Global warming on Mars, Neptune and Pluto

Over the last 50 years or so, Earth’s average temperature has, by some accounts, risen about one degree Fahrenheit. During this same time, global warming has been observed on Mars, Neptune, Neptune’s moon Triton, and Pluto.  Is that just coincidence or are natural cycles at work?

Proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) claim that human carbon dioxide emissions are the main cause of recent warming on Earth. I have yet to see any compelling physical evidence to support that hypothesis.

There is, however, physical evidence that Earth’s temperature and climate are controlled by cyclic changes in the Sun’s luminosity and magnetic field.  There is also physical evidence that Earth’s global temperature and climate are related to the Earth’s position relative to the sun.  These positional relationships include variations in orbital eccentricity, and variations and magnitude of axial tilt.  These cycles induce atmospheric oscillations that affect our weather and global temperature, and ultimately climate cycles. For a more detailed look at these cycles, see Ice Ages and Glacial Epochs.  Similar natural cycles are apparently at work on other planets too.

AGW proponents are under fire resulting from release of more emails in the “Climategate” scandals.  These emails show, as in the previous release two years ago, that a small cabal of influential scientists promoted the AGW line, schemed to suppress dissenting views, bullied journal editors, hid the decline, and in private expressed much more uncertainty than their public statements would connote. While we are waiting to see the fallout from recent revelations, I offer for your consideration  an essay by British scientist and engineer Dr. John Brignell titled: “How we know they know they are lying.”  Among other things, he discusses the difference between real science and bureaucratic science (BS): http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/lying.htm

Advertisements

27 comments

  1. So in effect, the entire solar system is subject to naturally occurring adverse (to human life) climatic fluctuation? Perhaps a new study of this hypothesis (and countless time and money) should be launched immediately! 😉
    Interesting acronym for bureaucratic science.

  2. Oh my GOD! CYCLES. Why didn’t the SCIENTISTS think of this. You absolutely MUST call them immediately and point this out.

  3. Jon is correct that the planet’s relationship to the sun is vital to it’s climate. This relationship as well as fluctuations in solar irradiance effect the earth’s temperature which, in turn, produce feedbacks that effect the climate even more dramatically than the initial forcing from the sun’s energy. These relationships (The Milankovitch Cycles) and irradiance (Sunspot Cycles) are, of course, well known to climatologists. Before the modern era they were very likely the key driver of the dramatic climate changes that we see in the paleographic record. Temperature changes of as little as 2-3 degrees C have brought about Glaciations that left much of North America under two miles of ice. This shows climate scientists that seemingly small changes in average global temperature can have profound effects on the planet’s biosphere. The proposition that any of the above effects are responsible for the current rise in global temperature, is thoroughly discussed in the scientific literature, and is represented in the IPCC reports.

  4. Jon doesn’t like it when I question his sources; but It is, of course, at that very heart of the process of scientific investigation. I suggest that those who choose to read the article by Dr. Brignell do a little research on some of his other “ideas” (eg, cigarettes don’t cause cancer and CFC’s didn’t cause the ozone hole). JP

  5. Tim, is absolutely correct. Although obliquity, precession and orbital eccentricity affect all planets; they do so at different rates with differing cycles. Notice also that Jon mentioned only two of the solar systems other seven planets. Be back this evening. JP

  6. Jon, If you are truly interested in evidence around the subject of the role of insolation and climate change; there is a very interesting paper released in Proceedings of the Royal Society entitled: “Solar Change and Climate, an update in light of the Current Exceptional Solar Minimum” [Lockwood]. That’s right, we are now on the verge of a Solar Minimum that is rivaled only by the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715. This is one of the things that troubles climatologists the most. Those conditions should have us in a serious cold spell. And yet, just ten hours ago, The World Meteorological Organization released the news that 13 of the hottest years on record have occurred in the last 15 years. “Our science is solid and it proves unequivocally that the world is warming and that this warming is due to human activities,” WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said in a statement, adding that policy makers should take note of the findings. JP

      1. Hi Jon, Sorry I can’t give you a link to a PDF but if you just google: “Solar change and climate: an update”, it should come right to the top. I’m very happy that you are interested Jon, sincerely. The paper is a little heavy on the math, but just check out the abstract and conclusions and maybe browse the rest. JP

      2. Jon, it might not be the first article listed, it’s the PDF that has the royal society address. JP

      1. Jon, You are correct that fifteen years is too short of a period to determine the statistical significance of evidence for climate change. However, The WMO does have the much longer trend in it’s published work and was using this most recent data as a point of emphasis for the media. I don’t particularly like this, but unlike you, most people can’t or won’t read the scientific literature.

        Jon, I know of no ‘great controversy’ regarding the math in the Lockwood paper. Could you cite your source(s) for that statement please. I’ll look at the link you provided and get back to you.JP

  7. Just thinking about your idea Jon. The BEST folks needed 1B data points over many many years and thermometers to have a chance of pulling the Global Warming signal out of the Earth’s climate generated noise. I understand that one needs 20-30 years of data at a minimum to detect such a signal. So my question would be, on a practical basis, where were the thermometers on Mars, Neptune and Pluto 30 years ago?

      1. Good. When it appears I can ignore it. As most of the TC world will. That will mean I can read Jon DuHamels blogsite in peace.
        By the way who employees who. Whoever that is is not getting their monies worth. You seem to be posting here almost fulltime. Go back to work…

      2. Not for a million dollars. Look Parsons, wrap up your “debate” in 500 words or less and state your points. I think you love to hear yourself talk. Or in this case hear your computer keyboard. Any intelligent person who cant state their position in 500 words or less is……..well just not making their point.
        Have you ever thought that people have stopped reading your comments?
        Good lucl with your exciting blogsite Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

      3. >”By the way who employees who. Whoever that is is not getting their monies worth. ”

        I think he should get a bonus hazardous duty pay 🙂 

  8. Jon, The link you provided is based on the work of Don Easterbrook who relies on temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice sheet as a proxy for global temperatures. A single regional record cannot stand in for the global record — local variability will be higher than the global, plus we have evidence that Antarctic temperatures swing in the opposite direction to Arctic changes. No climatologist would propose that temperatures from a single spot on the planet are the same as a global average. On his charts, Easterbrook defines “present” as the year 2000. However, the GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. The baseline on Easterbrook’s chart must be moved up a full 1.44 degrees C. Consequently, Easterbrook’s claim that “most of the past 10,000 [years] have been warmer than the present” is not even true for central Greenland, let alone the global record.

    Jon, You can easily verify what I’ve shown you here and much more about the fallacious nature of Easterbrook’s work shown at Watt’s site. Everyone knows it’s wrong, and yet Watts leaves it up on his site without the corrections. This is why I have continually told you to check the work shown on sites like Watt’s and Idso’s. They are not reliable, and if you base your beliefs on work that has been shown to be false, your reputation will suffer. You must double check these sources for your own sake and for the sake of your reader’s. In the meantime, I will continue to do that fact checking for your reader’s. JP

  9. Jon, Sorry about the double post. I had a long phone call during the post to make sure what I was seeing was correct. Sometimes that causes the system to not recognize that the post was made until I refresh, then it posts it again. Apologies. JP

    1. Hey Rich, Sorry to do this to you, but all three cars on Mars are solar electric. The new one on it’s way however, is powered by Plutonium. Bet it gets good mileage, but cost for a fill up could be a real b…ch. JP

Comments are closed.