I’ve been getting some interesting feedback about my Mars methane post from earlier this week. Some people have complained that the media were not going overboard with the story, but that’s patently not true. I’m not saying every single venue went ballistic, crying "Life"! I’m saying some did. And many had decent articles about the story, but pimped exaggerated headlines, like The Sun did.
I think my favorite item so far is from the American Thinker blog. The author there claims that methane is from solar-induced global warming.
 |
Yes, you may pick yourself off the floor and take a few deep breaths. Obviously, he has never read my blog, where I smack the idea down of the Sun causing global warming. Twice, in fact.
Think of it this way. On average, Mars is about 200 million km from the Sun, and we’re about 150 million km. If Mars has a noticeable rise in temperature due to heating from the Sun, then the Earth would have an even greater rise. One of the big problems about global warming is that it’s a relatively small temperature change (something global warming deniers love to talk about). So if our temperature rise is small, Mars’ would be even smaller if the Sun were the cause.
In other words, if the Sun were behind global warming, we wouldn’t be able to see it on Mars at all. But we do. Therefore global warming is not solar induced, either on Earth or on Mars.
Anyway, I have more details in the blog posts linked above.
There is one thing that was pointed out to me I didn’t know: bovine methane on Earth appears to be predominantly from eructation and not flatulation. That’s as adult a way as I can phrase it. Interesting… and so I edited my earlier piece. Don’t let it be said I won’t fix scientific errors on my posts! So please don’t raise a stink about it.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:27 pm
And let’s all remember that methane is ODORLESS. Stinky jokes are just bad science.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:52 pm
So no lighting matches near the mouths of cows everyone.
I always thought methane helped global warming not caused by it.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Of course, we all prefer the idea that newspapers print accurate headlines (and articles) rather than inaccurate ones.
However, if we adopt the hypothesis that if, say, theSun prints accurate headlines it will lose sales and advertising to other papers that don’t (say, the Daily Star), then our choice becomes, ‘Do we want the Sun to print martian bollocks, or other bollocks?’ That one’s harder to answer, but maybe some rejoicing that Mars got on the front page regardless of truth is in order.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Mars is actually more like 230 million km from the sun, which would make the difference even more apparent if warming was happening that way
January 21st, 2009 at 5:27 pm
BA,
You are off on your Mars distances,
Aphelion 250 million km
Perihelion 206 million km
Semi-major axis 228 million km
Earth is more like 150 million km
Also, I have to disagree with your hand waving statement that, “So if our temperature rise is small, Mars’ would be even smaller if the Sun were the cause.”
Very little about the Martian atmosphere is similar to Earth’s atmosphere. Pressure is different, composition is different, particulates are different, and aerosols are different. The surface absorptive and emissive properties are different. The temperature of the lower atmosphere and the surface are signficantly colder than their counterparts on Earth. All of these parameters affect solar absorption and infrared emission parameters.
Finally, because radiative heat transfer works on a temperature to the fourth power relationship and with Mars being much colder than Earth, a small increase in solar output could show a greater temperature increase on Mars than on Earth, even factoring in the reduced insolation on Mars.
I’m not saying it will show a greater increase, just that it could because the heat transfer mechanisms are different on both planets
BTW, I don’t deny that the temperature rises were are seeing on Earth are due to increased CO2 caused by mankind.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:37 pm
The American Thinker writer needs to engage his brain once in a while (not that there is much evidence of his ever doing so).
How on Earth can you possibly call the detection of methane on Mars evidence of the planet warming up? To do that you need a trend line, and given that this is the very first time we’ve been able to detect methane in the atmosphere with this amount of accuracy, then we have absolutely no idea if this is a new phenomenon or something that’s been happening for millions of years.
In fact, it’s entirely possible that the amount of methane found in the Martian atmosphere is decreasing over time (we just don’t know) so you could just as easily say that it’s evidence for global cooling on Earth.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:48 pm
According to Wikipedia, cattle emit 95% of methane through eructation or burping, not
fartingflatulence.January 21st, 2009 at 5:50 pm
John Keller:
You’r physics is right, but I think that your conclusion is wrong about the temperature of Mars. The temperature of a spherical body (fast-rotator) at distance d from the Sun (luminosity = L + dL, L=the base luminosity, dL= the supposed change) is
T = ((L + dL)/(2 sigma d^2))^(1/4)
~ (L/(2 sigma d^2))^(1/4) (1 + (dL/L)/4)
= T0 (1 + (dL/L)/4)
So the relative change is the same. However, Earth, being hotter to begin with, should warm by more absolute degrees.
As for feedbacks, yeah, it’s possible Mars could have a crazy feedback system and out-warm Earth. But, knowing what we know about the planets, it’s MUCH more likely that it’s the reverse. Earth has an abundant supply of greenhouse gases waiting to evaporate from the oceans (=water), for a start.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:54 pm
“eructation and not flatulation”
What? Did “burp” become a bad word? I’ll have you know that the word “flatulate” does not seem to exist, and that the other “f” word (not that one) is perhaps the only proper word for the act. This seems to be because “flatus” is only a noun describing the gas, whether inside or outside the body (it’s not like a meteorite, I would argue that meteorites wreak less havoc). Therefore a word like “flatulate” could conceivably be the act of production and not expulsion. There’s a word for it, do the right thing: Use it.
(I’m just being a pedantic smart-hiney. I’m not really that emotionally involved in your word choice.)
Oh, and carbon based energy resources on an alien land? If 43 was in office, NASA would find trillions on dollars in their pockets just to put boots on the ground. See, all he needed was a little more time to redeem himself.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Lighting matches on Mars would be an exercise in futility, considering the lack of oxygen for combustion. But wouldn’t it be fun to strap a pilot light helmet-type contraption on a cow’s head and watch it shoot flames? You can have whole fields of cows belching flames. It would be like a Rammstein concert…sans the mosh pit.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:45 pm
“You are off on your Mars distances,
Aphelion 250 million km
Perihelion 206 million km
Semi-major axis 228 million km”
Umm…the BA is perfectly correct. If you’re going to round to a nice round number then 228 million km *is* about 200 million km from the Sun. I didn’t know rounding had been outlawed.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:12 pm
@ KC,
I think that if Dr. Phil Plait had stated that “On average, Mars is [just over] 200 million km from the Sun…”, instead of “On average, Mars is about 200 million km from the Sun…”, then the pedants would have been happy!
January 21st, 2009 at 7:58 pm
I’ve never heard a cow (or sheep) burp – do they make a noise? If they don’t then we shouldn’t really call it burping.
I couldn’t find the more ‘interesting’ photos of sheep and cows from experiments which colleagues had performed ~8 years ago, but here’s an example showing some of the gear used in the experiments:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10448961
Accurately measuring/estimating livestock emissions is a bigger challenge than many might think.
I have my doubts that the methane on Mars is produced by subsurface cattle, but you never know – those aliens are very clever at hiding things.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:41 pm
I have long favoured the word ‘petard’ – but had everyone given up on the termites?
JC
January 21st, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Hey, just wondering about something…
You said that global warming is not sun induced. I agree, linear logic says: Greenhouse gasses do trap heat, the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are increasing. There is more, but it’s beside the point.
Your reasoning about earth being closer and only a getting a little warmer and Mars being further away but still showing comparable warming seems a little over simplified to my layman’s mind.
I’m thinking percentages, although I don’t know the values of the variables involved or even what all those variables would be. As you know, Earth has a magnetic field while Mars doesn’t. Also, Earths atmosphere is of different composition. It is conceivable that Mars would respond more dramatically to the sun increasing it’s thermal output.
I’m quite sure global warming is occurring due to man induced changes to the Earths atmosphere. But you caught my attention when you put forward your argument that distance to the sun would determine the deference in global warming values between two different planets in a sun driven global warming scenario.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Grant:
See my post above. It’s certainly possible (at first blush) that feedbacks would cause Mars to warm more than Earth for a given increase in solar insolation, but overall my *guess* is that Earth would respond more. In the end, the best way to tell is to run some computer models of both planets, I suppose.
“As you know, Earth has a magnetic field while Mars doesn’t. ”
On this point, I’m a bit confused. What (direct) role does the magnetic field play in the surface temperature? Magnetic fields get invoked a lot, both by people on the internet (not all of them crazy, of course) and by students. They seem to be credited with doing more than they actually can. (I once had a student, an aerospace engineering major!, tell me in a homework that Earth’s field was de-orbiting the Moon as we spoke.)
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:01 am
Methane stink?
Maybe I’ve got this wrong but isn’t methane odourless?
Or is that natural gas where there’s no odour & they have to add something to make it smell – bad?
Of course, what I really don’t get is why the agent they put in it has to smell bad to warn us not of something nicer say roses or strawberry or suchlike ..
.. If gas leaks smelt nicer then we’d still get the warning; it just wouldn’t smell as bad .. so I ‘spose … umm ..we wouldn’t be as worried ..which kinda answers the question .. but still.
Also only vaguely connected with the point (but what the heck) saw something on the TV news (SBS Oz) the other night with Antartica warming more quickly than expected – parts of it anyway.
Basically, the old idea that Antartica wasn’t warming but getting cooler has been disproved by new research showing the peninuslar bit is warming a lot quicker than thought and the main East Antartican region is also warming but a little slower than elsewhere ..
Just thought y’may like to know.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:09 am
@r=the BA’s : “There is one thing that was pointed out to me I didn’t know: bovine methane on Earth appears to be predominantly from eructation and not flatulation. That’s as adult a way as I can phrase it. “
Oh c’mon, do tell us, what’s the most childish way you can put it!?
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:12 am
On matters flatulant nice to see the next link is for black hole winds rising!
Wonder how bad a black holes winds – and galactic gas smell?!
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:28 am
I agree with the scientific consensus on global warming and the Anthropogenic Greehnhouse Effect (AGHE) that is that human industrial and agricultural practices are causing a rise in greenhouse gases trapping heat and warming the planet.
However, as Grant said :
“.. Your reasoning about earth being closer and only a getting a little warmer and Mars being further away but still showing comparable warming seems a little over simplified to my layman’s mind. …
I don’t think it’s necessarily true that distance is a major factor – the percentage of change would be the same even though the total figure would be less wouldn’t it?
I’d also like to rather pedantically point out that while only one factor out of many (others incl. albedo, atmospheric composition, continental positions & their effect on oceanic-atmospheric circulation patterns – ie winds & currents, volcanic output, Milankovitch orbital cycles, etc ..) solar insolation – sunlight – does play a significant role and that solar cycles have previously been closely co-related with climate changes.
It is only recently that human activity has come to play a role over-riding the solar factor.
That said, I do agree with the majority view of those best qualified climatologists on this issue :
The AGHE is real and we need to do something serious about it soon.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:57 am
“There were no fires in the Martian desert. In fact, of all the worlds in the solar system only Earth with its oxygen-rich atmosphere knew fire.”
- Page 43, ‘Voyage’, Stephen Baxter, Harper-Collins, 1996.
***
This reminded me of something I once read so I went and found it again. From an old astronomy magazine :
***
Sun’s Future Not-So Bright : *
Astronomy magazine, October, 1995. “News” Page 24.
[Summarised from there - ed]
“A study by astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas suggested that our Sun may actually dim by the middle of next century [ie. about 2050 AD – Ed.] cooling the Earth by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit. This is based on studying other stars esp. star-spot cycles with about 800 stars between 10 & 100 ly away surveyed and is supported by carbon 14 data gathered from 7,000 year old bristlecone pines. The study forecasts that our own Sun will decrease in brightness by about 0.4 % within the next 50 years. Baliuna’s remarked :
“Combined with the star survey, this information [C-14 bristlecone pine data] suggest that the Sun’s magnetic activity dwindles roughly one century out of every three.”
The article noted in passing the lower 2 degree F difference equals the temp. difference of the ‘Little Ice Age’ period from 1645-1715 CE.
[end-summary –ed]
* Btw. How do you do underlining here? Bold & italics I can do but not that ..:-(
I’d suggest a html (is it called?) code primer for people here may be a helpful idea for improving this site, please BA.
***
Anyway, the implications of this appear mixed and rather intriguing raising a number of questions :
1. So if our Sun _ is_ cooling – is the greenhouse effect hiding this fact?
2. Or is there a lag factor with our Sun recovering and thus creating a solar effect more than a human one?
3. How else exactly might this affect our current climate understanding?
It certainly does appear to rule out the solar-causation for Global Warming theory. For if the Sun is actually *cooling* then any warming must be *in spite* of, rtaher than because of the Solar input.
Also it is worth countering this by noting :
“Our Sun’s brightness is gradually increasing by about 10 % every billion years.”
- from “The Planets” final episode – ‘Destiny” , BBC TV, screened circa 1995-2005. (?)
As a main sequence yellow dwarf star our sun is apparently continually becoming brighter as it evolves and more of its core hydrogen is turned into helium “ash.” Our Sun was apparently much fainter early in our natural history (hence periods of global glaciation or “Snowball Earth”) and is on course to become first a yellow sub-giant and then an orange giant and eventually a ‘second ascent’ red giant star in roughly a billion and then five billion years time respectively – if I’ve undertsood rightly. Again. if I’ve got this right, in the first of these stages – ballooning to orange gianthood – it will engulf Mercury and Venus. Then in the final red giant stage it may or may not – probably will I think? – engulf our Earth.
So long run we are all very “Doomed!”
[Insert imaginary caption & image : red giant sun in black sky hanging over the burnt bones of cat & mouse!?]
***
A rainbow is a naturally occurring solar spectroscope.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:16 am
“During its summer, the frozen nitrogen on Pluto evapourates to
create a temporary atmosphere. With the onset of winter the nitrogen turns to frost and falls back to the surface. On Pluto the winter weather doesn’t merely deteriorate – it completely disappears.”
(& you thought it was cold here – ed!)
- Page 19, ‘The Planets’, McNab & Younger, BBC Worldwide Ltd., 1999.
***
I know that “Suns Future Not-so Bright” item I raised here is a bit old and perhaps outdated too. Sorry.
It sticks in my mind (as y’all can probably tell) & still seems interesting and pertinant anyway so thought it worth quoting.
I’m not sure if anyone has done further research to confirm or refute it. If so I haven’t heard. Does anyone else here know?
***
Without our atmosphere the Earth’s average temperature would be minus eighteen degrees Celsius.
- Dr Alan Longstaff, ‘Astronomy Now’ magazine July 2007.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:25 am
@BeinSilly : “Oh c’mon, do tell us, what’s the most childish way you can put it!?”
I’ll take up that challenge!
Big cow go (swigs great gulp of coke, sucks in lots of air.)
BB-BUUUUUUUUUUU_RRRRRRRRRRR_PPP!
.. more than big cow go (bends over over, pulls down pants, has already eaten vastquantitie sof pea and ham and eggs and curryand baked beans for tea & lights outpouring of gas with ciggy lighter!)
RASPBERRY … RASPBERRY .. RASPBERRY!
Splat ..splat … splat ..
Oh dear junior, you need to change your pants!
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:42 am
For what little its worth; climatology and climate forecasting strikes me as being like economics :
Everyone’s got an opinion, lots of well-paid experts make a lot of money by telling everyone what *they* think is going on – but its all just incredibly complicated and no-one ever really seems to have a clue or get much right.
Far as I’m concerned, jury is still out. I don’t know that any of the many disagreeing jokers
out there really know what they’re talking about accurately enough.
I’m not that worried. A bit of warmer weather, a bit more sea, not too bad if you ask me!
One thing I do know is that environmentalists have been predicting flippin awful stuff’s about to happen for … well .. about forever really so their credibility is slim to none.
Esp. when back in the 1970′s it was an ice age we were all supposed to be messing our pants over!
The whole issue seems overhyped, unclear & uncertain. If something in the future shows its really happening we’ll fix it then .. Oherwise, lets work on the many tangible and immediate problems we’ve got here & now, there’s more than enough of them to go around.
That’s my two bobs worth anyhow.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:09 am
The other “f” word is “fluff”. Fluffing was the polite way of saying it when I was a kid.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:11 am
The only childish behaviour here, mentioning no names, is the person who is cluttering up this and other threads with a range of sock-puppets posting inane comments! Grow up already!
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:22 am
@ Joker : What cave have you been living in mate?
I don’t think its “over-hyped, unclear & uncertain” at all – if anything its an issue we’ve been ignoring far too long!
Try telling the people of Palau, Tuvalu or Naru – islands in the Pacific that are starting to disappear now that the Greenhouse Effect isn’t real! Or those millions of people in Bangladesh, Venice, Cairo,the Netherlands, New Orleans, London and all the other low-lying areas facing destruction under the rising waters.
The climatic data is conclusive, very clear and has been pouringin for decades now. Here is just a minuscule fraction (20 points) amongst the huge amount of evidence for the Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect (Human-induced climate change) :
1. Over the past century the Earth has warmed by 0.63 degrees, if carbon dioxide levels are doubled by the end of this century as predicted it will bring about 3 degrees of climate change. (Tim Flannery ‘3 degrees to disaster’ in ‘The Advertiser’, 2005-May-16th.)
2. 2-3 degrees of climate change would result for Australia in catastrophic loss of ancient mountain rainforest, complete loss of the * world’s * coral reefs, complete devastation of Kakadu National Park, rising sea levels and storm surges. (Tim Flannery ‘3 degrees to disaster’ in ‘The Advertiser’, 2005-May-16th.)
3. To stabilise (not restore – stabilise) the planetary climate CO2 levels need to be cut by 70 % by 2050. The Kyoto protocol only cuts emissions by 5% if it is implemented successfully. (Tim Flannery ‘3 degrees to disaster’ in ‘The Advertiser’, 2005-May-16th & ‘Climate of Concern’, Adelaide Review, March 2004.)
4. The 2003 European summer heatwave which killed 19,000 people was the hottest on the continent in 5 centuries according to researchers. (Advertiser, 04-March-6th.)
5. The nature of rainfall has changed in Australia since 1975; the heavy persistent winter rains have become lighter and more variable and we’ve experienced five droughts and two floods – a statistical oddity expected only once every 5000 years. (Tim Flannery ‘3 degrees to disaster’ in ‘The Advertiser’, 2005-May-16th.)
6. An expanse of Western Siberia the size of France & Germany combined has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago. This sub-arctic area is the world’s largest peat bog and its melting will release billions of tonnes of methane – another potent greenhouse gas potentially taking us beyond the “tipping point”. This discovery was made by Sergei Kirpotin at Tomsk University (W. Siberia) & Judith Marquand (Oxford Uni.) & has been discussed in ‘New Scientist’ magazine circa July-Aug ’05. (Source : ‘The Guardian Weekly’ newspaper: 2005 Aug. 19-25th.)
7. The North Polar icecap has lost 40 % of its thickness and is predicted by the end of this century it will have disappeared entirely in summer – destroying the Arctic habitat on which polar bears,seals, etc ..depend. (Tim Flannery ‘3 degrees to disaster’ in ‘The Advertiser’, 2005-May-16th.)
8. A leaked Pentagon report suggests climate change could be sudden and dramatic with the biosphere lurching from one climatic state to another in less than a decade with apocalyptic consequences. (Weekend Aust’n Magazine, P.8, 2004, March 20-21st.)
9. The 1990’s were the warmest decade in the past 2000 years as evidenced by tree-ring and sediment data analysed by a Swedish research team. (Advertiser, ‘05 March 1st.)
10. All 18 Peruvian glaciers have been melting; incl. the Pastouri glacier covering the most popular skiing peak in the Andes which has shrunk by 19 m every year since 1980. It now covers 25 % less than a quarter of a century ago. Peru has lost 20 % of its glaciers in the past 30 years. This increases the likelihood of severe mudslides in the short term and drought in the longer term. ( Advertiser, 04-Aug.-7th.)
11. The Climate Research Group at the University of Illinois has stated that there is a 45 % chance that the Gulfstream current will be halted by the end of this century and a 70 % chance of it being halted by 2200 due to climate change. This would have extremely harmful effects on the Northern hemispheres climate esp. for Britain, Europe and North America. (P.10, ‘Guardian Weekly’, ‘05-Feb-11th-17th.)
12. Extra CO2 in the atmosphere is not only raising temperatures but also making the oceans more acidic : CO2 reacts with water to produce carbonic acid. This threatens to wipe out entire marine ecosystems. (P.10, ‘Guardian Weekly’, ‘05-Feb-11th-17th.)
13. A 2003 University of Texas study discovered 99 species of birds, butterflies and Alpine Herbs have shifted 600 m north each year because of global warming. (P.13, Guardian Weekly, 20-26th May ’05.)
14. Fish in the North Sea have migrated to cooler waters as the sea warms – 21 species have shifted their distribution in line with rising sea temps and 18 species have moved much further north. Research conducted by the University of East Anglia & the (UK) Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture. (P.13, Guardian Weekly, 20-26th May ’05.)
15. Greenland’s icesheet is melting faster than predicted as shown by NASA-NOAA photographs and measurements of its major glaciers (Recent TV news report, SBS TV Australia.)
16. Glaciers all around the world are melting. There is a climatologial and glaciological conscenus and thousnads of measurements of this fact. the very slightest bit of effort to research this on your part will prove it.
17.Polar bears are endangered because the arctic icesheet is falling apart quicker and getting smaller every summer. Even environmentally deaf and dumb former president ‘Dubya’ acknowledged that by listing them as endangered.
18. The famed “snows of Mt Kilamanjaro” its equatorial glaciers and icecap in Africa have been disappeaing rapidly and will soon vanish altogether having been capping the tallest mountain in Africa throughout human history.
19. The North pole has been ice-free for the first time in ages and the old formerly impassable North-West passage is now becoming open for the first time in human history – Russian submarines have already claimed the North pole as their territory on their understanding that they’ll now be able to exploit it because of the changing climate & above here :
20. As bein’Silly said above here : ” on the TV news (SBS Oz) the other night [was a report that] Antartica [is] warming more quickly than expected – parts of it anyway. Basically, the old idea that Antartica wasn’t warming but getting cooler has been disproved by new research showing the peninuslar bit is warming a lot quicker than thought and the main East Antartican region is also warming but a little slower than elsewhere .. ”
(THX Bein’Silly!
)
**********
Draw your own conclusions from the above but remember :
This is just a handful of the evidence for radical human-induced climatic and environmental change for the worse. There’s a coastline-worth more of such information indicating the same grim tidings relating to our planetary environment & what we are doing to it.
Note that there is a time lag factor with the climate change. Not only are the effects and pollutants working in a cumulative manner; they are also interacting with each other with potentially numerous unforeseen and grim results. Things could snowball (or dustbowl!) very quickly for the worse.
I strongly feel that we do have a very serious problem here that we are not taking adequate steps to address.
As for Joker’s
“I’m not that worried. A bit of warmer weather, a bit more sea, not too bad if you ask me! ”
What a stupid, ignorant trivialisation of the situation.
It really shows how little our unfunny Joker understands – go and research and prove me wrong if you can!
Its a lot, lot more than just warmer weather and higher seas. The AGHE means massive desertification, climate extremes, storms, hotter and longer heatwaves, water shortages, drought, lost biodiversity with numerosu species driven into extinction, more widespread disease, whole cities and nations disappearing into the ocean, millions even billlions of people losing their homes, their work, their lives … : -(
If you don’t get this joker – and the same applies to all other Climate Change Deniers – well just crawl back to your cave & mull it over. Don’t spout any more drivel till you’ve done some basic research. Like fifteen minutes worth even ..
… But don’t take to-oo long researching what is already pretty durn clear or you may find you cave is getting flooded – or buried under drifting sand.
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:03 am
JACQUES MEADE Says:
The only childish behaviour here, mentioning no names, is the person who is cluttering up this and other threads with a range of sock-puppets posting inane comments! Grow up already!
Alternatively, how about you, Jaques Meade, lighten up & take a chill pill already!
There is a place for a bit of childishness and humour on the blogs too methinks!
Remember : One persons “inanities” are another’s profoundities.
Some people have a sense of humour – & sure, some senses of humor you may disagree with or find less than funny – but, hey Jaques, (not “Hi-Jacks!” – sorry can’t resist a good pun!
) newsbreak for ya, other poeple don’t necessarily share your personal opinion or taste.
This a place (well venue, e-space whatever) for all sorts of opinion to be aired and discussed on the topic raised – yes?
Comments are good and the more the merrier as long as each contributes something of worth to discussion – yes?
So what is your problem – eh?
Seriously.
Calm down Jaques. Its the Bad Astronomers blog & I play by his rules – not yours. If he tells me to stop I will. I don’t believ I’ve broken his rules.
Otherwise I’ll keep trying to amuse, entertain and inform in my own particular idiom .. & why, please tell, shouldn’t I?
Perhaps you don’t like my style. Fair enough. Not everyone does.
Good thing we all differ. I can’t say I care much for yours.
But Jaques its not your blog is it?
Are you even a moderator?
Either way, Please allow for other people to be other people & do things that other people may find funny or informative or whatever. Crikey Jaques, for all I know, all any of us know on this weird and wonderful web, you might be a sock-puppet yourself!
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:25 am
Hi Phil,
I’d like to direct your attention to two interesting books on the matter of whether or not the Sun is a factor in the current global warming: The Chilling Stars + The Manic Sun, both by Henrik Svensmark.
You’re probably familiar with the theories put forward in these books, but I’ve personally found it interesting to give the books a full read.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:47 am
Pfft, you’re all assuming the sun shines roughly the same amount of radiation in every direction. What if it points a bigger chunk at Mars?
It’s just as implausible as there being an underground bovine civilisation there…
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:24 am
@ StevoR:
“This is just a handful of the evidence for radical human-induced climatic and environmental change for the worse.”
Your evidence for Global Warming is convincing, but it certainly doesn’t prove that humans are behind it. All you’re showing is that the climate is changing, which I won’t dispute, but none of that has anything to do with the cause. Specifically:
1: This is a prediction, so it’s meaningless unless the AGW theory is correct. In this context it’s also the “appeal to consequences” fallacy.
2, 3: See 1.
4: Weaknesses in Kyoto are, again, irrelevant if AGW is incorrect.
5: Post hoc.
6, 7: Post hoc, and see 1.
8: See 1.
9: Post hoc.
10: See 6, 7.
11: Dire predictions are not evidence that a theory is correct. See 1.
12: The existence of one hypothesis does not confirm the validity of another. Post hoc, and see 1.
13: I’ll assume the UT study conclusively showed this. Fair enough, but it’s irrelevant to AGW.
14: I don’t think anyone is saying that rising temperatures won’t have environmental consequences. This is irrelevant.
15, 16: Post hoc.
17: See 1.
18, 19: Post hoc.
20: Irrelevant.
The problem with trying to claim all these things are caused by humans is that it’s hard to do a properly controlled experiment on the climate. You can try to prove it in pieces—given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and given that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising, and given that human activities put out more of it—but you still have to make significant logical leaps to connect them.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:27 am
MaW said
“Pfft, you’re all assuming the sun shines roughly the same amount of radiation in every direction. What if it points a bigger chunk at Mars?”
Good point. Brings up a question that needs further study.
What effect does the sun have on warming when its turned off at night?
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:30 am
@Ray – Technically the sun doesn’t get “turned off”. With the latest Microsoft update it technically goes into “Standby” after it sets. We’re so screwed if we get the Windows blue screen of death though (UV output would go through the roof. And destroy the ozone layer).
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:54 am
The same is true of almost any real-world situation. We don’t live in a lab experiment and we don’t have the benefit of certainty before making a decision. We have to act with the best data available. (Funny how the “wait and see” approach only gets raised by anyone when they don’t like the existing data. The rest of the time, they’re prepared to charge ahead.)
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:15 am
@Anon
The first part of 1) is not as meaningless as you might think. The rate of change in temps is very important. When we look at temperature fluctuations in the past, while we see the same absolute change in temps, we don’t see the same rate of change. It’s usually over longer timescales.
Second, there are test that can and have been done. One of the things that usually doesn’t get mentioned about climate modeling is that its often tested against actual observations. Typically this is done in the beginning of a project to make sure you can have confidence in the results. However, you can tweak the models to see how individual factors or forcings. affect the results. Alexey Karpechko of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia did just that, taking observed temperatures at the poles and then running his model with and without man made effects, like CO2 as well as ozone depletion and others. When you added people into the mix, the results were much closer to observations.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:24 am
Well! To all those who advocate a “wait and see” attitude, I think I’ll just be keeping my scuba gear in top shape,,,never know when the Antarctic ice cap might just slide off the land on a slip stream of liquid H2O and raise the worlds sea levels 20 meters(OK! I know that’s HIGHLY unlikely, but just imagine the resultant Tsunami. Talk about “surfs up,,,”.
1) CO2 going up
2) world temps rising
3) Humans civilization releases lots of CO2
4) Oh dang! We’ve gone and hoisted ourselves,,,oops!!!
5) ,,,oops is what you say when you dropped your toast, not when you’ve initiated the extinction of 10-20% of the ecosystem. Species can adapt to such changes, if given time but these changes are occurring so rapidly few have the ability to keep up,,,
,,,poor Polar bears. Maybe we should relocate a few hundred breeding pair to Antarctica??? I’m sure they could adapt to eating penguins,,,
GAry 7
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:49 am
What about the inverse square is so bloody hard to understand?
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
@John Weiss “T = ((L + dL)/(2 sigma d^2))^(1/4)
~ (L/(2 sigma d^2))^(1/4) (1 + (dL/L)/4)
= T0 (1 + (dL/L)/4)
So the relative change is the same.”
I’m not sure that’s true. A little bit more sophisticated calculation is as follows:
Pabs = (1 – a) * pi * R^2 * S
Pabs is the total power of sunlight absorbed by the planet (watts)
a is the average albedo of the planet (dimensionless)
R is the radius of the planet (meters)
S is the solar constant at the planet (watts per square meter)
Pemt = 4*pi * sigma * R^2 * T^4
Pemt is the total power emitted by the planet (watts)
sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67E-8 watts per square meter per Kelvin^4)
T is the average surface temperature of the planet (degrees Kelvin)
Overall, these powers are balanced so set Pabs = Pemt:
(1 – a)S = 4 * sigma * T^4
T = ((1 – a) / (4*sigma))^0.25 * S^0.25
Now, let S = S0 / r^2
S0 is the solar constant at Earth (1366 watts per square meter)
r is the semi-major axis of the planet (astronomical units)
T = ((1 – a) / (4*sigma * r^2))^0.25 * S0^0.25
Now, consider how T changes with true solar luminosity (represented by the solar constant at a distance of 1 AU which is S0):
dT/dS0 = 0.25 * ((1 – a) / (4*sigma * r^2))^0.25 * S0^(-0.75)
Interestingly enough, as luminosity (or S0) gets larger the rate of change in temperature per change in luminosity gets smaller. For example, if the solar luminosity doubles then the temperature change per 1 watt/m^2 change in solar constant drops to 59 percent of what it was. The only parameters that depend on the specific planet is the factor of
factor = 0.25 * ((1 – a) / (4*sigma * r^2))^0.25
Plugging in some values for Earth and Mars we have:
Earth: r = 1.0 AU, a = 0.367, factor = 10.22
Mars: r = 1.524 AU, a = 0.15, factor = 8.91
Thus, the rate of temperature increase at Mars is only 87 percent the rate of temperature increase on the Earth. That’s a basic back-of-the-envelope calculation.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Gary Ansorge:
That won’t work because Polar bears don’t like Penguins — Polar bears’ paws are too clumsy to get the stupid wrapper off!
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I was sure that StevoR would have blamed the Jews for climate change . . .
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
If I’m not mistaken, Hansen’s 1988 predictions have not turned out well. He may not be an Ehrlich, but I am less than impressed with his chicken little posturing.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Tom Marking,
That is a good an analysis. I petty much got the same number using a slightly different approach
This method is essentially a simple analysis. A full blown analysis requires the two additional parameters, the emissivity of the surface and the effect of the green house gasses.
The best method to determine if the output of the sun was causing global warming is to determine the temperature of planetary bodies which do not have atmospheres, such as the moon, mercury, phobos, ceres, etc. and then compared the rise in temperatures.
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Tom Marking:
You’re correct in that I got a factor of 2 off and (intentionally) neglected albedo. But for my analysis, neither mattered since those terms get grouped into the T0 anyway.
Your “dT/dS0 = 0.25 * ((1 – a) / (4*sigma * r^2))^0.25 * S0^(-0.75)”
can be re-cast as
dT/dS0 = 1/4 T0/S0
So dT/T = 1/4 dS0/S0.
The fractional change in temperature is independent of distance from the Sun, as I concluded. (There is no actual difference in our methodology, I just used a Taylor expansion rather than a simple derivative, but they’re obviously the same thing.) You could have gotten the same conclusion about the ratio of your “factors” without as much number crunching if you’d taken the ratio of the emission-to-space temperatures of Earth and Mars.
John Keller’s claim that Mars would warm *more* is wrong in either of our analyses.
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Just to set the record straight, I’m not claiming Mars would warm more, I just said that it could possiblly see a greater temperature increase than the Earth, if all the factors are included in the analysis.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:34 pm
@John Weiss “John Keller’s claim that Mars would warm *more* is wrong in either of our analyses.”
I agree. A basic calculation shows that the temperature response to luminosity for both planets would be roughly the same. It would be hard to imagine what it would be about the Martian atmosphere which would cause a much larger response than Earth’s. Dust composed of iron oxide might have some type of effect but I doubt it would be much since overall the Martian atmosphere is only 0.6 percent of Earth’s in terms of surface pressure. So I would be extremely skeptical that Mars would have a greater temperature response to increasing luminosity than the Earth has.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
@StevoR “2-3 degrees of climate change would result for Australia in catastrophic loss of ancient mountain rainforest, complete loss of the * world’s * coral reefs, complete devastation of Kakadu National Park, rising sea levels and storm surges. (Tim Flannery ‘3 degrees to disaster’ in ‘The Advertiser’, 2005-May-16th.)”
Complete loss of the world’s coral reefs? You are aware that during the last interglacial period called the Eemian or Sangamonian from roughly 130,000 to 110,000 years ago that global temperatures were roughly in this same ball park (i.e., a couple degrees Celsius): ~2 deg C warmer than today. And you are aware of the fact that the existing coral reef ecosystems have existed continuously for at least tens of millions of years? Why didn’t all the coral reefs get wiped out during the Eemian interglacial? It sort of calls into doubt the credibility of Mr. Tim Flannery.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
All the experts say the Sun has no effect on global warming. Please tell me what causes global warming on other planets? I refer you to the JPL_NASA website.
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20031208a.html
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:08 pm
John Weiss:
“What (direct) role does the magnetic field play in the surface temperature?”
I’ll admit, I’m guilty of assumption. I know that the Earth’s magnetic field interacts with some solar radiation. I assume that that radiation could contribute to the overall heat of the atmosphere. I don’t actually have any data to back that assumption up.
As to your earlier post, well I’m guilty again. I skimmed passed it when reading through the already posted comments. My mind was on how I intended to call up Phil on his distance being the determining factor to difference in temperature change due to the Sun getting hotter (hypothetical, of course. As far as I understand, the Sun is not getting hotter at this time), so I was distracted by my own thoughts.
StevoR:
“I don’t think it’s necessarily true that distance is a major factor – the percentage of change would be the same even though the total figure would be less wouldn’t it?”
What I was trying to elude to is that the amount of global temperature increase would be a different percentage on each planet as measured from their respective baselines due to a complex range of variables. But it was getting late, and I didn’t compile my words so well…
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Peter D:
I believe Phil Plait addresses your question. Have a read of the below:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/27/here-comes-the-sun-again/
I look forward to hearing (well, actually “reading”) your thoughts on what the articals cover.
Cheers.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:09 am
Pemt = 4*pi * sigma * R^2 * T^4 is only correct for a perfect black body emitter. The correct equatin should be,
Pemt = em * 4*pi * sigma * R^2 * T^4,
where em is the emissivity of the surface.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:49 am
That picture looks like it’s about a Cosmic Fail, or at least a Don’t Play with Potent Tools Fail.
If it isn’t Magnetic, or Plasma, it is Quantum. (But for some unreason, Relativity is always WRONG!) Quantum mechanics is claimed to be responsible for everything RANDOM to how we THINK.
Personally I suspect when crackpots are ‘pioneering’ such ideas, they are old school dualists flailing around for something modern to pin their split world view’s mysteries on.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:57 am
But it isn’t environmentalists behind this, it is scientists that claims this.
Again, scientists claims such a connection.
You can both check with the latest IPCC report which reviews the sum total of the science, where they also present likelihoods and uncertainties for each observational claim. Especially GW, but also AGW, has pretty good data behind.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 am
@John Keller “The correct equatin should be
Pemt = em * 4*pi * sigma * R^2 * T^4
where em is the emissivity of the surface.”
O.K. No sweat. The equation now becomes:
dT/dS0 = 0.25 * ((1 – a) / (4*sigma * em * r^2))^0.25 * S0^(-0.75)
The only parameters that depend on the specific planet is the factor of
factor = 0.25 * ((1 – a) / (4*sigma * em * r^2))^0.25
Plugging in some values for Earth and Mars we have:
Earth: r = 1.0 AU, a = 0.367, factor-Earth = 10.22 / em-Earth^0.25
Mars: r = 1.524 AU, a = 0.15, factor-Mars = 8.91 / em-Mars^0.25
So we have:
factor-Mars/factor-Earth = 0.87 / (em-Mars/em-Earth)^0.25
em-Mars/em-Earth = 0.58 / (factor-Mars/factor-Earth)^4
We can fill in the following table:
dT/dS0 ratio emissivity ratio
(Mars:Earth) (Mars:Earth)
1.0 0.58
1.5 0.11
2.0 0.036
Thus, in order for Mars to have 50 percent more temperature response to luminosity change than Earth does its emissivity must be a factor of 10 less. The following web site gives emissivities for some common materials:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html
Water — ~0.95
Granite — 0.45
Iron, plate rusted red — 0.61
Let’s assume Earth is two thirds water and one third granite. Its emissivity would be 0.78. For Mars to have even the same temperature response its emissivity would have to be 0.45 and for it to have 50 percent more temperature response than Earth its emissivity would have to be 0.09. Now, there are only a few materials in the table with an emissivity below 9 percent – they are typically polished metals such as aluminum, copper, etc. Even getting to the same temperature response as the earth is not that easy since iron oxide has an emissivity of 0.61 and basalt has an emissivity of 0.72 (most of the dark areas on Mars are basaltic rock).
So I don’t really see a case there using the emissivity argument.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
This is a quite interesting question in general IMHO, and for periods of GW especially.
AFAIU the evidence for global glaciation is quite thin, and admittedly it is hard to prove. In any case, such periods may be quite short compared to the general trends that are observed.
I think it is a minor geological position, but there are two types of isotope thermometers (silicon and oxygen) that gives Archaean sea temperatures as 60-80 Celsius 3.5 billion years ago (Ga), dropping to 20-40 Celsius at ~ 2 Ga.
My interest in these observations comes from recent work that tracks two similar thermometers (ribosome RNA and protein folds) in prokaryotic life which shows that both Bacteria and Archaea (and presumably Eukaryota, having similar molecular lineages) underwent thermal adaption to 60-80 Celsius sea environments early on (i.e. ~ 3.5 Ga).
[Btw, it is also interesting that early life seems to have been adapted to ~ 20 Celsius, as seen in the ancestral proteome. Presumably the early RNA world, i.e bona fide free living cells, left the volcanic vents that are most likely to have been responsible for early autocatalytic life processes, at the time it started to produce long and fit amino acid polymers.]
So perhaps glaciations, if they existed, were short interruptions in an era of a greenhouse.
Incidentally, there is also a compelling model of bistability of oxygen atmospheres where an early carbon dioxide/methane atmosphere suppresses oxygenation just as observed on Earth, until enough hydrogen has been lost to space. This switch, presumably happening after the three biological domains appeared (~ 2 Ga), should drive an early greenhouse atmosphere towards the chillier climate seen above.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Tom Marking:
Actually, it’s even more in your direction than you think. We don’t really care about the emissivity in the visible wavelengths, we want the IR emissivity of the planets. According to my memory of graduate Atmospheric RT, all the inner planets have emissivities pretty close to 1. (The textbook for the course confirms this is the case for Earth.)
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
@John Weiss “we want the IR emissivity of the planets.”
Duh! (Homer Simpson moment)
Yeah, looks like I wasted my time with that post.
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:44 pm
David D cast aspersions and committed the fallacy of attributing motives by saying :
“I was sure that StevoR would have blamed the Jews for climate change . . .
Hey, if the caps fits & the Jews want to take the blame …
They’ve certainly contributed more than their share to this global problem -Israel with its resources, industry and use of nasty chemicals in warfare (like the illegal war crimes act of dropping phospherous on innocent civilians in Gaza) is definitely a lot more of a polluter than the impoverished bantustans and ghettos that make up Palestine and much of Lebanon.
Oh & don’t blame me for pointing this truth out mate, you raised it.
Another point – it is an ironic truth that supporters of the
apartheid military theocracy of Israel are actually themselves being anti-Semitic – and Israel is the world’s last and currently worst anti-Semitic state.
“What the ..” you say?
Always remember : the Palestineans, Lebanese, Syrians and other Arabs are actually *ALSO* Semitic peoples!
So when the Jewish state persecutes, discrimates against, committs war crimes upon and attempt genocide against Palestineans the Israelis and their puppets abroad are being anti-Semitic as well as plain unethical.
Try researching who the Semities actually are someday, David D – and try reading some thing from the Palestinena side of the story rather than mindlessly succumbing to the Israeli lobbies lies and propaganda. You’ll be surprised at how completely different the reality is from what the Jews whould have us believe.
I suggest you start with Noam Chomsky – the leading modern American and Jewish philosopher and continue with Edward Said and Raja Shehadeh’s moving personal acount ‘When the Bulbul stopped Singing : A Diary of Ramallah Under Seige.’ (Profile books, 2003.) Go on! Try learning something about the real situation regarding the Palestinean-Israeli issue instead of slandering people you disagree with – I dare you!
—
Again don’t blame me for going a bit off-topic here, David D raised it & I’ve just responded more politely & reasonably than such slanders really deserve.
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
D’oh! Italics! Arghh! So exasperating. When is this editing / preview ability getting here? Not soon enough, I’d say.
A-n-y-w-a-y Take II from where it all stuffed up :
*****
Always remember : the Palestineans, Lebanese, Syrians and other Arabs are actually _also_ * SEMITIC * peoples!
(May even be worth you just rememebring they’re also *people* – who are btw. “far more sinned against than sinning” to use the Shakespearian phrase.
)
So when the Jewish state persecutes, discrimates against, committs war crimes upon and attempt genocide against Palestineans the Israelis and their puppets abroad are being anti-Semitic as well as plain unethical.
Try researching who the Semities actually are someday, David D – and try reading some thing from the Palestinean side of the story rather than mindlessly succumbing to the Israeli lobbies lies and propaganda. You’ll be surprised at how completely different the reality is from what the Jews would have us believe.
I suggest you start with Noam Chomsky – the leading modern American and Jewish philosopher and his ‘Middle East Illusions’ (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003.) Then continue with Edward Said’s ‘The End of the Peace Process : Oslo and After’ (Pantheon, 2000) and Raja Shehadeh’s moving personal acount ‘When the Bulbul stopped Singing : A Diary of Ramallah Under Seige.’ (Profile books, 2003.)
Go on! Try learning something about the real situation regarding the Palestinean-Israeli issue instead of slandering people you disagree with – I dare you!
———
Again don’t blame me for going a bit off-topic here, David D raised it & I’ve just responded more politely & reasonably than such slanders really deserve.
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Grant said on Jan. 22nd at 6:08 pm :
What I was trying to elude to is that the amount of global temperature increase would be a different percentage on each planet as measured from their respective baselines due to a complex range of variables. But it was getting late, and I didn’t compile my words so well…
Yeah, I’m all too familar with the problem of ge notgettingmywords right first time & posting things too late at night too.
I agree there are a whole lot of variables and I just don’t think that distance is necesarily the key one. To my thinking, it’d be how much the change in solar rad’n is * relative * to each planet’s individual circumstances and NOT how far away each individual planet is that most matters. Hopefully that’s clear.
Anon wrote a fair bit in reply tomy evidnece post. Okay this may take a bit of going through – & I’ve got to take a short break – I will get back to that in about an hour or so..
—–
PS. How do you get quotes to work here again? Able to do once but can’t seem to get the “big purple quote marks” and indents, etc .. going again since the blog venue changed…
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:28 pm
D’oh!!!
“Yeah, I’m all too familar with the problem of ge notgettingmywords right first time & posting things too late at night too.”
You see what I mean …
I meant :
Yeah, I’m all too familar with the problem of not getting my words quite right first time & posting things too late at night too.
Editing ability here just cannot come soon enough. Sigh.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:54 pm
@ Ray & MaW saying :
“Pfft, you’re all assuming the sun shines roughly the same amount of radiation in every direction. What if it points a bigger chunk at Mars?”
Good point. Brings up a question that needs further study.”
Nah, not really it doesn’t.
All the planets are in the same plane – that of the ecliptic – the Sun’s equator.
Don’t be confused by the fact that Uranus spins on its side and Venus spins backwards – all the planets with the exception of Pluto (perhaps also Ceres and Eris) -can always be found along the same track of sky – the one that holds the Zodiacalconstellations & Ophiuchus.
Directional factor then = nil.
Distance factor = temperatures at a set distance – which should be stable unless some thing else is changing.
The factor changing may vary from planet to planet or be identical but is more likely NOT identical given the varying natures of the planets and their atmosphere’s.
Eg. For Venus -increased vulcanism of the “planetary boilover” theory variety? For Earth and Mars – Milankovitch orbital cycles, orbit &/or axial tilt becoming more eccentric / extreme? For Earth – human induced heating via industrial pollutants. For Mercury = ???, etc …
Note : Off top of head reasonable suggestions for each of the above examples and not asserting any are accurate just ideas.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Tom Marking:
Na, you prompted me to look up the visible emissivities (or, rather, follow your link), which I’d never done. And I finally went back to check the text after a decade of just relying on memory. I think that that counts as something.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Anon wrote [summary original evidence by me] :
“On Jan 22nd, 2009 at 5:24 am :
@ StevoR:
“This is just a handful of the evidence for radical human-induced climatic and environmental change for the worse.”
Your evidence for Global Warming is convincing, but it certainly doesn’t prove that humans are behind it. All you’re showing is that the climate is changing, which I won’t dispute, but none of that has anything to do with the cause. Specifically:
1: [0.63 warming over past century & predicted 3 degree rise by end this century.]
This is a prediction, so it’s meaningless unless the AGW theory is correct. In this context it’s also the “appeal to consequences” fallacy.
2, [Disaster for Australia via climate change predicted] 3 [To stabilise – not fix AGHE 70 %cut req. but Kyoto = only 5 % cut.]: See 1.
4: [European heatwave 2003.] Weaknesses in Kyoto are, again, irrelevant if AGW is incorrect. [Presume Anon meant this for pt 3?]
5: [Australian rainfall patterns shift] Post hoc.
6, [W. Siberian warming first in 11,00 years.] 7: [40% thickness Arctic icecap lost.] Post hoc, and see 1.
8: [Pentagon report warns of sudden & apocalyptic change.] See 1.
9: [’05 Swedish study – tree ring & sediment data = 1990’s warmest decade past 2000 years.] Post hoc.
10: [Peruvian glaciers melting.]
See 6, 7.
11: [Gulfstream Current halting –Uni. Illinois study 40% risk.]
Dire predictions are not evidence that a theory is correct. See 1.
12: [Acidifying oceans.] The existence of one hypothesis does not confirm the validity of another. Post hoc, and see 1.
13: [ 99 species birds, butterflies, alpine herbs migrated N.] I’ll assume the UT study conclusively showed this. Fair enough, but it’s irrelevant to AGW.
14: [Fish migration northwards in North Sea.] I don’t think anyone is saying that rising temperatures won’t have environmental consequences. This is irrelevant.
15, [Greenland melting faster –NASA & NOAA photos] 16: [global glaciers melting studies.] Post hoc.
17: [Polar bears added to endangered species list.] See 1.
18, [Vanishing “Snows of Kilaminjaro”] 19: [NW passage opening Up - & being claimed by Russia.] Post hoc.
20: [Antarctican melting measured.] Irrelevant.
The problem with trying to claim all these things are caused by humans is that it’s hard to do a properly controlled experiment on the climate. You can try to prove it in pieces—given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and given that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising, and given that human activities put out more of it—but you still have to make significant logical leaps to connect them.
Okay so by you “post hoc” covers points 5,6,7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, & 19.
Prediction / ”appeal to consequence” covers 1, 2,3, 6, 7, 8,10, 11, 12, & 17.
Plus you claim 4, 13, 14& 20 are just irrelevant.
Post hoc-wise; I wasn’t sure what you were meaning so I’ve researched it – there are two “post hocs” – the logical fallacy & a form of statistical analysis. I’m presuming you’re meaning the former ie :
“Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for “after this, therefore because (on account) of this”, is a logical fallacy” (Wikipedia)
The Skeptics dictionary notes :
“Occurring after an event is not sufficient to establish that the prior event caused the later one. To establish the probability of a causal connection between two events, controls must be established to rule out other factors such as chance or some unknown causal factor. “
Examples given are superstitions and magical thinking. However, I’m not sure how the ’post hoc’ is supposed to apply to the cases I’ve given – in fact I don’t think it does apply.
Are you saying all these things (points 5,6,7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, & 19) are mere co-incidence and totally unrelated to the fact that humans are pouring these gases –known to trap extra heat and warm the climate?
That to me stretches credibility beyond breaking point. In the ‘post hoc’ fallacy examples listed there is no rational reason or mechanism suggested to explain why one thing follows another – the causation is spurious, dubious or chance. This does not seem to apply to the AGHE where the physics and underlying mechanism, maths and theory is well known and understood. Moreover, the evidence is numerous and all in agreement.
The ‘Skeptics Dictionary’ suggests a control study :
“To establish the probability of a causal connection between two events, controls must be established to rule out other factors such as chance or some unknown causal factor. “
Easy in theory but a bit harder (like impossible!) when we’ve only got one planet Earth – and we all live on it & depend on its current climate remaining inhabitable for our lives!
Yet we have a lot of very bright climatologists and they’ve done numerous simulations, studied lots of comparative data, compared a lot of other worlds and their respective atmosphere’s and temperature effects. (Eg. Venus, exoplanets, Pluto, etc ..) So to the extent that its at all possible, I’d say the scientists have put these controls in and still concluded the AGHE exists so ‘Post hoc’ can be eliminated.
I’ve also checked up on the “Appeal to Consequences “fallacy you accused me of committing with points 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8,10, 11, 12, & 17 :
“Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for argument to the consequences), is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise.” (Wikipedia)
Or as Anon put it : “Dire predictions are not evidence that a theory is correct. ”
&
“This is a prediction, so it’s meaningless unless the AGW theory is correct. In this context it’s also the “appeal to consequences” fallacy.”
Meaningless UNLESS the AGW is correct?
Well, mate, thing is that the AGHE * is * correct!
Which means it does have meaning! Which is my point. If you bet on the Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect being wrong – and you’re wrong – well the consequences are pretty dire. Not a chance I think we should take.
I suppose technically you may have a point in that the predictions aren’t all exactly “evidence” – yet – but then again some of these predictions are already starting to be detected and measured. Changes in the gulfstream current have, I understand been noted, as have changes in ocean acidity.
As for what you consider irrelevant (4,13,14 & 20) all I can say is : irrelevant? Hardly!
Europe’s’ heatwave –and the prospects of many more as bad or worse to come as a result of the AGHE? Acidifying oceans? Fish patterns changing and effecting many livelihoods and able to eat properly –and species going extinct? Antarctica melting?
Surely such things are valid reasons for concern and are relevant indications of climate change! If not, then why not and what is?
Finally, for the other last objection of Anon’s regarding ocean acidity :
“.] The existence of one hypothesis does not confirm the validity of another. “
Well basic chemistry is scarcely an “unproven hypothesis” and this global warming consequence, which is part of the whole AGHE phenomenon, has already been measured!
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:38 pm
The BadAstronomer may already have posted on this related news but in case not then we’ve just heard :
Japan launches ‘Ibuki’, the world’s first greenhouse gas monitoring satellite, from the Tanegashima Space Center.
The Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite or GOSAT, also known as Ibuki (いぶき, Ibuki?, meaning “breath”), is an Earth observation satellite and the world’s first greenhouse-gas-monitoring satellite, which will be used to measure densities of carbon dioxide and methane from 56,000 locations on the Earth’s atmosphere.[1][2] The GOSAT satellite was developed by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and launched on January 23, 2009, from the Tanegashima Space Center.[2]
—
Click on my name to visit the Ibuki link.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Phil Plait may have just posted on this related topic but in case not – news just in :
Japan launches Ibuki, the world’s first greenhouse gas monitoring satellite, from the Tanegashima Space Center.
The Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite or GOSAT, also known as Ibuki (いぶき, Ibuki?, meaning “breath”), is an Earth observation satellite and the world’s first greenhouse-gas-monitoring satellite, which will be used to measure densities of carbon dioxide and methane from 56,000 locations on the Earth’s atmosphere.[1][2] The GOSAT satellite was developed by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and launched on January 23, 2009, from the Tanegashima Space Center.[2]
—-
Click on my name to visit the news link via Wikipedia.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Correction, make that :
“So to the extent that its at all possible, I’d say the scientists have put these controls in and still concluded the AGHE exists so the claim the evidence I’ve raised is a ‘Post hoc’ fallacy can be ruled out. Its not.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:13 pm
@ gss_000 for Saying on January 22nd, 2009 at 9:15 am :
“@Anon
The first part of 1) is not as meaningless as you might think. The rate of change in temps is very important. When we look at temperature fluctuations in the past, while we see the same absolute change in temps, we don’t see the same rate of change. It’s usually over longer timescales.
Second, there are test that can and have been done. One of the things that usually doesn’t get mentioned about climate modeling is that its often tested against actual observations. Typically this is done in the beginning of a project to make sure you can have confidence in the results. However, you can tweak the models to see how individual factors or forcings. affect the results. Alexey Karpechko of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia did just that, taking observed temperatures at the poles and then running his model with and without man made effects, like CO2 as well as ozone depletion and others. When you added people into the mix, the results were much closer to observations.
Thankyou. Well said & appreciated.
January 24th, 2009 at 7:23 am
I vaguely recall someone claiming that a 1o K rice in temperature on Jupiter was proof that global warming was due to the Sun.
Let’s see. Jupiter is, what?, 5 AU out? So the corresponding temperature hike would be something like 250 K her on Earth, right.
January 24th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Funny how the methane really has raised a stink on this blog ain’t it?
Mars hasn’t been mentioned here for a while though has it?
One other thing :
An anti-”sock puppets” policy sure would be hard on those with Multiple Personality Disorder would’nt it, eh, Jaques?
(Yes I know I’m stirring, just ignore me, I would! Plus I’m gushdurned drunk agin.
)
January 24th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Funny how the methane really has raised a stink on this blog ain’t it?
Mars hasn’t been mentioned here for a while though has it?
One other thing :
An anti-”sock puppets” policy sure would be hard on those with Multiple Personality Disorder would’nt it, eh, Jaques?
(Yes I know I’m stirring, just ignore me, I would! Plus I’m gushdurned drunk agin.
)
January 24th, 2009 at 8:10 am
@ Sili who says:
I vaguely recall someone claiming that a 1o K rice in temperature on Jupiter was proof that global warming was due to the Sun.
Let’s see. Jupiter is, what? 5 AU out? So the corresponding temperature hike would be something like 250 K her on Earth, right.”
Yes, that’s correct Jupiter is five Astronomical Units out.
5.20 AU to be precise which is 741 to 816 million kilometres or 483,600,000 miles.
A complicating factor here though is that Jupiter actually produces more energy (at least in infra-red wavelengths) than it receives from the Sun due to its gravitational contraction+ – its core is incredibly hot & pressurised.
Actually, this is true of all our solar systems gas giants except Uranus.
+ Plus also maybe a little bit of internal heating from radioactive elements at its core although the exact nature of the Jovian core remains a mystery.
January 24th, 2009 at 8:44 am
@Sili “I vaguely recall someone claiming that a 1o K rice in temperature on Jupiter was proof that global warming was due to the Sun. Let’s see. Jupiter is, what?, 5 AU out? So the corresponding temperature hike would be something like 250 K her on Earth, right.”
dT/dS0 = 0.25 * ((1 – a) / (4*sigma * em * r^2))^0.25 * S0^(-0.75)
So the distance factor is 1/r^0.5. A 10 deg C temperature rise at Jupiter (5.2 AU) would correspond to something like ~23 deg C temperature rise at Earth. I think a ~23 deg C temperature rise on Earth would pretty much do us in as a species not to mention most of the other surface and sea species. But Jupiter is a little tricky in terms of climate. You see, it’s actually exothermic – it produces something like 2 to 3 times the heat internally that it receives from the sun. So warming on Jupiter (assuming it exists) may have nothing to do with the sun at all, but rather a change in the internal convection of the planet as it contracts.
January 24th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Thank you. I know that the heating of Jupiter isn’t due to the Sun, that was the claim of the AGW-deniers.
I’d forgotten about the contraction, though, so I’m glad I brought up the issue.
I was lazy in my ‘calculation’ and just figured that the effect would reduce with r^2. Good to get corrected!
January 27th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I’m glad someone invented a way to collect all that methane from animal eructation. See U.S. Patent No. 6,982,161 (http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6982161). If it doesn’t work, this invention would still make a great halloween costume!
January 22nd, 2012 at 10:40 pm
Well, you are only half-way there. The idea that temperature rise on Earth couldn’t be the same as the temperature on Mars assumes that the light energy reaching the Earth’s surface is more than, or equal to, that of Mars. Yes, Mars is further away, but the Earth has this wonderful thing called an atmosphere and this big blue planet also has water. Mars receives about half the solar energy that the Earth does, about 700 W/m^2. Conveniently, roughly 50% of the solar energy that reaches earth (about 1350 W/m^2) is reflected back into space by our atmosphere, clouds, and albedo, making the net surface solar energy equal (ish) for both planets. So Mars’ and Earth’s surface absorb roughly the same solar energy.
Then we must account for the Earth’s ocean. To say the same amount of energy would raise each planet’s temperature equally assumes they have the same specific heat capacity. The Earth’s ocean is a massive regulator and consumer of heat on the planet.
So the debate about methane and other trace gases’ influence on global temperature remains, as well as their source. For a blog page that receives so much traffic it is sad to see the lazy arguments made by the author. I’ll bet you won’t fix the scientific errors in your post. If the Sun is the source of global warming, we’d see it’s effects on Mars more than on Earth.
- DF, degrees: Geological Science. Political Science