Global Warming Happening on all Planets

[Keepitsimple]

I just came across an article from LiveScience - a website/organization that supports man-made Global Warming theories. The article is old news but it hit home how blinded man-made theorists really are. The article is packed with proof that warming is occurring all over our universe and has occurred in the past on Earth.......but every instance is rebutted by "it can't be the Sun". One particularly galling comment is that sunspots only have the capacity to increase the Sun's output by about one-tenth of one percent. Small as it may seem, this measurement is an increase in direct output. CO2 in our atmosphere is currently measured as 380 parts per million - that's .038 of one percent - less that four hundreths of one percent. Why should any sane person believe that CO2 - which has an impact 25 times less than sunspot activity - is the driving force behind any warming/climate change activity?

Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds

By Ker Than, LiveScience Staff Writer

Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.

Others argue that such claims are misleading and create the false impression that rapid global warming, as Earth is experiencing, is a natural phenomenon.

While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species.

Wobbly Mars

Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output. Abdussamatov also blamed solar fluctuations for Earth’s current global warming trend. His initial comments were published online by National Geographic News.

“Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email interview last week. “The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth and on Mars always will be practically parallel."

But Abdussamatov’s critics say the Red Planet’s recent thawing is more likely due to natural variations in the planet’s orbit and tilt. On Earth, these wobbles, known as Milankovitch cycles, are thought to contribute to the onset and disappearance ice ages.

“It’s believed that what drives climate change on Mars are orbital variations,” said Jeffrey Plaut, a project scientist for NASA’s Mars Odyssey mission. “The Earth also goes through orbital variations similar to that of Mars.”

As for Abdussamatov’s claim that solar fluctuations are causing Earth’s current global warming, Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says the idea is nonsense.

“That’s nuts,” Long said in a telephone interview. “It doesn’t make physical sense that that’s the case.”

In 2005, Long’s team published a study in the journal Science showing that Earth experienced a period of “solar global dimming” from 1960 to 1990, during which time solar radiation hitting our planet’s surface decreased. Then from the mid-1990’s onward, the trend reversed and Earth experienced a “solar brightening.”

These changes were not likely driven by fluctuations in the output of the Sun, Long explained, but rather increases in atmospheric clouds or aerosols that reflected solar radiation back into space.

Other warming worlds

Others have pointed out anomalous warming on other worlds in our solar system.

Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University who monitors studies and news reports of asteroids, global warming and other potentially apocalyptic topics, recently quoted in his daily electronic newsletter the following from a blog called Strata-Sphere:

“Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets ... Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?”

Peiser included quotes from recent news articles that take up other aspects of the idea.

“I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system,” Peiser said in an email interview. “Perhaps this is just a fluke.”

In fact, scientists have alternative explanations for the anomalous warming on each of these other planetary bodies.

The warming on Triton, for example, could be the result of an extreme southern summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of the Sun’s heat.

Researchers credited Pluto’s warming to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989.

And the recent storm activity on Jupiter is being blamed on a recurring climatic cycle that churns up material from the gas giant’s interior and lofts it to the surface, where it is heated by the Sun.

Sun does vary

The radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its 11-year solar cycle. But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent—not substantial enough to affect Earth’s climate in dramatic ways, and certainly not enough to be the sole culprit of our planet’s current warming trend, scientists say.

“The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record,” said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann.

The link between solar activity and global warming is just another scapegoat for human-caused warming, Mann told LiveScience.

“Solar activity continues to be one of the last bastions of contrarians,” Mann said. “People who don’t accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change still try to point to solar activity.”

The Maunder Minimum

This is not to say that solar fluctuations never influence Earth’s climate in substantial ways. During a 75-year period beginning in 1645, astronomers detected almost no sunspot activity on the Sun. Called the “Maunder Minimum,” this event coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, a 350-year cold spell that gripped much of Europe and North America.

Recent studies have cast doubt on this relationship, however. New estimates of the total change in the brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum suggest it was only fractions of a percent, and perhaps not enough to create the global cooling commonly attributed to it.

“The situation is pretty ambiguous,” said David Rind, a senior climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has modeled the Maunder Minimum.

Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said.

This would still not be enough to counteract warming of between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit from greenhouse gases by 2100, as predicted by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

Link: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070...ys_warming.html

[eyeball]

I'm reminded of just how insanely fine the tuning of the cosmological constant is and how dependent we seem to be on the difference between existance and non-existance.

The article is packed with proof that warming is occurring all over our universe

Ever heard of entropy?

[kuzadd]

I have some serious doubts wrt the entire "global warming" scenario, and wonder about the role of the sun's most recent activities in this issue.

[Oleg Bach]

I have some serious doubts wrt the entire "global warming" scenario, and wonder about the role of the sun's most recent activities in this issue.

Those that do not want to submit to the reality of climate destruction are usually those that know if there are healing restrictions put in place...then your bank account goes down a few digits. You can't take it with you my friend and you really don't need as much as you have.

[kuzadd]

Those that do not want to submit to the reality of climate destruction are usually those that know if there are healing restrictions put in place...then your bank account goes down a few digits. You can't take it with you my friend and you really don't need as much as you have.

actually, it is those with the least dollars that will be hardest hit by the "healing restrictions" put in place.

To be fair, BC’s carbon tax needs work

Is BC’s Carbon Tax Fair? analyzes the impact of the tax and revenue “recycling” for households with varying income levels. It finds that the tax is progressive for the first year, although personal and corporate income tax cuts still result in an undesirable net benefit to the highest income households, which also have the largest ecological footprint.

As the carbon tax increases in subsequent years, however, it becomes regressive, meaning low-income families pay a larger share of their income to the tax than higher-income families. The authors argue that the best way to fix the problem of inequality is to rework how carbon tax revenues are spent.

I highly doubt that low income families have "more then they need"

[Shady]

Global warming died in 2008.

Will Canada see its first white Christmas since '71?

Link

Bitter cold, high winds chill Midwest, East

Link

Frightful: Wind Chills Plummet To Nearly 30 Below

Link

Bitter Winter Blast Puts Big Chill In Retail Sales

Link

Chill Map

Link

SEVERE COLD WAVE TO HIT EUROPE

Link

Beijing's coldest December day in 57 years

Link

Yet, I kid you not, there's leftwing radio hosts claiming that this is just an example of how quickly the earth is warming!

[eyeball]

I recall reading the GW theory predicts most people will see more of what they're used to. The idea is that as the atmosphere heats up the climate gets more energetic.

If you put more energy into a refrigerator it gets cooler just like an oven gets warmer when you turn up the thermostat.

Its not the rocket science, its the political science that makes this seem so complicated.

Edited December 22, 2008 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

I recall reading the GW theory predicts most people will see more of what they're used to. The idea is that as the atmosphere heats up the climate gets more energetic.

There is no science that backs up this claim. It is nothing but an attempt to avoid dealing with the awkward questions raised by a planet that refuses to warm as predicted.

If you put more energy into a refrigerator it gets cooler just like an oven gets warmer when you turn up the thermostat.

Wrong. A refrigerator heats up the room while it is cooling the inside. If the same mechanism is at work in climate then where is the heat going? It is not going into the oceans since ocean heat content has declined slightly over the last few years. If it is going into space then the heat is no longer a problem. In fact, some scientists believe that the earth does have a natural regulatory mechanism which will increase the amount of heat radiated to space as the amount of GHGs increases. If they are correct then the planet will warm slightly as CO2 increases but it will be nothing to worry about.

Its not the rocket science, its the political science that makes this seem so complicated.

Climate science is not like the theory of gravity which can be verified in numerous laboratory experiments. Climate science is not like the theory of relativity which is built on riguorous mathematical proofs. Climate science is nothing but the output of complex and opaque computer models - models which grossly oversimplify the earth's system and require numerous fudge factors which are choosen to ensure they produce the "correct" output as defined by the modeller. It is mystery to me why anyone thinks we should invest billions based on a theory with such dubious foundations. Edited December 22, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

To be fair, BC’s carbon tax needs work

I highly doubt that low income families have "more then they need"

You are simply demonstrating why efforts to limit CO2 are doomed to failure. Whether you want to admit it or not every human on the planet causes CO2 to be emitted and there is not a lot of difference between the CO2 emitted by a poor person in Canada and the CO2 emitted by a rich person in Canada. This means the cost of that any anti-CO2 policies must born by everyone which means that poor people will be hurt much more because they have less ability to pay. Attempts to address this by making the "rich" pay more than their fair share will fail because there are not enough rich people to pay the cost of reducing emissions for poor people. This dynamic plays out within Canada and globally since there is no way the rich countries can afford to pay for CO2 reductions in poor countries. Edited December 22, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

It is mystery to me why anyone thinks we should invest billions based on a theory with such dubious foundations.

You do realize gravity is merely a theory don't you?

[Riverwind]

You do realize gravity is merely a theory don't you?

A theory that has been repeatedly verified with laboratory experiments which means it is quite different from the CO2 hypothesis has never been verified with real experiments. If you can't understand the distinction then you can't understand science.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I think I speak for everyone on the west coast trudging through 3 feet of snow. And for the prairie residents enduring -25C - and -30C about a week ago. And for the bitterly cold northeast, when I say:

"More CO2 please".

[GostHacked]

You do realize gravity is merely a theory don't you?

Your comparison is laughable.

[eyeball]

A theory that has been repeatedly verified with laboratory experiments which means it is quite different from the CO2 hypothesis has never been verified with real experiments.

If you can't understand the distinction then you can't understand science.

Can you prove how gravity works? What if they don't find the God particle, keep the faith?

"If I'm wrong, I'll be rather sad. If it is not found, I no longer understand what I think I understand."

Peter Higgs

No doubt makers of blackboards and chalk everywhere will cheer.

So...what if we find GW theory is real?

[eyeball]

Your comparison is laughable.

Why? Don't you take a precautionary approach to scaling a ladder or standing under someone who is?

[Shady]

Even CNN is questioning the science of so-called global warming.

Interesting. The 13th century was about 7 degrees warmer than it is now. I wonder if it was all those SUV's and coal plants?

[noahbody]

Why? Don't you take a precautionary approach to scaling a ladder or standing under someone who is?

A better analogy would be sending every cent you have to a televangelist, just in case there's a heaven.

[eyeball]

I'm reminded of my fundamentalist friend who said I shouldn't worry about wrecking this world since God has made us a new one. I'm pretty sure he also said no amount of money would help buy me a ticket there.

[GostHacked]

Why? Don't you take a precautionary approach to scaling a ladder or standing under someone who is?

Ladder what? Now you are getting away from the topic. People need some common sense when using a ladder which SHOULD be a given. But, alas there are stupid people out there.

Can you prove how gravity works? What if they don't find the God particle, keep the faith?

If they don't find it, it might be because it does not exist. Science is at least open to the idea that they will never find the particle. Only one way to test the theory is to try a few experiments.Can you prove to me that gravity does not exist? Or better yet, can you prove to me that global warming is actually real? Fully or adequately explaining gravity has been a problem for many scientists. Partly this is why the LHC in France/Switzerland exists. To detect the "God Particle", aka the Higgs-Bosson particle. Gravity seems to be more complex than great minds thought. The LHC seems to be the best experiment yet to prove these particles.

Remember when the atom and electrons and protons were just theories? For what it is worth, Einstine's theory of relativity worked pretty good, that was untill we understood the universe more. New theories will be based on Einstien's theory was built on Newton's theory. This is the progression of science. Science may not have all the answers, but at least they are looking for them. The sceince is there for the most part to predict that these particles exist.

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

Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another.[1] In everyday life, gravitation is most commonly thought of as the agency which lends weight to objects with mass. Gravitation compels dispersed matter to coalesce, thus it accounts for the very existence of the Earth, the Sun, and most of the macroscopic objects in the universe. It is responsible for keeping the Earth and the other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in its orbit around the Earth, for the formation of tides; for convection (by which hot fluids rise); for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other phenomena that we observe. Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, in which gravitation is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime which governs the motion of inertial objects. The simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an excellent approximation for most calculations.

[kuzadd]

You are simply demonstrating why efforts to limit CO2 are doomed to failure. Whether you want to admit it or not every human on the planet causes CO2 to be emitted and there is not a lot of difference between the CO2 emitted by a poor person in Canada and the CO2 emitted by a rich person in Canada. This means the cost of that any anti-CO2 policies must born by everyone which means that poor people will be hurt much more because they have less ability to pay. Attempts to address this by making the "rich" pay more than their fair share will fail because there are not enough rich people to pay the cost of reducing emissions for poor people. This dynamic plays out within Canada and globally since there is no way the rich countries can afford to pay for CO2 reductions in poor countries.

actually the wealthy are more likely to emit more co2 then the poor, for the simple reason, they can

get it?

[Riverwind]

Can you prove how gravity works? What if they don't find the God particle, keep the faith?

Don't need to. All I need to do is point to overwhelming number of events that were successfully predicted using the theory of gravity. These range from the outcome of a high school physics experiment to putting a satillite in orbit to predicting an eclipse. All of these successes demostrate that the theory of gravity is a theory with a lot of merit even if it cannot be proven.

The hypotheses that a doubling of CO2 will cause 3 degC of warming has never been tested in the real world and should be treated as a hypothetical relationship until scientists can demonstrate that they can make predictions with the hypothesis that unambigiously come true. So far scientists have failed to predict future outcomes based on their hypothesis. That means their hypothesis has a long way to go before it deserves to be accepted as a scientific fact.

[Riverwind]

actually the wealthy are more likely to emit more co2 then the poor, for the simple reason, they can

get it?

Wrong. The portion of CO2 emissions which are the result of individual spending decisions is small compared to the emissions from industry. Once these collective emissions are divided equally amoung all people the difference is per capita emissions is not that great. If anyone is allowed to avoid paying for their share of the collection emissions pie then someone else has to shoulder that burden. There simply are not enough rich people to make unequal burden sharing possible.

[eyeball]

The hypotheses that a doubling of CO2 will cause 3 degC of warming has never been tested in the real world...

The test just hasn't been seen through to its conclusion is all.

It'll be interesting to see if we keep sparing no cost to find the Higg's in the event the LHC draws a blank. No harm there at least.

[Shady]

Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder

In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all – until someone checked the math. After a Toronto skeptic tipped NASA this month to one flaw in its climate calculations, the U.S. agency ordered a full data review. Days later, it put out a revised list of all-time hottest years. The Dust Bowl year of 1934 now ranks as hottest ever in the U.S. – not 1998. More significantly, the agency reduced the mean U.S. "temperature anomalies" for the years 2000 to 2006 by 0.15 degrees Celsius.

Link

The world has never seen such freezing heat

Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

Link

One also has to question the motives of people in charge of this so-called science. Was it a mistake? Probably. But when you find out that people heading these projects are Al Gore's cheif scientifc ally for instance, some questions arise, as well as concerns. Especially when countries around the world are forming policy based on their so-called findings.

[kuzadd]

Wrong. The portion of CO2 emissions which are the result of individual spending decisions is small compared to the emissions from industry. Once these collective emissions are divided equally amoung all people the difference is per capita emissions is not that great. If anyone is allowed to avoid paying for their share of the collection emissions pie then someone else has to shoulder that burden. There simply are not enough rich people to make unequal burden sharing possible.

actually I am correct. I don't give a pooop about collective emissions.

"highest income households, which also have the largest ecological footprint."

Like Al Gores own energy bill being 20 times the average american household.

221,000 kilowat hours, more then 20 times the average american household.

therefore despite your nonsensical spin, all individuals and households are not equal in there co2 emissions.

Some use a great deal more and will continue to , cause they can, get it, yet??

never mind, knowing you , you never will.

Olbermann on Gore's Energy Use: Setting the Record Straight