1. Thor Odinson

    Thor Odinson New Member

    In a discussion about GMOs, a relative refuted my point that the general consensus about GMO safety is about the same for climate change with this.....

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread221608/pg1


    Apparently, the whole solar system is heating up thus climate change is a farce. After I asked for links with supporting evidence I was told that I was a slacker for not doing wanting to do my own research. Unbeknownst to them, I was already trying to find creditable resources for this. I couldn't find one creditable site despite being told it was on NASA and other government websites.

    Has anyone heard about this?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    Yup.

    http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html
     
  3. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system-intermediate.htm

    Rundown:
    Mercury: Not warming
    Venus: Not warming
    Mars: The warming "trend" is based on information from 1977 and 1999, not continuous data. The 1977 data came right after a global dust storm, and the 1999 data right before one. Based on data since 1999 (which is close to continuous), Mars is not undergoing any long term warming.
    Jupiter: Jupiter underwent a temperature change due to the merging of several storms temporarily shifting how heat moved through the atmosphere. The poles became colder, the equator warmer, but overall temperature stayed the same. The effect was temporary.
    Saturn: Not warming
    Uranus: Actually getting colder, due to its wacky seasonal cycle.
    Neptune (and its moon Triton): Both are moving into the first southern hemisphere summer we've observed - it's actually been spring (and fall in the north) there since we discovered the planet. Some seasonal warming is expected.
    Pluto: Warming, and we don't know why. Pluto's axial tilt and orbital eccentricity should give it even wackier seasons than Uranus, but a full season hasn't passed since we discovered it, and we're not even sure what its surface or atmosphere is like yet, so we're really banking on the New Horizons probe to help us figure this one out.

    However, if Pluto's warming is due to increased solar output and not a local effect like seasonal warming, then Eath's temperature should have risen several hundred degrees, not several degrees, and Mercury should be literally burning away to nothing.

    Lastly, it's not like solar output is hard to measure, and we do know it's actually declined over the last 35 years, separate from the solar cycle - there's a slight but measurable decline max-to-max and min-to-min in the last few decades. Not enough to have a measurable impact on any of the planets' temperatures, but it is opposite of the trends on Earth and Pluto.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2014
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 4
  4. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Yes. Roughly five or six years ago. Yet another "Urban Legend" concocted out of scientific illiteracy and (perhaps) some tongue-in-cheek jesting that was, unfortunately, taken seriously (though not properly vetted as to scientific accuracy).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    As entropy increases the universe will reach a state of thermodynamic equilibrium in which the entire universe is at equal thermal state. At that point the terms "hot" and "cold" will be meaningless, though there will be no one around to care.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2014
  6. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    (marking as debunked)
     
  7. D3FC0NZ3R0

    D3FC0NZ3R0 Member

    Technically, that doesn't mean climate change "is a farce", you'd find it difficult to find anyone who will actually make that claim. This detail is actually not that trivial in the context of the debate.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2014
  8. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Which detail is not trivial - the solar system heating up? That's proven false, so yes it is trivial in the context of the debate as well as dishonest.
     
  9. D3FC0NZ3R0

    D3FC0NZ3R0 Member

    What is this basis of this claim?
     
  10. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Well how could increased solar output affect Pluto that amount yet not affect planet's much closer to the source?
     
  11. D3FC0NZ3R0

    D3FC0NZ3R0 Member

    No...that if you disagree that it is "proven" that the solar system is not heating up you must consider "climate change" to be a farce. The point is that most Climate Truthers don't deny some global warming is occurring (and therefore not a "farce"), only that it is primarily anthropogenic in nature (or at least that that is "unproven").
     
  12. D3FC0NZ3R0

    D3FC0NZ3R0 Member

    Perhaps for a reason similar to the notion that a .01% change in CO2 concentrations can lead to a 20' change in sea level.
     
  13. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    But that concept doesn't require higher solar output, just higher retention of the output in the atmosphere.

    I don't see how the two (higher solar output warming pluto but not the inner planets, vs sea level rise due to retention of heat within the atmosphere) are logically connected?
    Though you may not intend it, you are being a bit cryptic.
     
  14. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    (How?)

    The Sun is ALIVE. It IS your local GOD. The Egyptians were RIGHT.

    Just joking. It is, after all, the silly season.
     
  15. D3FC0NZ3R0

    D3FC0NZ3R0 Member

    You missed the point, which is that if such a small change in CO2 concentrations could be the primary cause of such radical changes in AGT (exponential relationship) as alarmists claim, there could certainly be such a relationship between the Sun and Pluto's climate. Look at Mars, its AGT compared to Earth's is not proportionate to its distance..
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2014
  16. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    CO2 concentration has increased by almost 70% since the beginning of the industrial period (from about 280 to 400 ppm). I think that what you mean is that this is a small percentage of all gases in the atmosphere - but of course, over 99.9% of the "dry" gases in the atmosphere are not greenhouse gases. So it's a large difference in the small proportion of the atmosphere that does have that effect.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. D3FC0NZ3R0

    D3FC0NZ3R0 Member

    That would be any more far fetched than; 'In the beginning there was nothing, then nothing exploded into everything, and 15 billion years later there was the iPhone'
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. D3FC0NZ3R0

    D3FC0NZ3R0 Member

    I meant percentage points (like you have an adjustable rate mortgage which increases by .5%, from 4.25 to 4.75..), CO2 concentrations have gone from being .03% to .04% of the total atmosphere...still only less than 1/10 of what they have been in the past with temperatures comparable to today's!
     
  19. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Yes I understand that warming on Pluto could be due to some sort of local greenhouse effect, but remember the context was 'how if solar output has increased wouldn't we see that in planets closer to the sun'.

    Is there a mechanism by which an increase in solar output would not increase the heat of the inner planets?

    Are you positing some form of solar radiation effect to explain the inner planets not heating even if the sun put out more energy?
     
  20. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    Yes, as I said - you're lumping it with all of the gases that do not significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect. It's misleading.
     
  21. D3FC0NZ3R0

    D3FC0NZ3R0 Member

    I'm not convinced it is not, is there something you can provide indicating historical temperature records on these planets? I could speculate that the lack of an atmosphere on Mercury and the abundant atmosphere on Venus could lead (in different ways) to a greater inherent stability and lower susceptibility to solar fluctuations than planets such as this one; the gas and ice giants (I believe all) generate more energy than they receive which could have a similar effect to Mercury and Venus, of being relatively impervious to old Sol's mood swings...that leaves Earth, Mars, and arguably Pluto & Charon.
     
  22. D3FC0NZ3R0

    D3FC0NZ3R0 Member

    Misleading?

    Making that point that saying something which is only one part in 250 could easily lead to a change in temperature of 25% without a bit more evidence or explanation, and more specifically that if it can (the point I was actually making) then the sun could be the source of climate change on Earth and Pluto without a '100s of degrees increase in temp here'...is being misleading?
     
  23. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    One is disregarding the existence of a well-known and documented explanatory mechanism (greenhouse gases). The other is disregarding that there could be an unknown, unspecified, and completely speculative mechanism (?).
     
  24. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    You could, but it would be contradicted by the action of atmospheres being insulators. Mercury might not cumulatively heat up in that scenario as it loses any heat it gets out its night side due to its thin atmosphere and this might keep it the same temperature on average, but Venus' thick atmosphere would continue to take in more heat than it lets out. I cannot see a way for Venus not to be affected.
     
  25. D3FC0NZ3R0

    D3FC0NZ3R0 Member

    (Like I said, it is speculation of the top of my head; nevertheless:)

    Right, so check Mercury off (no atmosphere); now as for the planets with massive atmospheres...imagine putting a blow dryer on a bowl of ice, it wouldn't take a rocket surgeon to recognize a thermal effect; but do the same thing to the radiator in your car while it is running on a warm day (a system which already has a great deal of stored thermal energy and/or is continuing to produce more than its environment)...you're going to need some pretty delicate equipment to measure any thermal change in that system from an outside source.
     
  26. D3FC0NZ3R0

    D3FC0NZ3R0 Member

    ...doubt it.
     
  27. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    So what do you base your entertainment of the belief the sun may be putting out more energy on if there is no real evidence of that in the rest of the system?
    The claim really needs some positive data points to be considered, not just 'maybe it wouldn't leave evidence so it could be happening'.

    The lack of temperature differences or the lack of anyone around to care?
     
  28. D3FC0NZ3R0

    D3FC0NZ3R0 Member

    I'm not sure I understand the first part of your question...I'm saying I doubt the universal entropy theory will ever prove true, and there may very well be People around to 'care' at such time as "mainstream" (Hawkins/Kaku type) scientist predict the big fizzle to occur.
     
  29. scombrid

    scombrid Senior Member

    I think that is the point of the opening post. The Mark Moranos and James Taylors and various other Heartland Institute bloggers have taken to claiming that the entire solar system is warming therefore warming on earth is being caused by the sun. Their claim has no basis in fact. There is not uniform warming over the whole solar system as detailed by post #3 of this thread.
     
  30. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    You said (or seem to be saying) that you are sympathetic to the idea the sun might be responsible for temperature increase due to increased output, despite that it might not leave any detectable evidence of this on other planets - so why do you think it's a likely explanation for earth's warming over the greenhouse model if there's no other data that corroborates the idea?
     
  31. D3FC0NZ3R0

    D3FC0NZ3R0 Member

    Because it was for the first 4,529,999,933 years. Why do you think that has changed in the last 70 years?...In the Ordovician Period (460 million years ago) CO2 concentrations were 10-12 times higher than they are now, but temperatures were about the same as they are now; why if not because of the Sun and/or other natural processes, and how if CO2 is such a certain and absolute primary climate driver?
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2014
  32. scombrid

    scombrid Senior Member

    How much explanation is needed? Most of those 250 parts don’t affect temperature because they are transparent to infrared radiation.
    Inverse square law. If increased solar output is heating the entire solar system, particularly if the sun has increased output enough to cause outlying balls of ice to warm up then it would back inner planets to a crisp.
     
  33. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Really? You haven't heard of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis?
    Basically, human activity due to our use of fossil fuels in industrialisation and technology has increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere enough to trap more of the sun's heat. That's what's changed.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  34. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    The bold is either repeating blatant misinformation or not knowing math. CO2 content in the atmosphere has increased from under 300 ppm in 1960 (at which point a significant quantity was already anthropogenic) to 399 ppm as of last month. That's 33%, not 0.01%. The rate of increase has increased by 217% since 1950, and all of the increase is verifiably anthropogenic.

    We know it's anthropogenic because our primary activities that produce it (that is, burning fossil fuels) produce a different and identifiable distribution of carbon isotopes than natural processes (including respiration and burning non-fossil fuels like wood). It's not just a matter of "There's more carbon, where could it have come from?" it's a matter of, "There's more carbon, let's see what kind it is so we know where it came from."

    I want that to bear emphasis: The research is in agreement. 97.5% of climate scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. And what truthers omit is that of the other 2.5% (which is already statistically insignificant), the majority agree that global warming is caused by anthropogenic carbon, and are playing a semantic game that technically the heat itself is not anthropogenic. The actual remaining dissent, primarily among retired and discredited ex-climatologists (there are a total of three known climatologists in the english speaking who will actually put their name on dissenting opinions and not try to distance themselves from it afterwards. Or rather, there were three - one of them turned out to have a fake degree to begin with), is a rounding error.

    That almost noexistent disagreement is literally linguistic pedantry. This is you walking into a room of climatologists and saying, "Wow, it's so hot out there I'm literally sweating my eyes out." 97 of them say, "Oh I know, it's awful," and the other three, "Really? LITERALLY? I think you mean FIGURATIVELY."

    The "thousands of scientists" who signed that petition that truthers liked so much? Only a few of them were climatologists, and when contacted all denied having signed it. After trimming off Mickey Mouse and the cast of M*A*S*H*, the few hundred other actual scientists who signed it were a mix of aging physicists, and aging physicists making bold proclamations and believing they can jump into other sciences and outsmart the professionals without new education is... Well, it's something of an old joke in science. Of course, many of them denied signing it to begin with. Over 90% of all scientists agree with the 97.5% of climate scientists (most don't appreciate the pedantry of the next 2%), but outside of their field their opinions matter for nothing, as do the other 10% (and I'm not even going to try to find figures on how many of them are also pedants). The cross-training in college stops early in the undergrad level, meaning a physics doctorate has no more expertise of the field of climatology than he does in neurosurgery.

    Meanwhile, the CO2 in the surface of the ocean (a bigger deal in the short term than atmospheric) has more than doubled in the same amount of time, and we can look at the isotopes to know where that came from, too. CO2 in water is a nasty thing for several reasons, the biggest of which is that it binds into CaCO3, which reduces pH. pH changes are bad for the majority of aquatic organisms.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  35. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  36. Larrydalooza

    Larrydalooza New Member

    Also please consider that human contribution to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as compared to natural contribution is minuscule. It truly is an 'alarmist' notion that humans are in charge of the doomsday.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  37. D3FC0NZ3R0

    D3FC0NZ3R0 Member

    I don't see any indication of here (and can't imagine how) anyone could deduce what actual solar output was half a billion years ago..
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2014
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  38. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    I'm sure the first part in the sentence was meant in the negative.

    I disagree. The second is an explanation that requires an explanation as to the origin of time.

    The first is an explanation that requires an expianation that requires an explanation as to the origin of time, and fails by Occam.
     
  39. D3FC0NZ3R0

    D3FC0NZ3R0 Member

    Um, no..300 parts per million is 0.03%...33% would be 333,000 parts per millions (PPM)..
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  40. D3FC0NZ3R0

    D3FC0NZ3R0 Member

    Indeed, (my mistake). I think it is logical to deduce that an origin of time inherently eludes any sort of explanation, and therefore (as well as for other reasons), the simplest assumption (or 'explanation') is that time did not ever begin; it simply has always been, just as the intelligence (consciousness) which likely lent itself to all that we know has and will.