Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Solar warming v. Global warming

  1. #1
    Roger Steer's Avatar
    Roger Steer Guest

    Default Solar warming v. Global warming

    At the risk of waking up the trolls - Sorry!

    There has been a lot of talk lately about the rise in earth temperature
    being caused by a secular increase in solar output rather than the
    greenhouse effect of various pollutants.

    Surely there is an easy way of getting some objective evidence on this?
    Mars has been closely observed for many years. If this is a solar
    effect, the polar caps, as seen at different apparitions, but at
    comparable distances from the sun, should show a variation over time.
    If not, then the greenhouse gasses are to blame.

    But that might settle the argument, so perhaps it's a bad idea.


  2. #2
    George's Avatar
    George Guest

    Default Solar warming v. Global warming

    "Roger Steer" <> wrote in message

    I think it is more complicated than that. For one, Mars is much further
    away from the sun than the earth and so receives less sunlight. Secondly,
    I suspect (though I don't know for sure) that it would take a much smaller
    change in the sun's output to have an effect here in earth than it would
    take to have a similar effect on Mars. Finally, Mars is much colder than
    the earth, and the poles are composed mostly of frozen CO2. For the sun to
    have a significant effect on the Martian poles, it would have to raise the
    planet's temperature substantially more than it is at the current time.

  3. #3
    Carsten A. Arnholm's Avatar
    Carsten A. Arnholm Guest

    Default Solar warming v. Global warming

    George wrote:

    But if the sunlight varies, it varies at Mars distance too.



    Clear skies
    Carsten A. Arnholm
    N59.776 E10.457

  4. #4
    George's Avatar
    George Guest

    Default Solar warming v. Global warming

    "Carsten A. Arnholm" <> wrote in message

    Sure. It is not just the variability but the intensity. At the greater
    distance to Mars, the intensity will not change nearly as much as it will
    hear on earth because of the greater distance. Conversely, the same change
    will be felt much more intensely at Venus because it is closer to the sun.

    Because the sun's intensity drops off as a function of distance. If the
    sun's output increased enough that it made Mars' poles melt, we certainly
    wouldn't have to use that event in order to gauge whether it would have any
    effect here on earth - we'd certainly see the effects here already.

    Why - what? You don't waste words, do you?

  5. #5
    George Hein's Avatar
    George Hein Guest

    Default Solar warming v. Global warming

    Increased solar activity is obvious - especially for a the minumum side
    of the cycle. These changes are not unusual over long periods of time.

    Mars polar ice has shrunken, both north and south poles. I do not trust
    my observations much, but even I, with over 50 years of observing Mars,
    see a lack of polar ice with my small scopes.

    Even further out planets show some differences from some years back.

    I do not deny that humans cause some problems, think of all the CO2 (and
    methane) we and our cows exhale, our burning of coal (instead of
    uranium), and intentiional damage like buring of oil wells by Saddam.
    Nautral causes: volcanos and biology etc.

    The naysayers dwell mostly on US excesses, yet polution is horrendous in
    other parts of world, so their noise should be treated as political
    nonsense. Some of their criticism is valid, but when these same people
    are agianst wind energy (Kennedy: it disturbs their view), or their
    fight against nuclear energy (lesser of an evil), they show their
    infantile grasp of reality and their wish to return to the stone age
    (except for their love of SUVs and private jets (again, Kennedy).

    Note that I am a conservationist who planted many trees and use very
    little energy for light, heat, a/c, travel.

  6. #6
    Arnold's Avatar
    Arnold Guest

    Default Solar warming v. Global warming

    George Hein wrote:

    I can recall reading a set of articles on Mars in Sky and Telescope - in
    an issue from either this year or last year. A separate panel had an
    article touching on this subject.

    Based on images taken over the last few decades, an increase in solar
    output seems to be the obvious cause for these observed effects.

    So the sun is also to blame for the increase in global ocean
    temperatures - made even worse by man-made air pollution.

  7. #7
    Paul Schlyter's Avatar
    Paul Schlyter Guest

    Default Solar warming v. Global warming

    In article <1129625309.601309.271450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
    Roger Steer <> wrote:

    There are better ways to measure the solar output. The so-called
    "solar constant" has been monitored for decades from satellites.
    It varies with the solar cycle by some 0.1 percent, and there are
    short-term variations by up to some 0.5 percent. But these satellite
    measurements indicate no longterm variation. This of cours does not
    rule out the possibility of long term variations earlier, but at
    least it hasn't happened during the last several decades and it isn't
    happening now.

    Some more info, and diagrams showing measurements of the
    solar output, can be found here:

    Computations indicate that if there would be a long term variation in
    the solar output of 1 percent, this would affect the temperature on
    Earth by some 1 to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

    Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
    e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
    Rui Carmo likes this.

  8. #8
    Carsten A. Arnholm's Avatar
    Carsten A. Arnholm Guest

    Default Solar warming v. Global warming

    George wrote:

    It drops off proportional to the inverse square of the distance. But if the
    emmitted sunlight increases by 50%, it means that the earth gets 50% more
    than it usually gets, and Mars gets 50% more than *it* usually gets. Your
    argument does not make sense to me.

    This also does not make any sense to me. The Martian atmosphere is totally
    different than ours, much thinner and different chemistry. The poles have
    carbon dioxide ice in addition to water ice. Our atmosphere insulates much
    more. There isn't much reason to assume a simple relationship from sun
    distance only, in my oponion.

    No, do you? It is normal to explain an argument.

    Why does the sun have to raise the temperature so much and why is that a
    significant thing. Carbon dioxide melts every summer on Mars. Dry ice
    sublimates at -75C. It can get warmer than that on Mars already. I think the
    polar ice caps on Mars are more vulnerable than the ones on the Earth if the
    sun should increase its brightness slightly. Not that I really understand or
    know this, but there is no obvious indication of the opposite?

    Carsten A. Arnholm
    N59.776 E10.457

  9. #9
    George's Avatar
    George Guest

    Default Solar warming v. Global warming

    "Carsten A. Arnholm" <> wrote in message

    But then, if the emmitted sunlight increased by 50%, there would be no
    reason to look at Mars to make that determination. We'd all be getting
    indoor tans. The point is that the average temperature on Mars is -63 F.
    Even a 50% increase in the sunlight would not likely raise the average
    temperature on Mars enough to melt all the ice.

    Umm, I never said the relationship was simple. Regardless of Mars's
    atmospheric composition, the fact is that any solar effect on Mars is going
    to have a greater effect here on Earth. You don't have to look at Mars to
    figure that out. We know a lot more about our own atmosphere and how it
    reacts to solar changes than we do that of Mars.

    But then, if they normally melt every summer (and we all know they do), how
    are you going to tell if solar output has made any difference, or whether
    it is just a natural variation in Mar's climate? Like I said, there is a
    lot about Mars that we still don't know.

  10. #10
    oriel36's Avatar
    oriel36 Guest

    Default Solar warming v. Global warming

    Contemporaries do not designate the Earth's axial and orbital motions
    as indepdent of each other.

    The result is a lack of appreciation of the size of our parent star,our
    orbital distance and motion around the Sun and especially,no accurate
    relationship between axial and orbital motions and orientations.

    Without the global perspective which designates a true relationship
    between changes in orbital orientation against fixed axial
    orientation,you are wasting your time appropriating reasons for
    cyclical seasonal climate imbalances.

    You want the Earth to have a variable tilt to the orbital plane then
    good for you as one opinion will be no better or worse than the next.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. global warming
    By sxinias in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-27-2009, 07:22 PM
  2. Solar effect on global warming and ch4 "swindle" programme
    By James Harris in forum UK Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 04-21-2007, 07:28 PM
  3. Global warming on solar planets
    By Pierre in forum UK Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 12-24-2005, 08:49 PM
  4. Global warming v. Solar warming
    By Roger Steer in forum UK Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-18-2005, 09:58 AM
  5. Global warming on solar planets
    By Pierre in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 09-29-2005, 08:03 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin®
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:15 AM.