|
Global Warming (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
Man, we must really be doing some damage. Talk about galactic warming! Maybe we should send some saplings to Neptune on the next Voyager mission. We could send Al Gore to plant them.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/i...8/neptune-news/
| quote: | May 8, 2007
Neptune News
Filed under: Climate Changes —
Neptune is the planet farthest from the Sun (Pluto is now considered only a dwarf planet), Neptune is the planet farthest from the Earth, and to our knowledge, there has been absolutely no industrialization out at Neptune in recent centuries. There has been no recent build-up of greenhouse gases there, no deforestation, no rapid urbanization, no increase in contrails from jet airplanes, and no increase in ozone in the low atmosphere; recent changes at Neptune could never be blamed on any human influence. Incredibly, an article has appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters showing a stunning relationship between the solar output, Neptune’s brightness, and heaven forbid, the temperature of the Earth. With its obvious implications to the greenhouse debate, we are certain you have never heard of the work and never will outside World Climate Report.
In case you have forgotten your basic science lessons on the planets, Neptune orbits the Sun at a distance 30 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun and Neptune revolves around the Sun once every 164.8 Earth years. Neptune has 17 times the mass of the Earth, its atmosphere is primarily composed of hydrogen and helium, with traces of methane that account for the planet’s distinctive blue appearance. It was the only planet discovered mathematically – scientists noted variations in the orbit of Uranus, they calculated the orbit and position of a yet undiscovered planet that could cause the variations noted for Uranus, they determined where the planet should be, and on the first night they searched for it (September 23, 1846), they discovered the large planet sitting within 1 degree of their predictions. The new planet was named for Neptune, Roman god of the sea, given its distinctive blue color. Observations from Earth and a 1989 Voyager 2 flyby have revealed that Neptune’s cloud tops are extremely cold (−346°F) being so far from the Sun while the center of the planet has a temperature of 13,000°F due to high pressure generating extremely hot gases.
In the recent article, Hammel and Lockwood, from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona since 1950. Obviously, light from Neptune can be related to seasons on the planet, small variations in Neptune’s orbit, the apparent tilt of the axis as viewed from the Earth, the varying distance from Neptune to Earth, and of course, changes in the atmosphere near the Lowell Observatory. Astronomers are clever, they are fully aware of these complications, and they adjust the measurements accordingly.
As seen in Figure 1, Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980; furthermore, infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily from 1980 to 2004. As they say on Neptune, global warming has become an inconvenient truth. But with no one to blame, Hammel and Lockwood explored how variations in the output of the Sun might control variations in the brightness of Neptune.
Figure 1 (a) represents the corrected visible light from Neptune from 1950 to 2006; (b) shows the temperature anomalies of the Earth; (c) shows the total solar irradiance as a percent variation by year; (d) shows the ultraviolet emission from the Sun (Source: Hammel and Lockwood (2007)).
What would seem so simple statistically is complicated by the degrees of freedom in the various time series which is related to the serial correlation in the data (e.g., next year’s value is highly dependent on this year’s value). Nonetheless, they find that the correlation coefficient between solar irradiance and Neptune’s brightness is near 0.90 (1.00 is perfect). The same relationship is found between the Earth’s temperature anomalies and the solar output. Hammel and Lockwood note “In other words, the Earth temperature values are as well correlated with solar irradiance (r = 0.89) as they are with Neptune’s blue brightness (|r| > 0.90), assuming a 10-year lag of the Neptune values.” The temporal lag is needed to account for the large mass of Neptune that would require years to adjust to any changes in solar output.
Hammel and Lockwood conclude that “In summary, if Neptune’s atmosphere is indeed responding to some variation in solar activity in a manner similar to that of the Earth albeit with a temporal lag” then “Neptune may provide an independent (and extraterrestrial) locale for studies of solar effects on planetary atmospheres.”
World Climate Report has covered many articles in the scientific literature showing that variations in solar output, including variations within specific wavelengths (e.g., cosmic, ultraviolet, visible, infrared) are highly correlated with temperature variations near the Earth’s surface. Believe it or not, when the Sun is more energetic and putting out more energy, the Earth tends to warm up, and when the Sun cools down, so does the Earth. The Hammel and Lockwood article reveals that the same is true out at Neptune; when the Sun’s energy increases, Neptune seems to warm up and get brighter given a decade lag.
If for some reason you do not believe that the Sun is a significant player in determining the temperature of the Earth (after all, we are told repeatedly that humans are causing most of the observed warming on the Earth), then asked yourself if you believe that Neptune’s temperature is controlled by the Sun. How is it possible that the Earth’s temperature is so highly correlated with brightness variations from Neptune? The news from Neptune comes to us just weeks after an article was published showing that Mars has warmed recently as well.
If nothing else, we have certainly learned recently that planets undergo changes in their mean temperature, and while we can easily blame human activity here on the Earth, blaming humans for the recent warming on Mars and Neptune would be an astronomical stretch, to say the least.
Reference:
Hammel, H. B., and G. W. Lockwood, 2007. Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth’s temperature, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L08203, doi:10.1029/2006GL028764.
|
|
|
|
| everett |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Man, we must really be doing some damage. Talk about galactic warming! Maybe we should send some saplings to Neptune on the next Voyager mission. We could send Al Gore to plant them.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/i...8/neptune-news/ |
Gold! I was looking for this after I heard about it. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Man, we must really be doing some damage. Talk about galactic warming! Maybe we should send some saplings to Neptune on the next Voyager mission. We could send Al Gore to plant them.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/i...8/neptune-news/ |
Your point is mute because Exxon funded this research.
How you might ask? Well Exxon is the largest corporation in the USA and as such pays one of the largest single tax contribution to the USA government (100.7 billion last year). And what does the USA government due with all that money? That's right! It gives it to Navy, Army, Airforce, NASA and the NSF. And who do you think in in part funds the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff?
You guessed it those very agencies.
You see, therefore we can't believe this study at all because it was funded by Exxon. And Exxon wants to burn so much fossil fuels all its customers will flood under the massive waters of the ocean. |
|
|
| everett |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Your point is mute because Exxon funded this research.
How you might ask? Well Exxon is the largest corporation in the USA and as such pays one of the largest single tax contribution to the USA government (100.7 billion last year). And what does the USA government due with all that money? That's right! It gives it to Navy, Army, Airforce, NASA and the NSF. And who do you think in in part funds the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff?
You guessed it those very agencies.
You see, therefore we can't believe this study at all because it was funded by Exxon. And Exxon wants to burn so much fossil fuels all its customers will flood under the massive waters of the ocean. |
So your saying that we can trust the IPCC then? They are in the same situation, their JOBS depend on the idea that we are causing global warming
Stop bringing up the BULL argument that the BIG BAD OIL companies are behind the massive "cover up" attempt.
Summary:
Watch the video, it answers all of the arguments that people like you bring up. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
Isn't most action towards helping reduce global warming (regardless of who you think is to blame) action in favor of the environment? |
Cutting greenhouse gases has nothing to do with saving the environment. Ther issues that threaten the environment that are far more prevalent and have the most dangerous short-term negative impact is the destruction and abuse of natural resources - trees, water, fish, animals, topsoil, pollution, human population explosion, pathogen and disease spread, etc. etc. etc.
Greenhouse gases are the least of our concerns. Climate change is a never-ending process, and it cycles as it is, and millions of years ago when greenhouse gas concentrations far exceeded the current trends, the Earth was covered with life, pole to pole it was a massive jungle lush with life. Greenhouse gases give life, and the lack of them destroys life. Plants need carbon dioxide - and the more of it in the atmosphere - the better off the plants are. However, over time, carbon settles in the ground and less and less of it is available for the cycle that is vital to survival of ALL life. Actually, the CO2 concentrations in 1700s were some of the lowest in the history of Earth, and if it wasnt for our "interference" and release of the trapped CO2 resources in the soil that have accumulated, the cycle is back to life again. If only we stopped cutting trees down ... 60 million years ago the CO2 concentrations were over 1000 ppm, much higher than 300+ of today. And life existed quite fine. Greenhouse gases dont kill life, we do. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by everett
So your saying that we can trust the IPCC then? They are in the same situation, their JOBS depend on the idea that we are causing global warming
Stop bringing up the BULL argument that the BIG BAD OIL companies are behind the massive "cover up" attempt.
Summary:
Watch the video, it answers all of the arguments that people like you bring up. |
I'm going to venture to bet that Yoepus might be being sarcastic, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. If they're a corporation, they MUST be lying.
(though I do think there's something to be said for studies being biased, provided the data can be shown to illustrate that bias).
| quote: | Yoepus
Your point is mute because Exxon funded this research. |
btw, I think you mean "moot", not "mute" |
|
|
| everett |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I'm going to venture to bet that Yoepus might be being sarcastic, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. If they're a corporation, they MUST be lying.
(though I do think there's something to be said for studies being biased, provided the data can be shown to illustrate that bias).
btw, I think you mean "moot", not "mute" |
I hope he is sarcastic, sadly many people believe that though. |
|
|
| Shakka |
A good quote from Michael Crichton
| quote: | | "Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." |
|
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Man, we must really be doing some damage. Talk about galactic warming! Maybe we should send some saplings to Neptune on the next Voyager mission. We could send Al Gore to plant them.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/i...8/neptune-news/ |
I got a little naturally suspicious about this paper by Hammel and Lockwood (2007) that was the main source of reference for the article you used, Shakka. Upon further examination (and some admittedly further reading from other scientists and their respective blogs, I believe my suspicions were confirmed, and it further ties my notion of parallels between creationists works and global warming skeptics. Here's why:
The source for the article was given:
Hammel, H. B., and G. W. Lockwood, (2007). Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth’s temperature, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L08203, doi:10.1029/2006GL028764.
And first off, NONE of the correlations cited by Hammel and Lockwood are significant, and they state as such (with a bit of disappointment on their part):
| quote: | | Although correlations between Neptune's brightness and Earth's temperature anomaly--and between Neptune and two models of solar variability--are visually compelling, at this time they are not statistically significant due to the limited degrees of freedom of the various time series. Nevertheless, the striking similarity of the temporal patterns of variation should not be ignored simply because of low formal statistical significance. |
You notice that little word "formal" in their tone? That's pretty ing cute on their part, IMO, because they're doing their darnest to belittle that little formality of "statistical significance" in their paper. That's just in their abstract, too. In the actual paper they go further with their cuteness:
| quote: | | Low formal statistical significance does not mean the correlations we find are in fact spurious, only that we cannot demonstrate otherwise. |
Ummm, that's just patently absurd on the face of scientific scrutiny. If something is not significant, to which their findings clearly are not, then they really shouldn't bitch and moan about it. Just accept the lack of significance in their correlation and move the on.
It gets better. They move their level of significance almost up to ing 20%, and how they achieve that bewilders an amateur researcher hobbyist like myself:
| quote: | | "We assume four degrees of freedom for the decades long Neptune data set, based on the number of zero crossings in the residual plots in Figure 4." |
FOUR DEGREES OF FREEDOM?!?!?!? WHAT??!?!?!?
Furthermore, they selected a lag of 17 years between their datasets in order to get the most out of their correlations, which strangely their tests of significance don't even account for this.
Right there alone should be enough to discount the paper. Attempting to run their level of significance up to 4 degrees is beyond ridiculous and untenable. At most I've seen papers bumping up levels of significance to 10%, and those very few papers admit as much that their significance levels are so high based on initial experimental or pilot-type research (which in case you're wondering, that's 2 degrees of freedom).
So really, if we go by the known scientific axiom that "correlation does not mean causation", then what the should we conclude when there's a complete LACK of causation like this?
Secondly, the correlations cited by Hammel and Lockwood are primarily sourced from Foukal (2002), A Comparison of Variable Solar Total and Ultraviolet Irradiance Outputs in the 20th Century, Geophysical Research Letters, 29, p. 2089.
This paper, which was apparently fine 5 years ago, is a bit dated in scientific terms for examining total solar irradiance (TSI). For Hammel and Lockwood to use that paper for their work which was published THIS YEAR does not make a very strong case for their argument of correlation. What is considered a more higher standard of current data before the satellite era is Lean (2000), Evolution of the Sun’s Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum, Geophysical Research Letters, 27, p. 2425. This paper, although originally published in 2000, has actually been updated in 2004, which takes into account satellite measurements of TSI (and the recent satellite data is more closely aligned with their original calculations back in 2000 versus Foukal).
And guess what? That darn data used by Foukal just ain't supported by satellite measurements. What's clear in the current satellite measurements is there is nothing of the sort of a 2.3 W/m^2 increase in TSI from 1982 to 1990. The only significant change is the variations due to the solar cycle, with full amplitude of only 1 W/m^2, and the average value of TSI shows no real change at all.
What's even worse, the Foukal paper stops with data just a little beyond 1990, however the Lean paper moves further past 2000, with satellite data going even further. Why the did Hammel and Lockwood not even consider up to date measurements?
Furthermore, the graphs cited by Hammel and Lockwood shows a variation in Neptune's brightness of 0.15 magnitudes, or a 15% difference radiation. However, if we assume such a variation is caused by the sun, then we must assume that it would have to increase its brightness by the SAME RATIO. However, upon examination of Foukal's paper, we only see a variation of 0.017%.
Strange, ain't it?
Also, Lockwood and Hammel source an eleven year cycle of solar and earth irradiance, showing a rising trend in this from 1960 and from 1980. But strangely, they do not cite the trend on Neptune in the same period. Strange that. Hammel and Lockwood cite this paper:
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2003/17/paper.pdf
which states the following:
| quote: | | the combined disk-averaged variation from 1972 to 2002 is consistent with a simple seasonal model having a hemispheric response delay relative to solar forcing of 30 years. |
Hammel and Lockwood apparently point out that this somehow supports their argument, but seemingly run right over the fact that this data shows nothing in regards to pre-1970 data, to which they use as part of their sourcing for data in TSI and on earth (but not Neptune).
And finally, one has to wonder how temperatures on Earth were even attempted to correlate with Neptune when solar radiance has decreased.
There is an increase in brightness on Neptune that we're noticing, but it very well may be due to the hemisphere we are observing on Neptune is experiencing its summer cycle, and the brightness could likely be the result of Neptune's very, very long seasons (compared to ours). What's more, most of the brightness that we're observing has occurred in very specific bands of latitude on Neptune. Again this paper points that out:
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2003/17/paper.pdf
One has to wonder why Hammel and Lockwood apparently left out the idea of seasonal variation AS WELL AS the strong latitudinal variation.
So in summary, this is a horribly flawed argument constructed on a horribly flawed paper. The lesson to be learned is that peer-reviewed work, albeit the best source we can come up with for reliability, is most certainly not flawless. I've seen similar works slip through the cracks in other sciences such as evolutionary science, and some of my current works of study in exercise physiology and physical therapy rehabilitation. happens. It's up to scientists to examine the work under scrutiny, mimic the research in question and test the data themselves to see if the results are similar. That is indeed what has occurred here, but much more often than not this task is performed or at the very least discussed to its logical end PRIOR to publication. It sucks when it seeps through the cracks like this, but it happens nonetheless. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I got a little naturally suspicious about this paper by Hammel and Lockwood (2007) that was the main source of reference for the article you used, Shakka. Upon further examination (and some admittedly further reading from other scientists and their respective blogs, I believe my suspicions were confirmed, and it further ties my notion of parallels between creationists works and global warming skeptics. Here's why:
The source for the article was given:
Hammel, H. B., and G. W. Lockwood, (2007). Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth’s temperature, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L08203, doi:10.1029/2006GL028764.
And first off, NONE of the correlations cited by Hammel and Lockwood are significant, and they state as such (with a bit of disappointment on their part):
You notice that little word "formal" in their tone? That's pretty ing cute on their part, IMO, because they're doing their darnest to belittle that little formality of "statistical significance" in their paper. That's just in their abstract, too. In the actual paper they go further with their cuteness:
Ummm, that's just patently absurd on the face of scientific scrutiny. If something is not significant, to which their findings clearly are not, then they really shouldn't bitch and moan about it. Just accept the lack of significance in their correlation and move the on.
It gets better. They move their level of significance almost up to ing 20%, and how they achieve that bewilders an amateur researcher hobbyist like myself:
FOUR DEGREES OF FREEDOM?!?!?!? WHAT??!?!?!?
Furthermore, they selected a lag of 17 years between their datasets in order to get the most out of their correlations, which strangely their tests of significance don't even account for this.
Right there alone should be enough to discount the paper. Attempting to run their level of significance up to 4 degrees is beyond ridiculous and untenable. At most I've seen papers bumping up levels of significance to 10%, and those very few papers admit as much that their significance levels are so high based on initial experimental or pilot-type research (which in case you're wondering, that's 2 degrees of freedom).
So really, if we go by the known scientific axiom that "correlation does not mean causation", then what the should we conclude when there's a complete LACK of causation like this?
Secondly, the correlations cited by Hammel and Lockwood are primarily sourced from Foukal (2002), A Comparison of Variable Solar Total and Ultraviolet Irradiance Outputs in the 20th Century, Geophysical Research Letters, 29, p. 2089.
This paper, which was apparently fine 5 years ago, is a bit dated in scientific terms for examining total solar irradiance (TSI). For Hammel and Lockwood to use that paper for their work which was published THIS YEAR does not make a very strong case for their argument of correlation. What is considered a more higher standard of current data before the satellite era is Lean (2000), Evolution of the Sun’s Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum, Geophysical Research Letters, 27, p. 2425. This paper, although originally published in 2000, has actually been updated in 2004, which takes into account satellite measurements of TSI (and the recent satellite data is more closely aligned with their original calculations back in 2000 versus Foukal).
And guess what? That darn data used by Foukal just ain't supported by satellite measurements. What's clear in the current satellite measurements is there is nothing of the sort of a 2.3 W/m^2 increase in TSI from 1982 to 1990. The only significant change is the variations due to the solar cycle, with full amplitude of only 1 W/m^2, and the average value of TSI shows no real change at all.
What's even worse, the Foukal paper stops with data just a little beyond 1990, however the Lean paper moves further past 2000, with satellite data going even further. Why the did Hammel and Lockwood not even consider up to date measurements?
Furthermore, the graphs cited by Hammel and Lockwood shows a variation in Neptune's brightness of 0.15 magnitudes, or a 15% difference radiation. However, if we assume such a variation is caused by the sun, then we must assume that it would have to increase its brightness by the SAME RATIO. However, upon examination of Foukal's paper, we only see a variation of 0.017%.
Strange, ain't it?
Also, Lockwood and Hammel source an eleven year cycle of solar and earth irradiance, showing a rising trend in this from 1960 and from 1980. But strangely, they do not cite the trend on Neptune in the same period. Strange that. Hammel and Lockwood cite this paper:
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2003/17/paper.pdf
which states the following:
Hammel and Lockwood apparently point out that this somehow supports their argument, but seemingly run right over the fact that this data shows nothing in regards to pre-1970 data, to which they use as part of their sourcing for data in TSI and on earth (but not Neptune).
And finally, one has to wonder how temperatures on Earth were even attempted to correlate with Neptune when solar radiance has decreased.
There is an increase in brightness on Neptune that we're noticing, but it very well may be due to the hemisphere we are observing on Neptune is experiencing its summer cycle, and the brightness could likely be the result of Neptune's very, very long seasons (compared to ours). What's more, most of the brightness that we're observing has occurred in very specific bands of latitude on Neptune. Again this paper points that out:
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2003/17/paper.pdf
One has to wonder why Hammel and Lockwood apparently left out the idea of seasonal variation AS WELL AS the strong latitudinal variation.
So in summary, this is a horribly flawed argument constructed on a horribly flawed paper. The lesson to be learned is that peer-reviewed work, albeit the best source we can come up with for reliability, is most certainly not flawless. I've seen similar works slip through the cracks in other sciences such as evolutionary science, and some of my current works of study in exercise physiology and physical therapy rehabilitation. happens. It's up to scientists to examine the work under scrutiny, mimic the research in question and test the data themselves to see if the results are similar. That is indeed what has occurred here, but much more often than not this task is performed or at the very least discussed to its logical end PRIOR to publication. It sucks when it seeps through the cracks like this, but it happens nonetheless. |
You're a scientist too?! |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
You're a scientist too?! |
Part of my curriculum for the doctoral degree requires some research work, which I'm currently doing with one of my instructors (and friend from my other grad work) with diabetic neuropathy and pain (currently on the animal model, but will likely move to humans by the end of the summer). I also had a published paper from my Master's thesis, as well as dabbled in undergrad with two of my instructors in organismal and cellular biology (didn't work on it enough to get my name published, which was fine because it bored the crap outa me). I also assist with another instructor in PT for research support in their current works of interest from time to time (when I have time, which hasn't been much lately). I haven't done much research scrutiny of my other hobby - evolutionary research lately, but hopefully when I get through this PT program I'll start that up again a bit more.
Does that entail or qualify me as a "scientist?" Hardly. But I do enjoy the research in numerous fields nonetheless. Admittedly I haven't examined global warming as much as I would like. There's a load to it, to be certain, but there might be some free time down the road to where I can examine it a bit closer. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I'm going to venture to bet that Yoepus might be being sarcastic, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. If they're a corporation, they MUST be lying.
(though I do think there's something to be said for studies being biased, provided the data can be shown to illustrate that bias). |
Yes of course I was being saracstic.
Scary how someone can think otherwise :nervous:
| quote: |
btw, I think you mean "moot", not "mute" |
Touche! |
|
|
|
|
