Oliver Morton, chief news and features editor for the news section of the journal Nature, takes on climate skeptics’ solar cycles dodge.
The sceptical ‘argument’ — using the word loosely — in question is that global warming on Earth should be seen as a natural, as opposed to anthropogenic, phenomenon because other planets and moons in the Solar System are getting warmer, too (which, indeed, they are). Since what the planets have in common is the Sun, they say, it must thus be the Sun that is driving the warming.
[…] Before we take a quick spin around the Solar System looking at these ideas, it is worth noting that the said system contains, in all, ten bodies with atmospheres thick enough to provide something we might call a climate. If these ten climates are all subject to a little natural variation, as the climate on Earth is, then finding that half of them are showing some warming at any given time is hardly surprising.
It is also worth noting that the Sun’s radiance is measured from Earth orbit, and these records do not show it increasing over the past few decades, except with the regular rise and fall of the solar cycle. This second fact, you might think, should be enough to scupper the theory about system-wide solar warming on its own; strangely it is notably absent from accounts of the matter.
Moving on to the particulars, in the cases of Pluto and Triton, Neptune’s largest moon, the observed warming is due to their current orientation to and distance from the Sun — technically known as summer.
Pluto was closest to the Sun in 1989 and is now moving away, but it is still relatively close. It’s not that surprising for the greatest warmth to come a little after the closest approach, any more than it is for afternoons to be warmer than noons. And Triton’s orbit is giving its southern hemisphere a particularly hot summer, boiling off frozen material from the southern pole and thickening the atmosphere, keeping in even more heat.
On Jupiter, things are a little different. The patterns of circulation seem to be changing, such that heat at the equator is stuck there, and higher latitudes are getting a little cooler.
On Mars, the warming seems to be down to dust blowing around and uncovering big patches of black basaltic rock that heat up in the day (see ‘Mars hots up’). No change in sunshine required.
To take this disparate hodge-podge of phenomena and try to construct a theory of solar influence from it is the sort of foolishness people get driven to when desperate to support a failed theory, or just for a chance to muddy the waters.
Heh. Indeed.
The Commissar
Barrel
The Commissar
Fine, … change your mis-spelled title. Go ahead, be that way.
Faux News
Does this mean we get to once again hear Darrell compare Earth’s atomosphere and global warming to those of Mars and Venus? PLEASE PLEASE say yes!!!
Darrell could also become the BJ astrologer. Give him your date of birth and he will tell you your future.
Tim F.
You have to be the fastest blog reader on the internets. I think I edited the title maybe fifteen seconds after I put up the post.
John S.
Aries
If you are a liberal, today you will be suffering from BDS and a lingering hatred of the troops. Stop hating America and tomorrow will be better. Just believe in the magic ponies.
Da Bombz Diggity
Who are these global warming skeptics anyway? From what I can tell they’re not scientists (possessing no scientific degree), nor have they shown scientifically that global warming isn’t produced by anthropogenic influence. Yet that hasn’t prevented them from denigrating the validity of scientific research in the fields of chemistry, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, civil and environmental engineering, physics, atmospheric sciences, and oceanic sciences, among others. These individuals present much ignorance surrounding global warming. Like Sen. Inhofe, they cherry pick one piece of information and say that is the major reason why all scientific evidence supporting global warming is false.
This is my major concern: some lay people (in powerful positions) do not sufficiently understand science. Reading an introductory high school science text will introduce one to the scientific method (based largely on the Socratic method of thinking). It would be great if most lay people at least understood the scientific method and how it is used in scientific investigation. The scientific method, which is what most global warming scientific investigation is based on, assumes no conclusions without experiment. Simply explained, a natural phenomenon (melting of glaciers) is observed, a hypothesis (an educated guess) as to the origin of the natural phenomenon is posited, an experiment is designed (which may or may not prove the validity of the hypothesis), and conclusions are obtained. Scientists don’t just run around screaming the “sky is falling”. That phrase originates from no scientific investigation, only pure conjecture based on one’s gut feeling.
To help influential lay people understand what scientists are doing surrounding global warming, they should visit the website of our very own DOE? Here are websites put together by MIT’s Technology Review and by the NOAA, which give a lay person a good understanding of the extensive issues surrounding global warming.
Scientists have already accepted the validity of global warming and are currently in the midst of designing experiments that help to meet our energy challenges by discovering a more efficient process to energy conversion, gas separation, and the use of solid oxide fuel cells among other technologies.
Most global warming skeptics present only political admonishments which try to disprove scientifically accepted concepts. If we ignored scientific evidence as they are doing, we would never advance as a society.
jenniebee
wow John, I am an Aries, and people tell me all the time that I’m suffering from BDS and LHS (Lingering Hippie Syndrome, which is odd, as I am a willing corporate cog, I only eat yogurt when I’m dieting, and I never wear either birkenstocks or dirndls). And when I took a minute to think about magic ponies and all their special magicness, my day did start to brighten. Your powers are uncanny!
Pb
Here’s a story about a recent paper on the subject as well; it’s worth noting that even the Duke scientists who talked about solar output perhaps having been underestimated back in 2003 didn’t view it as the major source of global warming then either:
Pb
WTF is a dirndl?
…
Hippie.
Mr Furious
Not to worry. Bush’s team of Mars astronauts will be able to confirm what’s happening there soon…
Mr Furious
It’s a total bullshit case anyway. It’s like saying, “well, we better not make the dyke any higher, ’cause the forecast is just calling for more rain…”
Even if some of this could be attributed to other (non-human) causes, why is that a reason to do nothing?
Rome Again
Let me guess: since God was coming through with the wreck ball anyway, there was no reason to take out the trash?
Andrew
I’m pretty sure that falls after “god talks to them,” “psychotic,” and “plain stupid” on the list of scary things about powerful people.
Rome Again
Katrina is NOT Bush’s fault, Mr. Furious, it’s the fault of POCO who wrote a song called “In the Heart of the Night” back in the mid-late 70’s challenging New Orleans to never be destroyed.
Lyrics (speaking of “this town” is New Orleans)
“And I trust in your love, never falling down…
and I trust in your love, just like I do in this town,
never falling down, never falling down”.
Jake
You will be subjected to an onslaught of jackalopes on BJ.
Paul L.
Does he mean like
Hot Weather (Mild winter/heat wave/Temp hotter than average) = Proof of global warming.
Cold Weather (Snow storms/cold snap/Temp lower than average) = Proof of global warming (Makes the weather unpredictable).
i.e.
Global Warming Expedition to North Pole Cancelled Due to Cold and Frostbite
I am guessing than the snowfall in Pittsburgh today is proof to Tim of Global Warming.
Tim F.
Paul, if you can’t get away from the weather = climate fallacy after all your time here then I don’t see much hope for you.
Rome Again
It is DATA, Paul L., which, when put together with other DATA may or may not indicate something happening. Do you get that?
Andrew
Paul L. is like our own little Drudge Report in blog comment form.
Pb
Yes–increased average global temperature and greater variations in climate and temperature variation are expected, predicted, and coming to pass. If, however, we had no change in or decreased average global temperature, or less variation in climate and temperature, then that wouldn’t point to global warming. So it’s falsifiable, it’s predictive, and its predictions appear to be coming true. So what’s your problem, exactly, again?
Zifnab
I’m going to run with the Colbert line of thinking and choose to disbelieve in this myth of a “climate” entirely. There’s no such thing as “climate” and thus it can’t be “changed”.
Next thing you know, people are going to start talking about “seasons” and “tempurature” trying to convince you that “rain” comes from drops in “air pressure” rather than from God’s tears when he cries for our sins.
Stoopid Libruls.
Rome Again
God’s tears? Could anyone really be dumb enough to believe that?
Tsulagi
I’m thinking it’s a safe bet Bush Republicans aren’t big puzzle buyers. And if they do buy one for their kids, they get one they can help put together. No more than two pieces.
Rome Again
Not a five thousand piece, single background? Gosh, that’s no fun!
Steve
Skepticism has a well-established pedigree in the realm of science, and of course, many of the most brilliant thinkers of history were contrarians in their own time.
The difference is that the global warming skeptics (some of whom are, in fact, scientists) don’t seem to do any actual science on the topic. Rather, their contribution to the debate seems to consist solely of supplying red-meat quotes to the Wall Street Journal. Future generations are unlikely to applaud their courage when all they did was go around misquoting Al Gore.
Andrew
No, Rome, no one in the world actually believes in religious hooey over actual natural phenomena explained scientifically.
They’ve just been funnin’ you for a while now.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Sure, global comfortabling, errrr, warming is happening. It might significantly change sea levels and how/where we live over time. But it’s not like the US/EU can do anything about it, despite the political games being played. We should all conserve energy, walk/bike instead of drive, seek alternate power sources (including nuclear) — if not because of warming, just because it’s good for the air, the water, and our American fat asses.
But if CO2 from fossil fuels is really a large driver of the warming, we’re already screwed. India and China have launched an aggressive economic growth campaign that will have them using 7-10 times the amount of fossil fuel in 50 years that they use now. Who is going to pressure them into scrapping their plans and reducing their fuel use? The EU? Good luck with all that.
Rome Again
Well, excuse me, but “rain = God’s tears” is pretty far out there.
John S.
Shorter EEEL: Much like my stance on torture, I feel that the United States doesn’t need to set the bar so much as limbo under it.
John S.
I’m a charter member of the Psychic Friends Network.
tBone
But I bet you wear a headscarf when you visit Syria, you traitor.
Right. So let’s do nothing instead of trying to mitigate the worst of the effects. Strong. Smart.
Tim F.
Lambchop, I’m pleased that we can meet on the terms of the real world for a change. Every caveat that you mentioned is true – the minor dinky changes that the EU and Australia have implemented amount to a hill of beans next to the real drivers of our climate problem. China, India, Malaysia and the Phillippines have every reason to give us the finger when we tell them that they can’t throw the same carbon party that the west enjoyed as developing nations. If researchers have a handle on the contours of the climate problem then we’re walking on a sidewalk that is nothing but turds.
So we might as well give up and move out of the hurricane zone?* Baloney. Maybe if America made a serious effort that didn’t pan out we could complain that the problem is hopeless. As it is, having sat on our duff doing next to nothing for the last thirty years, I don’t think that we can honestly say anything at all. If you want blame, sure, everybody can come in for their share. I blame Bush senior, I blame Clinton, and I blame Junior for failing to lead. I blame every Congress since the problem became an issue in the 1970s. Pretty much the only pol I don’t blame is Al Gore, the one person willing to throw his political capital down the climate hole.
We can try and maybe we’ll fail. That’s fine. My feeling is that if climate change brings pain, and most of us with relevant credentials think that it will and has, future generations will have a hard time forgiving us for transitioning straight from denial to apathy without making a credible go at dealing with the problem first.
(*) Ha ha. You bait me with “comfortabling,” I’ll bait you with Katrina.
Andrew
It globally unwarmed today. 40 degrees last night! And I was burning tires and old growth forest last week to warm things up. I want my gasoline money back.
Rome Again
Well said, Tim.
Steve
I agree with Gore’s statement that China and India are willing to play ball, but we’re the ones who are going to have to lead. They make the exact same arguments we do, trying to use our own inaction as an excuse. We’re the leaders of the free world for a reason and we need to step up, not sit around demanding that everyone else get in line before we do.
Perry Como
Peak oil will.
Pb
There you have it, folks–global warming doesn’t exist, but if it did, then we’d already be screwed; either way, it’s better to ignore it entirely, and ridicule those who don’t!
Also note that this pathological denial frame works for a lot of other issues, with very few changes–and it’s way easier and quicker than actually thinking about the issues!
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
That doesn’t follow to me. Frankly assessing the situation and taking measures that will be useless are completely independent of one another. If we think the problem can’t be solved, then we’re fools to re
mrmobi
I’m surprised to find myself mostly in agreement with you Lambchop, except that we, the US/EU, can do something about it. A lot of somethings. So what if we don’t solve the problem, at least we might ameliorate it. I’m completely amazed at how “the Party of Business” ignores the fact that a long-term transition to greener technologies could be huge for business and job creation. Must be that focus on getting every $ out of what we have now, fuck the planet, we’ve got to get ours.
Oil will run out in the next 100 or so years, and it would be great if the US was an established leader in sustainable energy when that happens.
There are a lot of ways we could begin to make these changes, but the most important one would be to actually have an energy policy which is something other than rewards for oil companies, tax credits for oil companies, and free leases for oil companies.
I think this might have something to do with the fact that Mr. Bush was in the (failed) Oil business, and, he’s not really used to, you know… leading. He just follows the instructions of President Cheney.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Dunno what happened there, but:
That doesn’t follow to me. Frankly assessing the situation and taking measures that will be useless are completely independent of one another. If we think the problem won’t be solved and catastrophe is inevitable, or if we assess that any steps we take will be counteracted by the actions of others, then we’re fools to require any actions other than what must be done to deal with whatever consequences may occur.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Maybe, maybe not, but the “lot of somethings” had better be reasonable and somethings that the people will get behind, or no one will buy it — not if the chances of making any effective difference are minimal. It’s not hard to think of examples where those who warn and blame the loudest about anthropogenic warning have seemed challenged when it comes to enacting personal solutions. Because it’s fun to be concerned, not so fun to stop flying the private jet. That’s the challenge of going beyond the Blame/Political Stage to the Solution Stage.
Rome Again
Oh yes, I always have trouble making the true changes in my life when it comes to curbing the time in my private jet!
How about the millions upon millions who don’t have one of those sorts of things? Perhaps they could use a little less gas on the trip to the store across the street for hot dogs and baked beans?
mrmobi
By this logic, the lookouts on the Titanic should not have reported the “Iceberg, right ahead!” The catastrophe was inevitable, we wouldn’t want to be foolish and try to avoid it, would we?
Or, is this an argument that everyone in the world move inland from coastal areas in a couple of decades? I guess we should also plan for the millions of people displaced by the flooding (camps), and the food shortages caused by loss of arable land (soylent green).
Great planning, Lambchop. Strong. Resolute. Foolish.
Pb
It’s called ‘research’, EEEL. Either way, we should be working towards something, whether that something is reducing concentrations of CO2, or blocking some of the solar output of the sun, or building large underground bunkers, or colonizing space, etc., etc.
On the other hand, if you personally prefer fatalism, that’s your choice, I suppose. Or you could turn to prayer and become a Christian Scientist–maybe you could solve it that way, along with cancer, AIDS, and even (God-willing) BDS!
Steve
Wake me up when we reach the imaginary stage where everyone agrees that the problem is real and the only dispute is over whether there are any feasible solutions that will make an actual difference.
Because in the real world which I inhabit, we are still embroiled in a political squabble between the people who believe man-made global warming is a significant problem and those who believe it’s a big ol’ hoax. That’s why this post is about warming on Mars, not about whether carbon offsets are good public policy.
There are a lot of people, most of them affiliated with the Republican Party, who have an awful long way to go before they’ll arrive at the position that “the problem is real, it’s just that the solutions aren’t practical.”
Krista
If only everybody agreed with that last sentence of yours. Unfortunately, during the whole climate change/global warming issue, the issue of plain old pollution has really been swept under the rug. Sometimes I think that scientists would almost have been better off keeping the focus on pollution, as that’s something that the average Joe can actually see in the sky and in the water, and on the ground. Instead, you’ve got this debate about climate change, and a bunch of folks who figure that if they can’t see it, it’s not real. And so they do absolutely nothing to conserve energy or create a cleaner environment, forgetting about pollution altogether while they scoff and bluster about global warming.
les
Here, EEL, some help for you from another member of the pig-ignorant brigade, US Senator from Tex. whose name I’m too lazy to look up; you can fold his argument into your “it’s too late, let’s piss our pants in the SUV” chant:
Global warming ain’t real;
and even if it is, it’s not caused by man;
and even if it is, we can’t do anything;
and even if we could, we shouldn’t, ’cause it’ll be a net benefit–think of all the new farmland in Siberia!!!!
Fuckin’ idjit.
mrmobi
Lambchop, if you want “clear skies” and clean water, you’re playing for the wrong team.
Government is just another word for giveways to big business for the Party of Torture, isn’t it?
Lambchop, since you mentioned nuclear power, I would ordinarily be pro-nuclear power, given an administration which actually is able to govern. How does one support expanding the nuclear industry, when it is a virtual certainty that whomever is appointed to run the NRC will be a political hack whose only training is from the Oral Roberts School of Creationist Physics?
The “Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy”, eh? I think we might be looking at water fountains which dispense Gatorade sooner than we think.
Steve
Just in case there’s anyone who hasn’t seen this before:
Detlef
Carbon dioxide emissions in 2003. (pdf-file)
Despite their faster growth in emissions, developing countries such as those in Asia still emit a lot fewer emissions per head of population than wealthier countries in Europe and North America. Average emissions were 8.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person in the EU-15 in 2003 and 19.7 tonnes in the USA, compared with 2.9 tonnes in China and 1.0 tonnes in India. Chart 5A.2 shows figures for some of the wealthiest and most populous countries in Europe and the world.
You´re telling me that somehow Americans need to produce more than two times as much carbon dioxide than Europeans today?
(Keep in mind that the “old” EU-15 population is close to the actual US population.)
Not to mention that you´re telling me that the Chinese and Indians will use “7-10 times the amount of fossil fuel in 50 years”? I´m “shocked and awed” by your prediction capabilities! Especially given the fact that crude oil prices are a lot higher now on average than in the last few decades. Meaning that it would make economic sense to look for alternatives.
bud
You caught me ! I am not a Scientist (note the capital “S”), I just have a lowly BSEE. OTOH, I’ll bet that I know a hell of a lot more about linear algebra, differential equations, vector calc, probablity, statistics and the basics of “the scientific method” than 99% of the idiots here and elsewhere making loud monkey noises about “Global Warming”.
Now, about that scientic method…
One does NOT “show(n) scientifically that global warming isn’t produced by anthropogenic influence”, one shows that it IS.
That hasn’t happened.
Oh, yes, the models have shown…
I’ve been dealing with simulation models for years… no, decades – my first crack at using one was on a Pace 31R. I’m very familiar with the concept and the practice, and, in short, I don’t believe that the climate models they have now, much less the data sets to check their accuracy, are anywhere near complete enough to make any but the most tentative of conclusions, yet we are being exhorted to ACT NOW BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.
To come up with my own silly metaphor, we’re like two people in a hotel room on the seventh floor overlooking the pool. They see lots of smoke rising from a door on the first floor. One insists that the hotel is on fire, and they have to jump for the pool now. The other thinks that this is a bad idea, since, even if they hit the pool, the wrong angle can kill them, and there’s a good chance of broken bones and ruptured speens. When he points this out, the first goes bonkers and starts dragging him to the window, calling him a denier.
I’m the guy who doesn’t want to jump.I’d rather wait to see if the smake really is a fire, and not an overcooked roast in the kitchen, and then I’d like to walk down the fire escape if it’s necessary. The rest of you seem intent on making sure that the gov’t throws me out the window after you.
Rome Again
There’s a fire escape? Where?
tBone
So, developing new sources of clean energy and reducing air and water pollution are the equivalent of “broken bones and ruptured spleens”? Yeah, I think you’re on to something there. Tell us more.
On second thought, don’t.
Perry Como
It also molests kittens. You don’t want to molest kittens, do you?
Pb
Detlef,
FYI: coal is also a fossil fuel; China and India both use it as their major source of electricity, and have been in increasing amounts both for industry and as more of their citizenry get and/or use more electricity.
But who knows, maybe at that point everyone in the world will be getting our power from remarkably safe and efficient fusion reactors by then, to recharge our hovercars. Also, I’ll have my very own pony ranch.
tBone
It depends. If I do, can I keep my SUV and the strip mine in my backyard?
lard lad
Reminding me of a good joke…
Daily briefing at the White House. George Bush comes in the room strutting like a rooster, a smug look of satisfaction on his face, humming happily to himself… a marked contrast to the dour mood he’s been in since last November.
Finally Cheney, unable to resist, asks “All right, George… what are you so fired up about, anyway?”
Bush replies: “Well, I finally finished that jigsaw puzzle I’ve been workin’ on – and it only took me two months to get it done!”
An incredulous Cheney: “Two months? What’s so amazing about that?”
Bush: “Because on the box it says, ‘three to five years!'”
(rimshot)
BIRDZILLA
AL GORE is no scientist he is a unscruploius politician and while he is urging us all to save energy he is still blowing vast qualtities on his rediclous ego-trip and while this jerk was wanting the water cut off to farmers he himself had 4 million gallons of water released from a dam in CONNECTICUTT so he could do a ad paddling a cannoe too bad some did,nt drill a few holes in his cannoe
bud
Here’s one step on that fire escape, although it will probably send you shrieking – (whisper) “pebble bed reactor”.
No, the equivalent is the economic disaster caused by the prohibition of not-quite-so-clean energy sources and the redefinition of animal breath as a “pollutant”.
I know that you don’t want to hear it. I also note that no one has challenged me on the point of my post: we’re being asked to allow the politicians and the bureaucrats to control major portions of economy based on predictions made using a process that demands an accurate understanding of the underlying processes and precise data, when we don’t have a that understanding, and the data consists of approximations and proxy analogies.