same thing that happenned this week. As you say, weather is not the same thing as climate.

I'm not going to claim definitively that man-made carbon emissions are causing global warming. I'm simply saying that if you believe that humans can affect the environment, it should certainly be possible for humans to affect global temperatures, especially if we're talking about a degree or two within a natural cycle that is on the order of tens of degrees.

[PokerPacker]

You just said that we can't change the environment, but in your previous post you said we could.I think it's ridiculous to think that humans are the only thing affecting global climate, but it's just as ridiculous to think that we absolutely no effect. :2cents:

environment and climate are two different things. climate is more like the weather, environment is more our surroundings.

[sacase]

But weather is a part of climate, and climate is a part of the environment ... I think it's certainly true that humans are not capable of preventing the next ice age, but I think it's in the realm of possibility that we could put enough stuff in the atmosphere to raise global temperature a degree it two.

116 years ago I imagine a high pressure zone was sitting in southern Russia that pushed the cold air far up towards the Arctic and brought warmer temperatures to Moscow - probably the exact same thing that happenned this week. As you say, weather is not the same thing as climate.

I'm not going to claim definitively that man-made carbon emissions are causing global warming. I'm simply saying that if you believe that humans can affect the environment, it should certainly be possible for humans to affect global temperatures, especially if we're talking about a degree or two within a natural cycle that is on the order of tens of degrees.

Ok let me define the things a bit so my post is a little more clear.

Climate - The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.

Weather - Weather comprises all the various phenomena that occur in the atmosphere of a planet. "Weather" is normally taken to mean the activity of these phenomena over a period of time of up to a few days. The average weather over a longer period is known as the climate. This aspect of the weather is studied with great interest by climatologists, for any signs of Climate change.

Enviroment - The physical environment around us.

[DjTj]

Enviroment - The physical environment around us.

so ... you're saying that the environment does not include the atmosphere? Or that it doesn't include phenomenae that occur in the atmosphere? Or that it doesn't include the temperature of that atmosphere?

I think air and temperature are definitely part of the physical environment. We know that the presence of ozone in the upper atmosphere blocks UV rays that can affect the temperature in the Arctic and Antarctic. We know that rising temperatures can accelerate the formation of smog ... weather and temperature are an integral and interrelated part of our environment.

In any case, that's not really an important question. The question is that if you believe that man can affect the environment by changing the composition of the air or adding pollutants to the water or whatever, why is it outside the realm of possibility that these changes could affect climate, or temperature in particular, even in a very small way?

[sacase]

so ... you're saying that the environment does not include the atmosphere? Or that it doesn't include phenomenae that occur in the atmosphere? Or that it doesn't include the temperature of that atmosphere?

I think air and temperature are definitely part of the physical environment. We know that the presence of ozone in the upper atmosphere blocks UV rays that can affect the temperature in the Arctic and Antarctic. We know that rising temperatures can accelerate the formation of smog ... weather and temperature are an integral and interrelated part of our environment.

In any case, that's not really an important question. The question is that if you believe that man can affect the environment by changing the composition of the air or adding pollutants to the water or whatever, why is it outside the realm of possibility that these changes could affect climate, or temperature in particular, even in a very small way?

for whatever reason your not trying to see what I am saying. The enviroment is things like your home for instance. You can turn on the air if it is too hot or the heat if it is too cold. If you go out in the cold you can put an extra coat on. In essences you can make changes in your enviroment to make it more comfortable.

There are far more things that affect the climate on a much larger scale than anything man can do.

In the 70's the big thing was global cooling, today it is global warming.

[PeterMP]

In the 70's the big thing was global cooling, today it is global warming.

Global cooling was real and man did contribute. Coal power plants were putting out particles. Those particles were blocking the suns light which caused cooling. We switched away from coal power plants and/or cleaned up the emissions of coal power plants, and the particles in the air reduced. The Earth warmed back up.

Ozone hole depletion is/was real. Man did contribute. We quit releasing CFC's ozone depletion slowed down. There are still some CFC's so there is still going to be some ozone depletion, and there might still be other long term effects.

Acid rain was real and man did contribute. The same Coal power plants were also putting out sulfur containg compounds that caused acid rain. We cleaned them up and acid rain went away.

Global warming is real and man is contributing. Why would the vast scientific community and a company like Exxon lie?

[sacase]

Global cooling was real and man did contribute. Coal power plants were putting out particles. Those particles were blocking the suns light which caused cooling. We switched away from coal power plants and/or cleaned up the emissions of coal power plants, and the particles in the air reduced. The Earth warmed back up.

Ozone hole depletion is/was real. Man did contribute. We quit releasing CFC's ozone depletion slowed down. There are still some CFC's so there is still going to be some ozone depletion, and there might still be other long term effects.

Acid rain was real and man did contribute. The same Coal power plants were also putting out sulfur containg compounds that caused acid rain. We cleaned them up and acid rain went away.

Global warming is real and man is contributing. Why would the vast scientific community and a company like Exxon lie?

hmm you say it Global cooling was real, yet there are several articles say it was based around faulty science.

Global Warming is the latest eco-fad.

Don't get me wrong I am all for lowering polution and making the air cleaner. I jsut don't feel it will affect the climate.

[Predicto]

Global Warming is the latest eco-fad.

.

You keep making these blanket statements that appear to be refuted by everything everyone is saying to you.

[DjTj]

for whatever reason your not trying to see what I am saying. The enviroment is things like your home for instance. You can turn on the air if it is too hot or the heat if it is too cold. If you go out in the cold you can put an extra coat on. In essences you can make changes in your enviroment to make it more comfortable.

Okay, so not the environment like "save the environment" but environment like how "environmental control system" is a fancy word for air conditioning. Got it.

There are far more things that affect the climate on a much larger scale than anything man can do.

While this is true, it doesn't necessarily mean that man has NO effect on climate. Normal ice age cycles mean a 10 or 20 degree swing in temperatures. Even Al Gore is only claiming a doomsday scenario of about 5 degrees.

In the 70's the big thing was global cooling, today it is global warming.

Well, like I said, I'm not going to try to prove the validity of global warming (I'll leave that to PeterMP), but I simply want to say that the mere fact that "there are far more things that affect the climate on a much larger scale than anything man can do" doesn't mean that man doesn't affect the climate at all.

[Predicto]

for whatever reason your not trying to see what I am saying. The enviroment is things like your home for instance. You can turn on the air if it is too hot or the heat if it is too cold. If you go out in the cold you can put an extra coat on. In essences you can make changes in your enviroment to make it more comfortable.

Like move entirely out of much of Florida and other low lying areas?

[PeterMP]

hmm you say it Global cooling was real, yet there are several articles say it was based around faulty science.

Global Warming is the latest eco-fad.

Don't get me wrong I am all for lowering polution and making the air cleaner. I jsut don't feel it will affect the climate.

Can you provide a link? Who is saying that, the anti-global warming people?

Yes, that has become a general theme of theirs.

This explains the 70's and the cooling "debate" well:

http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/04/30/global_cooling/

Here's a very nice article that argues that we don't see the full extent of gree house gases on warming still because of particles in the air:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/April03/Chuang.html

Still no explanation for Exxon's stance on global warming not just pollution?

[sacase]

Like move entirely out of much of Florida and other low lying areas?

sounds about right. Atlanta could be the new beach town.

[sacase]

Can you provide a link? Who is saying that, the anti-global warming people?

Yes, that has become a general theme of theirs.

This explains the 70's and the cooling "debate" well:

http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/04/30/global_cooling/

Here's a very nice article that argues that we don't see the full extent of gree house gases on warming still because of particles in the air:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/April03/Chuang.html

Still no explanation for Exxon's stance on global warming not just pollution?

Because there is money in it.

Why are more and more scientists coming out everyday questioning Global Warming?