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

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!

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.

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.

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. )

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. )

Let’s see. Jupiter is, what?, 5 AU out? So the corresponding temperature hike would be something like 250 K her on Earth, right.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

“On Jan 22nd, 2009 at 5:24 am :
@ StevoR:

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!

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.

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.

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…

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…

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.

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!

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.

Duh! (Homer Simpson moment)

Yeah, looks like I wasted my time with that post.

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.)

Our Sun was apparently much fainter early in our natural history (hence periods of global glaciation or “Snowball Earth”)

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.

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.

environmentalists have been predicting flippin awful stuff’s about to happen for … well .. about forever really so their credibility is slim to none.

But it isn’t environmentalists behind this, it is scientists that claims this.

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.

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.

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.

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.