Starship Asterisk*

I have read in different publications that the surface temperatures of the Sun, Mars and Jupiter have increased over the years. If this is true, one would have to attribute global warming to cyclical solar fluctuations. Are temperatures of all the planets, but particulary Mercury and Venus, monitored and recorded to determine trends? If so, where might I find it on-line?

pacfandave wrote:If this is true, one would have to attribute global warming to cyclical solar fluctuations.

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

There is a case that can be made for about half of the current [0.8º C] global warming from 1850 to the present being attributable to a recovery of from "The Little Ice Age" [from 1450 to 1850] that may have been caused by a Solar Sunspot Minimum cooler sun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carb ... labels.png

neufer wrote:

pacfandave wrote:If this is true, one would have to attribute global warming to cyclical solar fluctuations.

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

There is a case that can be made for about half of the current [0.8º C] global warming from 1850 to the present being attributable to a recovery of from "The Little Ice Age" [from 1450 to 1850] that may have been caused by a Solar Sunspot Minimum cooler sun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carb ... labels.png

Now that the Alps have melted, they found a 1000 year old mine. The temperture now are the same as it was 1000 years ago. If we're responsible now then how were we responsible then?
5000 years the Sahara was a fertile land (They just found a cemetery on an oil dig.) How were we responsible then?
The north pole once grew coral. Things change. Man's contribution is negligible.

William Roeder wrote:A 1000 year old mine in the Alps. 5000 years the Sahara was a fertile land. Man's contribution is negligible.

There were 275 million people worldwide a 1000 years ago. Estimates for 3000 BC is 14 million people worldwide. Now there are 6835 million people. Man's contribution to changes on the planet is colossal, both because of numbers and industrialization. What's more: the rate of change is exponential.

But even GW were a result of external factors, then we still have to deal with the consequences.

Case wrote:Man's contribution to changes on the planet is colossal,

Zero evidence.
30,000 Climit scientists signed a report agreeing 100% with that.
Man's contribution is trivial compaired to natural factors.
Global Warming 'Consensus' Shattering

William Roeder wrote:30,000 Climit scientists signed a report agreeing 100% with that.

"31,072 American scientists have signed the petition, including 9,021 with PhDs".
The number of scientists with a background that qualifies them as "climate scientist" is undisclosed.
For all I know they studied "what propaganda to spread to keep their current lifestyle in a changing worldwide climate."

Case wrote:For all I know they studied "what propaganda to spread to keep their current lifestyle in a changing worldwide climate."

Isn't propaganda exactly what your saying.

Case wrote:Man's contribution to changes on the planet is colossal

If you eliminate both Downward anomolies (spikes) and upward spikes over the last 200 years, there is a definite warming trend and if it is to a greater extent in urbanized areas then there is a human component that must be included and accepted.
I found this chart interesting. It shows temperature trends in Antarctica.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/An ... 3-2004.gif

It states that the "Antarctic has been on a cooling trend" supported by a line across the graph. The problem is that the line was drawn from a high peak in 1908 to a point that is lower than the 2004 final temp. reported in the graph. If you stick with the peaks, you get a gentle increase of +0.5 (1908) to +1.1 (1996) or +.6C.

Now if you in turn compare the lower (minimum) valleys, the temperature increases from
1928 ~ -3
1949 ~ -2.6
1993 ~ -0.5
1999 ~ -0.4
2000 ~ -0.3
net increase of 2.7C
again warmer winters???

Some interesting info from weather stations around the world and from NASA GISS

From the NASA GISS surface temp analysis

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Global temperature land ocean index

Global temperature changes at meteorological stations
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif

Temperature changes at three latitude bands
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif

Hemispheric temperature changes
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif

Land and Ocean temperature changes
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A4.lrg.gif

Vacaville Ca
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

Bournemouth UK
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

Bratsk Russia
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

Viljujsk Russia
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

Syowa Antarctica
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif
Look at the trend excluding the low (1976) and high (1980) spikes

Reykjavik Iceland
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif
Note the warm trend during the WWII industrial era

Jan Mayen Iceland
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif
Also with WWII warming

Bodo Vi
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif
Note 1936 era European WWII industrial influences

Kotzebue Ral Alaska
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

Casablanca
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

Sidney Airport
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

I chose the places that I considered to be rural (when possible) so as to have little direct populace or city related influences, with the exceptions of Casablanca and Sidney, and all were chosen due to the date span of records kept for that area.

They ALL indicate a gradual increase in mean temperature for every continent represented of between .8dC to 1.2dC over the last 100 years.

And if you go into the metropolitan areas (more people, more pollution) the increase is more dramatic

Rio De Janero
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

Sao Paulo
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

Los Angeles Ca
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

Pasadena Ca
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

Phoenix Az
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

Milwaukee, Wi
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

New York Central Park
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

Guangzhou China
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

Bombay Cola India
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

Riyadh Saudi Arabia
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

Tokyo Japan
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

Sendai Japan
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

Kyoto Japan
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

Miami Fl
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

Bangkok Thailand
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/ ... tation.gif

These indicate a mean temp increase of up to 2.8dC onve the last 100 years.

Either people tend to congregate (cities) where we thought it would be naturally warmer over the years (we knew in 1776 that the southern west coast would be a great place for Los Angeles to be located because it would be hotter there now), or it is getting warmer over the years where we tend to congregate. (human induced global warming)




These links are for the North Polar Ice

Look at these from Aug 30 1997~2007
1997
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 970830.png
1998
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 980830.png
1999
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 990830.png
2000
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 000830.png
2001
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 010830.png
2002
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 020830.png
2003
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 030830.png
2004
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 040830.jpg
2005
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 050830.jpg
2006
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 060830.jpg
2007
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 070830.jpg
I wonder what 2008 will look like???

Follow here http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/


The North polar ice cap is gradually disappearing

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Man has been accused of climate change without evidence.

Yes Man is polluting the local environment and is a problem for health. But! is this causing climate changes.

This is very interesting and is worth reading. Science applied to the problem.

http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/publications.htm

SOLAR ROTATION, IMPULSES OF THE TORQUE IN THE SUN'S MOTION, AND CLIMATIC VARIATION

ABSTRACT. Running variance analysis and maximum entropy spectral analysis applied to Mount Wilson rotation data yield arguments in favor of a connection between variations in the Sun's rotation rate, energetic X-ray flares, and impulses of the torque (IOT) in the Sun's irregular motion about the barycenter of the planetary system. Such IOT, that have been shown to be related to the secular cycle of solar activity and excursions of the Maunder minimum type, also seem to be linked to outstanding peaks in geomagnetic activity, maxima in ozone concentration, incidence of blocking type circulation, as well as rainfall over Central Europe, England/Wales, eastern United States, and India. Statistical tests, that confirm these links, additionally point to IOT connection with temperature in Central Europe and the number of icebergs that pass south of latitude 48° N. IOT relationship with X-ray flares and strong geomagnetic storms was tested in successful long range forecasts.

http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/cycles.htm
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/extrema.htm
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/swinging.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conferenc...pdf/ICS176.pdf

Climate change is important to all of us. Pollution is critical for clean air.

Thanx to all for the info. Does anyone know of a source that lists temperatures over time for any of the other planets?

BMAONE23 wrote:If you eliminate both Downward anomolies (spikes) and upward spikes over the last 200 years, there is a definite warming trend and if it is to a greater extent in urbanized areas then there is a human component that must be included and accepted.
I found this chart interesting. It shows temperature trends in Antarctica.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/An ... 3-2004.gif

It states that the "Antarctic has been on a cooling trend" supported by a line across the graph. The problem is that the line was drawn from a high peak in 1908 to a point that is lower than the 2004 final temp. reported in the graph. If you stick with the peaks, you get a gentle increase of +0.5 (1908) to +1.1 (1996) or +.6C.

You've just shown that the Earth is getting warmer.
I showed that 1000 years ago it was as warm or warmer than now.

No won disputes those facts. What is disputed, it that Man is responsible.

There is a definite component that points directly to mans alteration of the earth. Which can be determined in the Fact that over the course of the last 100 years, worldwide average temps have risen by .08dC to 1.2dC but urban areas (where man & polution sources are located) are up 2dC to 2.8dC over the same time period.
That is to say that urban area temp increases over the last 100 years are more than double that of rural area increases. More people per mi3 seems to equate to greater temp increase...Man appears to have a definite effect.

I'm not arguing one way or the other, but BMAONE23, I have to point out a slight error in your reasoning.

You're looking at localized warming over urban areas on the assumption that this is where the "pollution" is highest. I've quoted pollution because that has often been defined in different ways. CO2 is generally not considered a pollutant. More to the point, CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not substantially localized over urban areas. They diffuse readily throughout the atmosphere. Particulate and nitrate pollutions, however, are localized over cities as they settle out or break down, but these tend to reduce temperature, not increase it.

In fact, there is almost no debate about whether or not temperatures over cities have increased. This is typically referred to as the "urban heat island affect" and primarily attributed to a change in the albedo of the surface due to construction (all that pavement and bare roof area soaks up heat better than forests and grasslands do). It is distinct from global climate change.

Rather than being a sign of global warming, this is a source of systematic error in the data that has to be accounted for, as cities only make up a small proportion of the earth's surface. The error is corrected for by comparing temperatures of urban areas to more rural surroundings.

Data that has been corrected for this effect still seems to show a warming trend over the past 150 years, to the tune of about 0.75 Celsius, if I remember right.

pacfandave wrote:Thanx to all for the info. Does anyone know of a source that lists temperatures over time for any of the other planets?

Not the sorted data, but at least the conclusions are fairly easy to find. The main problems are there's no long term records of the temperatures of the planets, and it's hard to say that the warming is not merely coincidence.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... rming.html

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz


Its good that we have global warming up there.

Down under, we just had the coldest winter on record.

So if you have global warming up there, send some down under.

BMAONE23 wrote:There is a definite component that points directly to mans alteration of the earth. Which can be determined in the Fact that over the course of the last 100 years, worldwide average temps have risen by .08dC to 1.2dC but urban areas (where man & polution sources are located) are up 2dC to 2.8dC over the same time period.
That is to say that urban area temp increases over the last 100 years are more than double that of rural area increases. More people per mi3 seems to equate to greater temp increase...Man appears to have a definite effect.

More antidotal evidence. You site local changes and equate that to global. You say mans definite effect but point to no sources.
I previous pointed to a http://www.hawaiireporter.com story. As search of that site for the word "global" would have reveled:
A Scientific Basis for Doubting Man-made Global Warming
Earth's 'Fever' Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way
New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling
Global Warming Goes Round And Round
and many more.
Start researching these links and you'll find Facts against man made global warming by experts.
Where are the experts For? And don't say Gore and his very flawed 400 scientists report, that has been reputed.
Al Gore Denies Global Warming in His Meal Ticket

...for your helpful responses. After reviewing them, I believe I can safely reach three conclusions:

1. Global warming is a fact.

2. There is no consensus on its cause.

3. Even the most heroic effort to combat it will be about as effectual as removing a glass of seawater from a hurricane-roiled ocean in the hope, ultimately forlorn, of mitigating the effects of storm surge.

And in five-billion years or so, when the sun goes nova and real global warming occurs, it won't matter much anyway.

Regardless of whether global warming is man made or not, (I tend towards influenced by man), effort still must be made to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to reduce the pollution of our environment. We must strive to protect this ecosystem in which we live, as for now, we have no where else to go.

bystander wrote:effort still must be made to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels

The problem is that there is no substitute for oil.

The US uses five million barrels of oil a day for non-energy uses. Thats almost half.

We've been playing with wind and solar for 30 years. They are still more than twice as expensive as oil. If they were viable the market would have already moved there.

Nuclear would be an alternative except for the environmentalists and their restrictions.

The best news I've read recently, was the new genetically engineered bacteria that eat waste organics and crap out oil. But that still won't be a replacement. We need to drill for more. Most of the locations they allow drilling doesn't have much oil.

William Roeder wrote:

bystander wrote:effort still must be made to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels

1. The problem is that there is no substitute for oil.

The US uses five million barrels of oil a day for non-energy uses. Thats almost half.

2. We've been playing with wind and solar for 30 years. They are still more than twice as expensive as oil. If they were viable the market would have already moved there.

3. Nuclear would be an alternative except for the environmentalists and their restrictions.

4. We need to drill for more. Most of the locations they allow drilling doesn't have much oil.

1. Are all of these uses vital? You're saying conservation is not even an option here? We have to have the plastic wrappers we quickly throw in the landfills? You're suggesting that because we are currently dependent on such products we must be in the foreseeable future?

2. For most of those 30 years the price of oil was relatively low. When industry is set on a path and alternatives are expensive, the path stays the same. Industry is like a couch potato...perfectly content to sit there eating junk food on the couch because exercise and carrots are far less appealing. But as the couch wears out and the junk food runs dry, carrots begin to look pretty tasty...

3. Nuclear power is a great way to convert our current energy problem into a future waste problem for our children. But I imagine most folks who argue for nuclear power think to themselves, "well, I'll be gone by the time its a problem so who cares?" It's the American Way!

4. Most of the places considered for increased drilling...off the Eastern Seaboard and ANRW...would not produce enough oil to make any changes in prices for decades. Politicians talk about drilling as a "solution" when they haven't got any ideas at all. Besides, a drug addict is not helped by increasing his drug supply, is he? What happens when you do? You increase his dependence on the drug!

5. Interesting conversation (I couldn't help but jump in) but what the heck does it have to do with astronomy?

Orca wrote:1. Are all of these uses vital? You're saying conservation is not even an option here? We have to have the plastic wrappers we quickly throw in the landfills? You're suggesting that because we are currently dependent on such products we must be in the foreseeable future?

Escentially, yes. From Mabeline makeup to fertializer to make our food. Half of our oil use is required, non-energy use.
Oil has many daily uses

Orca wrote:2. For most of those 30 years the price of oil was relatively low. When industry is set on a path and alternatives are expensive, the path stays the same. Industry is like a couch potato...perfectly content to sit there eating junk food on the couch because exercise and carrots are far less appealing. But as the couch wears out and the junk food runs dry, carrots begin to look pretty tasty...

Total propaganda. Inventers have been tring. Ever hear of cold fusion? The bacteria is one new result showing promise. Have you seen the show "Ice Road Truckers" They are drilling for Methane Hydrates - as totally new source of gas from the frozen tundra. From ICE!
The higher the price of oil, the more money will be spent on research.

Orca wrote:3. Nuclear power is a great way to convert our current energy problem into a future waste problem for our children. But I imagine most folks who argue for nuclear power think to themselves, "well, I'll be gone by the time its a problem so who cares?" It's the American Way!

I agree. If nuclear was so good, then they wouldn't need Government insurance, and the cost of storage would be factored in.
But France gets 85% of their energy from nuclear. For short term (next 50 years) it is a possibility.

Orca wrote:4. Most of the places considered for increased drilling...off the Eastern Seaboard and ANRW...would not produce enough oil to make any changes in prices for decades. Politicians talk about drilling as a "solution" when they haven't got any ideas at all. Besides, a drug addict is not helped by increasing his drug supply, is he? What happens when you do? You increase his dependence on the drug!

Had Clinton not blocked drilling, we wouldn't be in this sitution. Just because it will take some time doesn't mean we shouldn't start. Everything takes time., if that was a valid excuse, we would still be up in the trees.
As for decades, total bs, start drilling now, we could have a flow in months, there is no way to know when the first well will hit.

Orca wrote:5. Interesting conversation (I couldn't help but jump in) but what the heck does it have to do with astronomy?

Nothing, this thread was hijacked.

Yale Forum on Climate Change
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/ccm/0508_solar.htm
July global temp anomaly
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/20 ... -up-a-bit/
The chart indicates a drop in temperature when compared to the 1998 spike but it shows a relative increase since 1979 of 0.4dC
Chart
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... y-2008.png
Carbon dioxide and the atmosphere
http://www.biofact.com/cold.html
Report by William Kellogg, National Center for Atmospheric Research PDF
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520- ... -4-499.pdf

I don’t think that anyone denies that there is Global Warming happening. The major disagreement is in the causes for this phenomenon. While there is some evidence that points to increasing solar activity correlating with increasing surface temperatures, there is also evidence of Human activity induced temperature variations. (Urban Heat Island effect and increasing atmospheric greenhouse gasses either of which are fact and may or may not have a direct effect)

Many people say that if there is global warming happening than why is it getting cooler (at the UK latitude)? This can be answered by a relatively simple phenomenon. There is significant melting occurring at the north polar region. This cold fresh water pours into the Arctic Ocean and causes an alteration to the Gulf Stream flow. The Gulf Stream no longer carries warmer tropical water to the British isles but allows the colder arctic water to permeate the area lowering ocean surface temperatures and thereby lowering local surface temperatures by as much as 6 degrees.
So Global Warming can lead to a localized surface area temperature reduction making it colder.

Harry quoted an abstract from http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/publications.htm

ABSTRACT. [snipped] Statistical tests, that confirm these links, additionally point to IOT connection with temperature in Central Europe and the number of icebergs that pass south of latitude 48° N.

Statistical tests never confirm a hypothesis, statistical tests can only reject a hypothesis with a certain confidence level. It is the same line of thought that one can not prove the validity of a theory by means of a finite amounts of experiments, only falsify a theory.

G'day Henk

You said

Statistical tests never confirm a hypothesis, statistical tests can only reject a hypothesis with a certain confidence level. It is the same line of thought that one can not prove the validity of a theory by means of a finite amounts of experiments, only falsify a theory.

Yes, I agree

===================================

BMaone23 said:

I don’t think that anyone denies that there is Global Warming happening. The major disagreement is in the causes for this phenomenon. While there is some evidence that points to increasing solar activity correlating with increasing surface temperatures, there is also evidence of Human activity induced temperature variations. (Urban Heat Island effect and increasing atmospheric greenhouse gasses either of which are fact and may or may not have a direct effect)

There is evidence for global warming caused by varies cycles other than man. But! you do bring an interesting point: Does man's input add to the Global warming. In my opinion yes, to what extent is another issue. Is it minor or a major compared to the cycle events.

If man stops adding will the global warming stop? I do not think so.

If man stops adding will this reduce the global warming to some degree? Yes to that.