Debunked:Solar System Warming (Climate Change Conspiracy Theory)

[Jazzy]

Um, no..300 parts per million is 0.03%...33% would be 333,000 parts per millions (PPM)..

Them pesky bicycle sheds...

 

[Mick West]

This thread is about claims that the solar system is warming, not about historical CO2. Please stay on topic.

 

[Hevach]

Um, no..300 parts per million is 0.03%...33% would be 333,000 parts per millions (PPM)..

That's not how percentage of change math works. A 0.01% increase from 0.03% is 0.030003%. A 33% increase is 0.04%.

 

[Jazzy]

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.

So intelligence has always been, yet never directs its hand. This also fails by Occam for several reasons. Whoops, sorry, Mick. You made me jump, there… (scuttles off.)

 

[D3FC0NZ3R0]

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.

I've certainly heard of it, I just haven't heard of any real evidence for it (to any significant degree)...just a lot of MSM and establishment hype about it...You realize, Al Gore's infamous CO2-Temp graph wasn't presented inverted (just like its source in its thinking), even 'climate experts' don't dispute the fact that there is a clear correlation, but throughout recorded history C02 levels peak and trough at least 800 years after temperature does.

 

[Mick West]

Again. Please stick to the topic. Any more off-topic posts will be deleted and the poster will be tread-banned.

 

[D3FC0NZ3R0]

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.

Okay, so then how does Mars reach nearly 100 F when it is nearly 3 times the distance from the Sun than Earth?

 

[D3FC0NZ3R0]

Again. Please stick to the topic. Any more off-topic posts will be deleted and the poster will be tread-banned.

What exactly are you referring to, Mick?

 

[jaydeehess]

...doubt it.

Well, stick around for a few trillion more years, then we'll see.

 

[Mick West]

What exactly are you referring to, Mick?

Any posts not about the level of warming observed in other planets as a representative indicator for the level of solar forcing of the Earth's climate.

This is not a general discussion forum. Threads should not expand to discuss other aspects of a general topic, they should focus on specific claims of evidence. If you want to discuss the broader topic, there are many other forums that will allow that.

 

[D3FC0NZ3R0]

So intelligence has always been, yet never directs its hand. This also fails by Occam for several reasons. Whoops, sorry, Mick. You made me jump, there… (scuttles off.)

I'm not sure if this is what Mick is referring to, but since you took the conversation on this tangent, and raise an important question which does potentially relate to the nature of the function of Solar and Terran climate, I will make one final response to this line, and that is;

"...never directs its hand."?...I guess this is the epitome of semantics, but from my vantage (other than perhaps our free will as individuals and species, if we do indeed have it), all I ever see anywhere is the directed 'hand' of that intelligence.

 

[D3FC0NZ3R0]

Any posts not about the level of warming observed in other planets as a representative indicator for the level of solar forcing of the Earth's climate.

This is not a general discussion forum. Threads should not expand to discuss other aspects of a general topic, they should focus on specific claims of evidence. If you want to discuss the broader topic, there are many other forums that will allow that.

Ok.

 

[jaydeehess]

So, if the entire solar system is heating up, is there any evidence of a heating up of all planets and orbiting objects that do not have an atmosphere? That would remove the confounding factor of changing constituents of various planetary atmospheres. Gas giants are out, but you could include larger asteroids, comets, Kuiper belt and our moon.

 

[D3FC0NZ3R0]

So, if the entire solar system is heating up, is there any evidence of a heating up of all planets and orbiting objects that do not have an atmosphere? That would remove the confounding factor of changing constituents of various planetary atmospheres. Gas giants are out, but you could include larger asteroids, comets, Kuiper belt and our moon.

Well, as I stated; it may be that bodies with moderate atmospheres are more sensitive to fluctuations in and from their primary heat source (the Sun), and both bodies with no atmosphere to speak and extensive atmospheres (and or internal heat sources exceeding the input Sun at their positions) reach a kind of thermal stasis...if you place a stone or other highly insulated object in a camp fire it will heat (or later cool) very slowly, and either way, reach an equilibrium relatively impervious to short term fluctuations, if you place a nuclear fuel rod in a fire any external heat will be negligible compared to the heat it is emitting by default through nuclear decay..

The following document seems to indicate a gradual linear increase in lunar temperatures in the 70s:

http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/Huang08ASR.pdf

 

[Trigger Hippie]

(and can't imagine how) anyone could deduce what actual solar output was half a billion years ago..

In a word: physics.

Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis

The luminosity of main sequence stars increase with age. The sun is a main sequence star.

 

[D3FC0NZ3R0]

In a word: physics.

Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis

Main sequence stars get more luminous with age. The sun is a main sequence star.

Are you referring to anything specific in that reference. I am confident that there is enough variability from star to star (enough uniqueness and uncertainty about solar function; why the corona is orders of magnitude hotter than the surface or core, for example), that no one can accurately state with any degree of confidence precisely what the Sun was doing that long ago.

If you can point to some record or method of estimating (with hypothesized margin of error) solar output 1/2 billion years ago, I would be happy to consider it.

 

[Mick West]

The following document seems to indicate a gradual linear increase in lunar temperatures in the 70s:

http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/Huang08ASR.pdf

Could you quote the bit that indicates that?

 

[D3FC0NZ3R0]

Could you quote the bit that indicates that?

On page 1858, there is a graph which indicates an increase in average low temperature and another showing a very clear and steady increase in average temperature on the lunar surface over a 4 year period.

 

[Mick West]

View attachment 8779

On page 1858, there is a graph which indicates an increase in average low temperature and another showing a very clear and steady increase in average temperature on the lunar surface over a 4 year period.

But that's explained in the paper. It's a function of "orbit eccentricities and rotations axis inclinations of the Earth and Moon, as well as other astrometry factors". The red line was calculated using constant solar output. There's no solar variation there.

Note the troughs go down, it's not actually heating.

 

[Hama Neggs]

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).

Yes, this idea was thrown around by the "Planet X" people too. I always wondered if it was based on anything real. Apparently not or just based on cherry-picked info, as usual.

 

[D3FC0NZ3R0]

But that's explained in the paper. It's a function of "orbit eccentricities and rotations axis inclinations of the Earth and Moon, as well as other astrometry factors". The red line was calculated using constant solar output. There's no solar variation there.

Note the troughs go down, it's not actually heating.
View attachment 8781

I doesn't say that it is a function orbit eccentricities and rotation axis inclinations of the Moon and Earth
as well as other astrometry factors...it says the mission "takes into accounts orbit eccentricities and rotation axis inclinations of the Moon and Earth as well as other astrometry factors." Also what about the linear uptick in low temperatures (with no corresponding offset) over the period?...I don't think there is enough of a change in orbit in four years to explain a change of several degrees.

 

[Belfrey]

But that's explained in the paper. It's a function of "orbit eccentricities and rotations axis inclinations of the Earth and Moon, as well as other astrometry factors". The red line was calculated using constant solar output. There's no solar variation there.

Note the troughs go down, it's not actually heating.
View attachment 8781

Yup, and when I averaged the peaks and troughs in those data (estimated roughtly from the graph, I couldn't find the source data), I found that the overall annual trend in daytime max temps was slightly negative.

Also what about the linear uptick in low temperatures (with no corresponding offset) over the period?

This is explained in the text:

To a great extent, the nighttime temperature variation is independent of daytime temperature. This is evidence that daytime and nighttime temperatures are governed by two different radiation processes, namely the solar radiation and terrestrial radiation.

The observed lunar nighttime warning from mid 1972 to the end of 1975 appears to be consistent with the global dimming of earth prior to the late 1980s (Stanhill and Cohen, 2001; Pinker et al., 2005; Wild et al., 2005).[...] Given a constant solar irradiance, the less sunlight reaches the Earth's ground surface, the more solar radiation is reflected to the deep space, and the higher lunar nighttime temperature would be.

 

[Mick West]

I doesn't say that it is a function orbit eccentricities and rotation axis inclinations of the Moon and Earth
as well as other astrometry factors...it says the mission "takes into accounts orbit eccentricities and rotation axis inclinations of the Moon and Earth as well as other astrometry factors."

But the red line is a computed temperature, not an observed temperature. So it's only varying based on those factors.

And it matches the actual observations.

 

[D3FC0NZ3R0]

Yup, and when I averaged the peaks and troughs in those data (estimated roughtly from the graph, I couldn't find the source data), I found that the overall annual trend in daytime max temps was slightly negative.



This is explained in the text:

To a great extent, the nighttime temperature variation is independent of daytime temperature. This is evidence that daytime and nighttime temperatures are governed by two different radiation processes, namely the solar radiation and terrestrial radiation.

The observed lunar nighttime warning from mid 1972 to the end of 1975 appears to be consistent with the global dimming of earth prior to the late 1980s (Stanhill and Cohen, 2001; Pinker et al., 2005; Wild et al., 2005).[...] Given a constant solar irradiance, the less sunlight reaches the Earth's ground surface, the more solar radiation is refleccted to the deep space, and the higher nighttime temperature would be.

But wasn't anthropomorphic global warming supposed to have been in full swing (no pun intended) by the groovy 70s...shouldn't that mean that the earth was 'hogging' more of that solar radiation, thereby starving the nocturnal Luna of precious heat?

 

[scombrid]

Okay, so then how does Mars reach nearly 100 F when it is nearly 3 times the distance from the Sun than Earth?

Are you arguing the same Mars receives similar irradiance to earth?

View attachment 8779
On page 1858, there is a graph which indicates an increase in average low temperature and another showing a very clear and steady increase in average temperature on the lunar surface over a 4 year period.

What about the troughs? Looks like variation increased but average stayed the same.

 

[D3FC0NZ3R0]

But the red line is a computed temperature, not an observed temperature. So it's only varying based on those factors.

And it matches the actual observations.

Ok, got it (didn't seem like the paper made that clear, except the 'online version'...whatever that means). Can you offer any explanation for the steadily increasing night temperatures (without any corresponding offset), if as discussed, the source would be terrestrial, but in the early 70s the Earth was already retaining more solar radiation at night (each year...maybe it was the oil embargo); or the following extrapolation showing a general warming based on the research?

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/lunar_warming.png

 

[Mick West]

But wasn't anthropomorphic global warming supposed to have been in full swing (no pun intended) by the groovy 70s...shouldn't that mean that the earth was 'hogging' more of that solar radiation, thereby starving the nocturnal Luna of precious heat?

As noted above, according to the paper, solar dimming at the time was reflecting more sunlight back into space.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

If you can point to some record or method of estimating (with hypothesized margin of error) solar output 1/2 billion years ago, I would be happy to consider it.

The theory is that as main sequence stars convert their hydrogen to helium, and burn more helium, they become hotter with age. A rough method for the calculating the change in luminosity is L(t)=[1+0.4(1-t/to)e-1 Lo]

[EDIT: I made a mistake. The theory is that the sun's conversion of hydrogen to helium increases the kinetic energy of the remaining hydrogen, which in turn increases temperature and pressure, further increasing the rate of hydrogen fusion. Thus increasing solar output.]

[...]

 

[scombrid]

by the groovy 70s...shouldn't that mean that the earth was 'hogging' more of that solar radiation,

It says right in the material that you quoted that the earth atmosphere was more reflective. Moon was being heated at night by solar radiation bouncing off the atmosphere not by infrared radiating from earth.

 

[D3FC0NZ3R0]

Are you arguing the same Mars receives similar irradiance to earth?

What about the troughs? Looks like variation increased but average stayed the same.

We covered that, I got schooled by Mick West on that one. Uh, yes, I arm arguing the radical hypothesis that the same source of (just about) all of our energy and primary driver of climate fluctuations for the first 4,529,999,900 years has not retired, and continues to lead the league (our solar system) in on base percentage (average global temperature).

 

[scombrid]

This thread is about whether or not "The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming" as per the title of the ATS thread linked in the opening post. I think that the claim is conclusively debunked.

 

[D3FC0NZ3R0]

It says right in the material that you quoted that the earth atmosphere was more reflective. Moon was being heated at night by solar radiation bouncing off the atmosphere not by infrared radiating from earth.

Bouncing?...at night?...from where?...No radiating Solar energy received during the day, I'm saying if greenhouse effect was happening then, why was more being irradiated at night, instead of trapped under purported CO2 'blanket'?

 

[D3FC0NZ3R0]

This thread is about whether or not "The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming" as per the title of the ATS thread linked in the opening post. I think that the claim is conclusively debunked.

Based on what?

 

[Jason]

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.

Skeptical Science actually did another article that dictates the sun is actually cooling since the 70's based on individual measurements. http://www.skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm

Climate Myth...
The sun is getting hotter
There is no single continuous satellite measurement of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). Instead, the data is composited from various satellite measurements. The two most cited composites are PMOD and ACRIM. According to Nicola Scafetta, ACRIM more faithfully reproduces the observations whereas PMOD assumes the published TSI satellite data are wrong and need additional corrections. In particular, PMOD alters the data from the Nimbus7/ERB record from 1989 to 1991. Nimbus7/ERB data during such a short period show a clear upward trend while PMOD during the same period is almost constant. The alteration of the Nimbus7/ERB data is responsible for the different shape between theACRIM and PMOD TSI composites (Shining More Light on the Solar Factor).

The ACRIM composite shows a slight increase in TSI - the PMOD composite shows a slight decrease. Regardless of which dataset you use, the trend is so slight, solar variations can at most have contributed only a fraction of the current global warming. Scafetta 2006 uses the ACRIM composite and finds 50% of warming since 1900 is due to solar variations. However, the warming from solar influence occured primarily in the early 20th century when the sun showed significant warming. As for the global warming trend that began around 1975, Scafetta concludes "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone.

We must also take into consideration that the sun (our star) like any star goes through cycles and variations. They are able to determine the Sun's activity in the past through several means, from drilling ice cores to investigating the rings of a tree. They look for several isotopes but the most famous of them to the public is C14. Someone asked how they were able to determine the sun's "strength" half a billion years ago, while that might be a difficult task, astronomers often look to the Universe for these answers by finding similar stars to our sun at varying levels of age to determine their output and stage in the life cycle. Agreeably, there is still much to learn about our Sun and it's effect on earth and the solar system, but there is a great deal they understand..

Carbon-14 production[edit]


Sunspot record (blue) with 14C (inverted).
The production of carbon-14 (radiocarbon: 14C) also is related to solar activity. Carbon-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere when cosmic ray bombardment of atmospheric nitrogen (14N) induces the Nitrogen to undergo β+ decay, thus transforming into an unusual isotope of carbon with an atomic weight of 14 rather than the more common 12. Because cosmic rays are partially excluded from the Solar System by the outward sweep of magnetic fields in the solar wind, increased solar activity results in a reduction of cosmic rays reaching the Earth's atmosphere and thus reduces 14C production. Thus the cosmic ray intensity and carbon-14 production vary inversely to the general level of solar activity.[53]

Therefore, the atmospheric 14C concentration is lower during sunspot maxima and higher during sunspot minima. By measuring the captured 14C in wood and counting tree rings, production of radiocarbon relative to recent wood can be measured and dated. A reconstruction of the past 10,000 years shows that the 14C production was much higher during the mid-Holocene 7,000 years ago and decreased until 1,000 years ago. In addition to variations in solar activity, the long term trends in carbon-14 production are influenced by changes in the Earth's geomagnetic field and by changes in carbon cycling within the biosphere (particularly those associated with changes in the extent of vegetation since the last ice age)[citation needed]

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

 

[D3FC0NZ3R0]

The theory is that as main sequence stars convert their hydrogen to helium, and burn more helium, they become hotter with age. A rough method for the calculating the change in luminosity is L(t)=[1+0.4(1-t/to)e-1 Lo]

Is it good enough that these are accepted theories of stellar evolution, or are you going to go so far as to require a detailed explanation of nuclear physics before you'll be happy to consider it?

Ok, "rough method"...well so is this, but I think it pretty conclusively shows the 'experts' (at wikipedia) feel that overall solar output was about 1% less then (400 MYA; when CO2 was 4400 PPM and temps were 72 degrees fahrenheit)...if the sun is so insignificant to climate now, how was only a 1% lesser output enough to equal temperatures on par with the present when, at that time, the (so very significant) CO2 concentrations were at least 10 fold what they are now?

 

[Hevach]

We covered that, I got schooled by Mick West on that one. Uh, yes, I arm arguing the radical hypothesis that the same source of (just about) all of our energy and primary driver of climate fluctuations for the first 4,529,999,900 years has not retired, and continues to lead the league (our solar system) in on base percentage (average global temperature).

No, it hasn't. However, the energy received by the planets has not significantly changed (enough to drop temperatures on Mercury by about 0.005K).

Temperatures on each individual body in the solar system, relative to each other (rather than relative to the sun) are dependent on three things: Albedo, atmospheric retention, and internal generation. Which matters more varies by planet - bodies with little atmosphere like Mars, the Moon, and Mercury are almost entirely ruled by albedo (hence Mars's changes being closely tied to dust storms), while planets with very thick atmospheres like Venus are almost entirely ruled by atmospheric retention.

Only the gas giants are significantly ruled by internal heating, and only with Jupiter and Saturn does that play the primary role - Uranus and Neptune are a different kind of planet, informally called ice giants - they are still gas giants, but they have very different chemistry that makes them respond differently.

In all of the solar system, we have very reliable information on surface temperatures of nearly a THOUSAND objects. Only TWO of them have increased in temperature not predicted by their seasonal cycle: Earth, whose temperature is heavily governed by atmospheric retention but does have a greater albedo effect than Venus, and Pluto. Now, Pluto we expect to be almost exclusively ruled by albedo, but... Well, we really have no clue, since we don't know much about its surface or atmosphere until New Horizons gets there next year.

Furthermore, only ONE of those two has maintained that warming throughout its seasonal cycle: Earth.

Now, Pluto has warmed by a LOT. From 1988 to 2002, it warmed by several degrees kelvin. Earth receives 900 times the solar energy that Pluto does, and that applies to increases, too - to increase Pluto's temperature by 1 degree, Earth's would increase by 900. Pluto has increased several degrees, yet Earth's crust remains stubbornly not melted.

Every other object has remained constant.

What that means is that both planets are warming due to local effects: Pluto's is likely due to seasons. It has a highly tilted axis like Uranus and a very long, highly elliptical orbit, creating a chaotic seasonal cycle that will take centuries to properly document. Earth's warming has been sustained through its entire seasonal cycle, and has had no change in internal heating. Bringing its change down two the last two factors controlling local temperature: Albedo and atmospheric retention. There's some highly disputed research suggesting Earth's albedo has changed slightly, but that change should be creating a net global cooling (with some very local warming), not a net global warming.

On the other hand, there are several gasses in the atmosphere that play a primary role in heat retention, chief among them being CO2, and collectively these gasses have increased in volume by a third in fifty years.

Okay, so then how does Mars reach nearly 100 F when it is nearly 3 times the distance from the Sun than Earth?

The highest temperature ever recorded on Mars was around 70F, at noon, in the hottest part of the year, near the equator, in an area full of black rocks, deep in a valley where the atmosphere is thick enough that a person could probably stick their head outside with just a deep breath for life support. It was brief, too, the daylong average was below freezing and overnight was colder than Antarctica. Parts of the valley without the dark surfaces hovered in the 40's. And that's Mars's equivalent to blacktop in Death Valley - conditions that on Earth melt sidewalks and destroy machines, on Mars produce one of those brisk spring days where you're pretty sure you should still take your winter coat just in case.

 

[scombrid]

Bouncing?...at night?...from where?....No radiating Solar energy received during the day....

You quoted it already but I can quote it back to you:

The observed lunar nighttime warning from mid 1972 to the end of 1975 appears to be consistent with the global dimming of earth prior to the late 1980s (Stanhill and Cohen, 2001; Pinker et al., 2005; Wild et al., 2005).[...] Given a constant solar irradiance, the less sunlight reaches the Earth's ground surface, the more solar radiation is refleccted to the deep space, and the higher nighttime temperature would be.

 

[Jason]

Ok, "rough method"...well so is this, but I think it pretty conclusively shows the 'experts' (at wikipedia) feel that overall solar output was about 1% less then (400 MYA; when CO2 was 4400 PPM and temps were 72 degrees fahrenheit)...if the sun is so insignificant to climate now, how was only a 1% lesser output enough to equal temperatures on par with the present when, at that time, the (so very significant) CO2 concentrations were at least 10 fold what they are now?




View attachment 8786

Because CO2 isn't always an indicator for temperature rises and decreases on the surface of the earth.

 

[Belfrey]

You quoted it already but I can quote it back to you:

The observed lunar nighttime warning from mid 1972 to the end of 1975 appears to be consistent with the global dimming of earth prior to the late 1980s (Stanhill and Cohen, 2001; Pinker et al., 2005; Wild et al., 2005).[...] Given a constant solar irradiance, the less sunlight reaches the Earth's ground surface, the more solar radiation is refleccted to the deep space, and the higher nighttime temperature would be.

D3FC0NZ3R0, in case it's not clear, the "global dimming" referred to here is from particulate pollution in the atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

 

[Belfrey]

if the sun is so insignificant to climate now

The sun obviously is not insignificant to climate. But again, solar irradiance has not been increasing in recent decades. So, it can't explain the recent warming trend.