Bright Sun, Warm Earth: Coincidence?

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Monday » March 12 » 2007
Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?
Lorne GunterNational Post
Monday, March 12, 2007

Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm.
The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.
Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser.
Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer."
And I swear, I haven't left my SUV idling on any of those planets or moons. Honest, I haven't.
Is there something all these heavenly bodies have in common? Some one thing they all share that could be causing them to warm in unison?
Hmmm, is there some giant, self-luminous ball of burning gas with a mass more than 300,000 times that of Earth and a core temperature of more than 20-million degrees Celsius, that for the past century or more has been unusually active and powerful? Is there something like that around which they all revolve that could be causing this multi-globe warming? Naw!
They must all have congested commuter highways, coal-fired power plants and oilsands developments that are releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into their atmospheres, too.
A decade ago, when global warming and Kyoto was just beginning to capture public attention, I published a quiz elsewhere that bears repeating in our current hyper-charged environmental debate: Quick, which is usually warmer, day or night?
And what is typically the warmest part of the day? The warmest time of year?
Finally, which are generally warmer: cloudy or cloudless days?
If you answered day, afternoon, summer and cloudless you may be well on your way to understanding what is causing global warming.
For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation.
Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.
Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun's activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, "a near-perfect match."
Mr. Abdussamatov concedes manmade gasses may have made "a small contribution to the warming in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."
Mr. Soon showed as long ago as the mid-1990s that the depth of the Little Ice Age -- the coldest period in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,500 years -- corresponded perfectly with a solar event known as the Maunder Minimum. For nearly seven decades there was virtually no sunspot activity.
Our sun was particular quiet. And for those 60 to 70 years, the northern half of our globe, at least, was in a deep freeze.
Is it so hard to believe then that the sun could be causing our current warming, too?
At the very least, the fact that so many prominent scientists have legitimate, logical objections to the current global warming orthodoxy means there is no "consensus" among scientists about the cause.
Here's a prediction: The sun's current active phase is expected to wane in 20 to 40 years, at which time the planet will begin cooling. Since that is when most of the greenhouse emission reductions proposed by the UN and others are slated to come into full effect, the "greens" will see that cooling and claim, "See, we warned you and made you take action, and look, we saved the planet."
Of course, they will have had nothing to do with it.
Lgunter@shaw.ca
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63
In Ontario during the 90's we blamed Mike Harris for everything that's wrong with the world; this decade it's global warming. I wonder what we'll be blaming the world's ills on next decade?
 

Sparrow

Council Member
Nov 12, 2006
1,202
23
38
Quebec
This global warming is a great distraction and a good money maker for some scientists. They have found a magic formula to make money. Governments also know that new industies with new jobs will be created.
When will people realize that they are being had, there are reports and studies proving that it is a hype but they will not listen.
 

AmberEyes

Sunshine
Dec 19, 2006
495
36
28
Vancouver Island
I'm truly disgusted by some of the attitudes people have. Even if our own actions aren't causing global warming (and I know that none of us truly knows what is) doesnt mean we should go ahead and poison our Earth like we did in previous years. No, I think the campaign to reduce pollution is a good one, even if it is for the wrong reasons. There's so much crap we're putting into our air and soil, so much crap we're teaching our children to ingest and live with. Even if it doesn't contribute to the Earth's warming, it may contribute to some nasty illnesses in our species, as I think Karrie touched on in a previous thread.
 

Sparrow

Council Member
Nov 12, 2006
1,202
23
38
Quebec
I agree completely with you. What I don't agree with is the fortune in money that will be milked from people like you and me due to exaggerated propaganda. The worst of all is the buying and selling of credits that our governments and industries will have to pay.
As I have posted before about cancer researching only cure instead of prevention, this can be applied to our environment. The cure? Help existing industries etc. improve the emissions and levee fines if they do not comply. The prevention? All new industries must be built to strict emission codes. This way both will end up converging and the problem will be solved. Today's almost panic will only result in monies being spent without serious thought and to little results but detrimental to the world's economies.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
I'm truly disgusted by some of the attitudes people have. Even if our own actions aren't causing global warming (and I know that none of us truly knows what is) doesnt mean we should go ahead and poison our Earth like we did in previous years. No, I think the campaign to reduce pollution is a good one, even if it is for the wrong reasons. There's so much crap we're putting into our air and soil, so much crap we're teaching our children to ingest and live with. Even if it doesn't contribute to the Earth's warming, it may contribute to some nasty illnesses in our species, as I think Karrie touched on in a previous thread.

I agree, as I'm sure you suspected I would. lol.

One of the things that struck me about the article is that it doesn't address the issue of one problem compounding another. What percentage has the temperature risen on the other planets, versus the percentage it has risen here? Is it the same amount with all planets, or does our greenhouse gas problem add to the heat here? Would lowering the green house effect make a rise in solar radiation more bearable? Would it not still be a smart thing to cut pollution as drastically as we can? Saying that the sun is getting hotter, and there's no human contribution to the warming, seems a bit overly simplistic, as does blaming it ALL on greenhouse gases. Rarely in such a large system, with so many factors at play, does ONE thing alone hold all the sway.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
At first glance
For one thing, Jupiter has always given off more heat that it receives from the sun. If Jupiter's moons are warming, that warming is more than likely coming from Jupiter.
 

eh1eh

Blah Blah Blah
Aug 31, 2006
10,749
103
48
Under a Lone Palm
Starting an Enviro Sh*t Storm

I was going to start a thread but I think this fits here quite nicley. Get the popcorn for an hour and fifteen of enviro debunking. This BBC special addresses this very topic.:wave:
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
I was going to start a thread but I think this fits here quite nicley. Get the popcorn for an hour and fifteen of enviro debunking. This BBC special addresses this very topic.:wave:
Or you can get the readers digest version. I swear this guy has been a member here.

 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
This global warming is a great distraction and a good money maker for some scientists. They have found a magic formula to make money. Governments also know that new industies with new jobs will be created.
When will people realize that they are being had, there are reports and studies proving that it is a hype but they will not listen.

People will not listen because there are many "proofs" out there. Ever notice how most of the advocates and proponents you see doing the talk shows are the same people over and over again? They make their money talking it up. In fact that recent show on BBC, the Great Global warming swindle, most of the scientists on there aren't even in the business anymore except as voices on the TV, talk shows, radios, etc. If you want to separate the fact from fiction, theres only one way to do that, and it's not by swallowing whatever news program, radio broadcast, or web blog happens to showcase something which agrees with your "belief". It's by reading peer reviewed literature. By questioning the methods, checking references and general investigation.

Although you don't need a climate degree to understand what they are telling us, you do need a basic grasp of science and statistics to objectively look at their proofs and determine what belongs in the sh!t pile and what is solid.
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
46
Newfoundland!
very true tonington. I remember while i was doing a PhD in nanotechnology, a documentary on the subject came up, i watched with interest because i thought i might see someone whose work i had read, or maybe someone I had met. Freaks and weirdos only, though. Total nobodies, and barely a speck of truth. The documentary was entirely tuned to scaring the crap out of people. I suspect Prince Ears watched it, since he shortly afterwards came out in an anti-nanotech way.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Unfortunate isn't it? I'd wager that nanotechnology is not a well understood phenomena outside the circle who work in the field. Public opinion turns south on you and for what? I personally find the possibilities fascinating. I'd like to hear some of your insights Hermann.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
I was going to start a thread but I think this fits here quite nicley. Get the popcorn for an hour and fifteen of enviro debunking. This BBC special addresses this very topic.:wave:


Great BBC special....thanks for sharing that.


Patrick Moore says it best in the video....


.....and a lot of peaceniks and political activist moved into the environmental movement bringing their neo-Marxism with them and learned to use "green" language in a very clever way to cloak agendas which actually have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than they do with anything ecology or science.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Carl Wunsch has a small role in the film, and he talks about the oceans....nothing he says indicates were he stands on the issue of global warming and it's causes from what I can see.


Durkin said: 'Carl Wunsch was most certainly not "duped" into appearing in the film, as is perfectly clear from our correspondence with him. Nor are his comments taken out of context. His interview, as used in the programme, perfectly accurately represents what he said.'

That does appear to be the truth of the matter....
 

eh1eh

Blah Blah Blah
Aug 31, 2006
10,749
103
48
Under a Lone Palm
It wasn't BBC by the way it was Channel 4.

If you want to talk about agendas being presented in the film, read this letter by Carl Wunsch, who isn't very pleased with what Channel 4 twisted his words into. Just the tip of the ice berg...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html

I didn't know they allowed private TV in Britain. What I found interesting was the ice core data tracking carbon in relation to temperature. If the data is correct it looks fairly obious. But on the other hand you do need much more knowledge of climactics to judge the relavence and relation of that data to what is happening. Still it defenitley raises some logical doubts.:wave:
 
Last edited:

gc

Electoral Member
May 9, 2006
931
20
18
This global warming is a great distraction and a good money maker for some scientists. They have found a magic formula to make money. Governments also know that new industies with new jobs will be created.
When will people realize that they are being had, there are reports and studies proving that it is a hype but they will not listen.

How do scientists make money from global warming? Unless of course they can convince other scientists that they are correct.