Study: Climate change not caused by increasing output from the Sun

From the BBC:

Will this be sufficient to kill the “Mars has global warming too!” meme?

Judging by the comments on Diggtoday, not a chance in hell. I don’t understand the mentality of the GW deniers, I really don’t.

Defenders of the status quo do it because the status quo is how they make money or hold on to power. Changing how we conduct business, etc. will result in great dislocations and shifting of economic activity from one type to a different type. If you’re 50 years old and doing well now, global warming won’t really be a problem until after your are dead so why change?

That’s one possibility.

See this commentary and look at the comments. (Some Dopers may spot a familiar name.) Basically I’m not confident that either the original programme or this rebuttal are good applications of good science.

And the moon, Pluto and IIRC a moon of Jupiter, but no, why should it? It it the very heart of the issue that the BBC is ignoring. They say the sun can’t cause global warming on earth, but fail to explain how soccer moms in SUV’s can cause other planets and moons besides earth to heat up.

Actually the global warming on other bodies in the solar system discredit the BBC human cause global warming meme.

There seems to be a lot of confusion and unsupported assertion here. First: Do you have a cite for scientific evidence of warming in other bodies of the solar system besides the earth?

Second: If your hypothesis is that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not what’s heating the earth (which contradicts the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists, but that’s okay, a hypothesis doesn’t have to be mainstream), then what is your explanation for why they’re not heating the earth? Because the idea that higher levels of greenhouse gases produce an “enhanced greenhouse effect” which leads to higher temperatures is fairly basic atmospheric physics.

Third: If you’re arguing that increased solar radiation is what’s causing increased global temperatures, how do you reconcile that with the findings mentioned in the OP that solar radiation has actually been decreasing rather than increasing?

Are you concerned about the research itself, or the BBC report on it? You can read the un-BBC-mediated article itself in the Royal Society’s Proceedings A here.

But it does not account for the many GW skeptics who are not executives or stockholders in industries that might be affected by any vigorous effort to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Those seem to be hostile to any form of environmental activism, or heavy government regulation, or anything that smells of “liberal agenda,” for ideological or cultural reasons.

More simply, I think that some people are just deeply skeptical of the idea that human activity can really be significant enough to drastically change the climate system of the entire freaking planet. It just seems so intuitively implausible that they find it easier to believe it’s all a government conspiracy or a liberal agenda or a scientific delusion or anything but real.

I have posted a few time the cite about global warming, search the archives if you want it’s there, I don’t have time to repost it.

The main point is that the cite in the OP does NOTHING at all against global warming on mars.

OK lets loom at this logically, multiple planets/moons in the solar system are heating up, you think man is going to make a big difference?

A WAG (which is all you have), decreased solar wind could cause more energy from outside the solar system.

Well, there’s kimstu’s point in the post following yours. I think it’s a valid one. There’s also the ability of people making a lot of money to be interviewed on television and write op-ed pieces in newspapers. Obfuscation is one of the classic ways to divert attention into side issues.

I think this business about a general heating of the solar system is an example of obfuscation. The study cited in the OP states that the sun is not a cause of the earth’s heating because the output of the sun has been declining for the past 20 years.

One thing at a time. As to the question of the validity of the study, claimed warming elswhere is a side issue. First it’s necessary to ensure that the authors of the study are right. If they are it really doesn’t make a hell of lot of difference what’s happening on Pluto. If they are not then that leaves a real puzzling question. Why would the earth warm up when the sun is putting out less energy if not increased greenhouse effect?

Sure, but they’ve got dozens, if not hundreds of “explanations” that can be rolled out to delay actually facing the real problem for a couple more months.


Sure, but they’ve got dozens, if not hundreds of “explanations” that can be rolled out to delay actually facing the real problem for a couple more months.

Expect to find what’s “really” causing GW soon. There’ll be studies and everything!

ETA - stupid SDMB said I never posted! Liar!


:dubious: In other words, you don’t have a cite. Sorry, but “go look for something unspecified that I’m claiming I posted on some earlier occasion” is not a cite.

But since you haven’t provided any cite that there actually is any “global warming on Mars”, that’s irrelevant.

Cite that multiple planets/moons in the solar system are heating up?

:dubious: You’re calling the climate-science hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming a WAG? That’s pretty dismissive for a hypothesis that is currently the most widely held, and most strongly supported by scientific evidence, of all the hypotheses currently available to explain global warming.

Secondly, your own WAG doesn’t even seem to make any sense. You started out claiming that increased solar output was responsible for global warming. I asked how you could reconcile that with this new research indicating that the solar output has recently been decreasing instead of increasing. And your guess is that it has something to do with “decreased solar wind”? How? Based on what evidence?

See here. As that piece notes, it is amusing how some of the same people who had to be dragging kicking and screaming to believe the mountains of evidence of global warming on the earth (where we have the benefit of being able to take LOTS of measurements) are so quick to believe that a few measurements on Mars constitute convincing evidence of “global warming” there.

Well, you still haven’t provided us with evidence of this. You don’t get much sympathy with the claim that you have posted it before. God knows how many times I have had to post that RealClimate piece above…and I think at least a few times in response to you before.

No, what we have is a theory supported by thousands of scientific research papers. What you have is some WAG that has no support. “…more energy from outside the solar system”…What the heck does that mean? It is not like there are huge sources of energy that compare in any way with what we receive from the sun! What you might be trying to argue is something like the cosmic ray hypothesis…i.e., that cosmic rays affect cloud formation and therefore modulate the amount of radiation the earth receives from the sun. There are lots of problems with that hypothesis, however, including no real trend in the measured cosmic rays that would explain the recent warming. Furthermore, I think it would be hard to make this same hypothesis work on different bodies of the solar system with very different atmospheres.

Finally, as kimstu notes, you still have to explain why the known radiative forcing due to the known increase in levels of greenhouse gases is somehow not producing any significant warming here on Earth.

Meanwhile, it appears the IPCC report may be way too optimistic.

The intense heat generated by the stars, of course! And have you felt the burn coming off of the Andromeda galaxy? That sucker radiates, baby!

Let’s review your cites, eh?

The first one claims: “On the other hand, I can’t help but wonder — if two planets so close to each other are both experiencing a rise in surface temperature, isn’t it just possible that it might have to do with that nearby star they both orbit? I’m just asking is all.”

Yes, very scientific.

The second one is broken, so maybe you can take the time to provide us with a working one.

The third one says: “Still, it seems to me that even a rough estimate of the extent to which increasing solar output is raising temperatures on Mars would be a useful reality check on the “global warming” claims being made here on Earth.”

So, the last person is obviously unaware of all the information that has already been brought up and reviewed by scientists. (see jshore’s RealClimate cite).

You’ve made it well known on several occasions what you think about global warming. Stop trotting out these poor excuses for cites as good strong evidence.

Actually they only left out an important intermediate factor. Solar activity causes Republicans to be elected and Republicans cause global warming. The data is indisputable.

I’m concerned by all of it. The original paper seems more a blizzard of cites - which, of course, I cannot follow - than an argument and demonstration in and of itself.

There’s an element which reminds me of the investigation into the Challenger disaster. There, there were all sorts of arguments back and forth about the O-rings. Richard Feynman decided to actually do a test and thus proved the O-ring to be the point of failure. While the paper goes into the correllation with the solar cycle, the paper does not appear to disprove - or prove irrelevant - the test that the skeptics did.

Sorry, you lost me. What “test that the skeptics did” are you referring to?