All planets in solar system are warming up?

[Votto]

Entire solar system is heating up! Scientists blame solar warming

Yes, unless you are a science denier.

Now I often wonder why, since SUV's are banned on all 7 other planets.

Maybe it's the jet rides people take on all these planets.

After all, one jet flight all of these politicians take to get to places like France to attend things like the Paris Accord on climate change equals about a years worth of carbon emissions driving around in an SUV.

 

[Crick]

You might want to compare the passenger miles between a round trip to France with 200 pax vs an SUV carrying 3.5 pax for 10,000 miles.

Chicago to France RT: 8,304 miles. Times 200 pax = 1,660,800 passenger miles

10,000 miles x 3.5 pax = 35,000 passenger miles.

If they used the same amount of fuel, the airliner has an almost 50:1 advantage in efficiency.

 

[Maxdeath]

You might want to compare the passenger miles between a round trip to France with 200 pax vs an SUV carrying 3.5 pax for 10,000 miles.

Chicago to France RT: 8,304 miles. Times 200 pax = 1,660,800 passenger miles

10,000 miles x 3.5 pax = 35,000 passenger miles.

If they used the same amount of fuel, the airliner has an almost 50:1 advantage in efficiency.

So how many are running even one mile on jupiter? His claim was that all planets in the solar system were experiencing a rise in temperature. The fact he may not have stated personal jets does not invalidate his claim of all planets warming.

If all those traveling to the Paris accord traveled on commercial airlines it is diffrent then traveling on a private jet. So for your numbers to be valid you need to prove that no one was using anything but commercial.

 

[Crick]

I'm not addressing the nonsense of the OP, just his claim that it was a bad thing that a jet to France and back should use as much fuel as an SUV burned in a year.

 

[Votto]

It's just what I heard some "scientist" on TV who was preaching gloom and doom about carbon emissions.

I would not be surprised if it is false.

Obviously, world leaders don't believe this crap because they live jet set lives, live in mansions around the world, and drive SUV's

 

[mamooth]

Entire solar system is heating up!

Lacking in that article was any evidence of the solar system heating up. Did you read it?

Scientists blame solar warming

Except they didn't. The headline didn't match the article.

Yes, unless you are a science denier.

Is Venus warming? You know, the planet with a thick atmosphere closest to the sun?

No? The planet that should be most affected by the sun isn't warming at all?

So much for the retarded "It's the sun!" theory. Not that reality will have any effect on the TrueBelievers.

 

[Votto]

Entire solar system is heating up!

Lacking in that article was any evidence of the solar system heating up. Did you read it?

Scientists blame solar warming

Except they didn't. The headline didn't match the article.

Yes, unless you are a science denier.

Is Venus warming? You know, the planet with a thick atmosphere closest to the sun?

No? The planet that should be most affected by the sun isn't warming at all?

So much for the retarded "It's the sun!" theory. Not that reality will have any effect on the TrueBelievers.

]
Your contention is set against the scientific article, which said ALL the planets are heating up.

Did you not even read it?

 

[mamooth]

Your contention is set against the scientific article, which said ALL the planets are heating up.

No, it certainly didn't.

Did you not even read it?

I don't think you're deliberately lying about the article. I think you lack the brainpower to comprehend what it said.

 

[petro]

Not giving up my SUV no matter how hot it gets on Earth or Mars.
Every idiot millionaire and politician that supported and pushed for the Paris Accord has the carbon footprint of an elephant.
Meanwhile, despite my addiction to boating and snowmobiling and towing such amenities with a Hemi powered Jeep, I still have a carbon footprint of an ant in comparison.
Hypocrites can start by seriously downsizing their own lifestyle before I will ever give even a slightest shit about "climate change".

I live in the north, it's currently -15.
I don't Fucking care.
Period.

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL..

If the other planets are warming at the same rate as the earth, which the paper clearly states it is, then the warming is not caused by what we are doing. It is being caused by a COMMON EXTERNAL FORCE called THE SUN...

There are going to be some mighty upset warmers in here real soon...

Two of the items that no current GCM takes into account are changes in the earths atmospheric depth and another is the changes in the spectral output of the down-welling solar radiation. A recent paper looks at this very question.

Abstract:

"We have identified a sample of 33 Sun-like stars observed by the International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE) with the short-wavelength spectrographs that have ground-based detections of chromospheric Ca ii H+K activity. Our objective is to determine if these observations can provide an estimate of the decrease in ultraviolet (UV) surface flux associated with a transition from a normal stellar cycle to a grand-minimum state. The activity detections, corrected to solar metallicity, span the range $-5.16\lt \mathrm{log}{R}_{{HK}}^{{\prime} }\lt -4.26$, and eight stars have log ${R}_{{HK}}^{{\prime} }\lt -5.00$. The IUE-observed flux spectra are integrated over the wavelength range 1250–1910 Å, transformed to surface fluxes, and then normalized to solar B − V. These normalized surface fluxes show a strong linear relationship with activity ${R}_{{HK}}^{{\prime} }$ (R 2 = 0.857 after three outliers are omitted). From this linear regression we estimate a range in UV flux of 9.3% over solar cycle 22 and a reduction of 6.9% below solar cycle minimum under a grand minimum. The 95% confidence interval in this grand-minimum estimate is 5.5%–8.4%. An alternative estimate is provided by the IUE observations of τ Cet (HD 10700), a star having strong evidence of being in a grand-minimum state, and this star's normalized surface flux is 23.0 ± 5.7% lower than solar cycle minimum."

source

As you can see, a UV decrease of almost 9% is expected and will last 60-90 years. This will cause massive cooling of the oceans all by itself. If the solar wind stays low, the increased equatorial atmosphere will cause further loss of energy to the oceans. We could see upwards of a 12-14% drop in the UV spectrum, at sea level, from our sun for a prolonged period of time. The loss net effect of 4.1-6.8 W/m^2.

We are in for some serious cooling. Let us hope that the sun doesn't go to sleep and stay asleep for 90,000 years before it becomes active again. We still don't know the primary causes of our Glacial Cycles but this could very well be the cause.

The current warming of our solar system will be short lived as this reduced output state is going to last a long while.

 

[ding]

Good Lord, look at all of the climate deniers of natural causes.

 

[ding]

Pay no attention to the warming of every planet in the solar system. It’s just a happy coincidence.

There’s no funding to study such foolishness. There is only funding for science that is useful for governments to raise taxes.

 

[Votto]

Pay no attention to the warming of every planet in the solar system. It’s just a happy coincidence.

There’s no funding to study such foolishness. There is only funding for science that is useful for governments to raise taxes.

Well if they would raise carbon taxes on the sun, none of this would be happening now.

 

[sparky]

well i guess i won't be doing many service calls on Mars then.....~S~

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm not addressing the nonsense of the OP, just his claim that it was a bad thing that a jet to France and back should use as much fuel as an SUV burned in a year.

You're ignoring the OP because it falsified your "settled science"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL..

If the other planets are warming at the same rate as the earth, which the paper clearly states it is, then the warming is not caused by what we are doing. It is being caused by a COMMON EXTERNAL FORCE called THE SUN...

There are going to be some mighty upset warmers in here real soon...

Two of the items that no current GCM takes into account are changes in the earths atmospheric depth and another is the changes in the spectral output of the down-welling solar radiation. A recent paper looks at this very question.

Abstract:

"We have identified a sample of 33 Sun-like stars observed by the International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE) with the short-wavelength spectrographs that have ground-based detections of chromospheric Ca ii H+K activity. Our objective is to determine if these observations can provide an estimate of the decrease in ultraviolet (UV) surface flux associated with a transition from a normal stellar cycle to a grand-minimum state. The activity detections, corrected to solar metallicity, span the range $-5.16\lt \mathrm{log}{R}_{{HK}}^{{\prime} }\lt -4.26$, and eight stars have log ${R}_{{HK}}^{{\prime} }\lt -5.00$. The IUE-observed flux spectra are integrated over the wavelength range 1250–1910 Å, transformed to surface fluxes, and then normalized to solar B − V. These normalized surface fluxes show a strong linear relationship with activity ${R}_{{HK}}^{{\prime} }$ (R 2 = 0.857 after three outliers are omitted). From this linear regression we estimate a range in UV flux of 9.3% over solar cycle 22 and a reduction of 6.9% below solar cycle minimum under a grand minimum. The 95% confidence interval in this grand-minimum estimate is 5.5%–8.4%. An alternative estimate is provided by the IUE observations of τ Cet (HD 10700), a star having strong evidence of being in a grand-minimum state, and this star's normalized surface flux is 23.0 ± 5.7% lower than solar cycle minimum."

source

As you can see, a UV decrease of almost 9% is expected and will last 60-90 years. This will cause massive cooling of the oceans all by itself. If the solar wind stays low, the increased equatorial atmosphere will cause further loss of energy to the oceans. We could see upwards of a 12-14% drop in the UV spectrum, at sea level, from our sun for a prolonged period of time. The loss net effect of 4.1-6.8 W/m^2.

We are in for some serious cooling. Let us hope that the sun doesn't go to sleep and stay asleep for 90,000 years before it becomes active again. We still don't know the primary causes of our Glacial Cycles but this could very well be the cause.

The current warming of our solar system will be short lived as this reduced output state is going to last a long while.

Oh, come on now! Everyone knows the Sun has no effect on climate

 

[ding]

According to Crick people warm the planet. Not the sun. He even created a thread titled...

How Do We Know Humans are Warming the Planet?

 

[yidnar]

LOL..

If the other planets are warming at the same rate as the earth, which the paper clearly states it is, then the warming is not caused by what we are doing. It is being caused by a COMMON EXTERNAL FORCE called THE SUN...

There are going to be some mighty upset warmers in here real soon...

Two of the items that no current GCM takes into account are changes in the earths atmospheric depth and another is the changes in the spectral output of the down-welling solar radiation. A recent paper looks at this very question.

Abstract:

"We have identified a sample of 33 Sun-like stars observed by the International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE) with the short-wavelength spectrographs that have ground-based detections of chromospheric Ca ii H+K activity. Our objective is to determine if these observations can provide an estimate of the decrease in ultraviolet (UV) surface flux associated with a transition from a normal stellar cycle to a grand-minimum state. The activity detections, corrected to solar metallicity, span the range $-5.16\lt \mathrm{log}{R}_{{HK}}^{{\prime} }\lt -4.26$, and eight stars have log ${R}_{{HK}}^{{\prime} }\lt -5.00$. The IUE-observed flux spectra are integrated over the wavelength range 1250–1910 Å, transformed to surface fluxes, and then normalized to solar B − V. These normalized surface fluxes show a strong linear relationship with activity ${R}_{{HK}}^{{\prime} }$ (R 2 = 0.857 after three outliers are omitted). From this linear regression we estimate a range in UV flux of 9.3% over solar cycle 22 and a reduction of 6.9% below solar cycle minimum under a grand minimum. The 95% confidence interval in this grand-minimum estimate is 5.5%–8.4%. An alternative estimate is provided by the IUE observations of τ Cet (HD 10700), a star having strong evidence of being in a grand-minimum state, and this star's normalized surface flux is 23.0 ± 5.7% lower than solar cycle minimum."

source

As you can see, a UV decrease of almost 9% is expected and will last 60-90 years. This will cause massive cooling of the oceans all by itself. If the solar wind stays low, the increased equatorial atmosphere will cause further loss of energy to the oceans. We could see upwards of a 12-14% drop in the UV spectrum, at sea level, from our sun for a prolonged period of time. The loss net effect of 4.1-6.8 W/m^2.

We are in for some serious cooling. Let us hope that the sun doesn't go to sleep and stay asleep for 90,000 years before it becomes active again. We still don't know the primary causes of our Glacial Cycles but this could very well be the cause.

The current warming of our solar system will be short lived as this reduced output state is going to last a long while.

many scientist believe that we are do for another ice age ! they believe that before each ice age there in slight warming before the temps plummet .

 

[ding]

Anyone who has even looked at the oxygen isotope curve can hardly dismiss the trend of a cooling earth.

 

[Crick]

LOL..

If the other planets are warming at the same rate as the earth, which the paper clearly states it is, then the warming is not caused by what we are doing. It is being caused by a COMMON EXTERNAL FORCE called THE SUN...

You should have read more. The greatest warming seen in our solar system is on Pluto, the furthest from the sun and currently headed towards it apogee. That is, it is moving further away from the sun. If something is warming the planets, it is not the sun. There is a theory that the solar system as a whole is moving into a more "active" region in the galaxy, but that opinion did not come from a reputable source so I don't know that it has any validity.