Neptune News [Neptune's warming correlates to Earth's warming and solar activity]

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.

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.

qaml, actually, I'm very interested in hearing what you have to say. I've been collecting info from both sides of the argument and you've been a font of information! I was very chuffed that you read the paper on Neptune seasons I cited and it motivated me to investigate both studies more deeply. It led me to discover that Foukal (whose dodgy reconstruction was used in Hammel's study) has since updated his work and concluded that solar variations are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. So why Hammel used Foukal's outdated older study instead of more recent work or direct observations (such as the sunspot numbers you posted) baffles me.

I also learnt that Uranus is cooling which is an interesting little factoid you don't hear quoted on many skeptic blogs.

For the record, I'm not a liberal and my religion is Christianity (science is my hobby). I believe that CO2 is driving global warming but I hope I'm wrong and some natural cooling is just around the corner. To loosely quote Fox Mulder, I want to disbelieve! But I've yet to encounter a skeptic argument that has convinced me. That said, I've not heard of Solar Magnetic Cycles and SSC's until now. I'm not sure how SMC variation would affect our climate - correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. But SSCs do sound intriguing (shame your graph displayed as a broken image). Do you know of any research that draws a causation link between SMCs or SSCs and global warming?

Re sunspots, I think you misunderstand my position. I agree that solar output after 1950 is higher than the century average (in fact higher than the last few centuries). My point is that sunspot activity (which directly correlates to TSI) leveled out after the 50's. Eg - you have solar cycles, of course, but there's been no rising trend similar to the dramatic rise in TSI in the early 20th century. Your article 'Solar activity reaches new high' confirms that - solar levels *are* greater than past centuries but crucially, solar levels stopped the rising trend after 1950 while temperatures continued to rise after 1970.

I also agree that climate is complex and there are lots of factors influencing our climate - solar variations is a major factor, of course. Rising solar output in the first few decades of the 20th century were a large part of rising temperatures. Increasing sulfate levels in the 40's and 50's caused mid-century cooling until pollution regulations in the 60's/70's reduce aerosol emissions.

You can even see the impact of the solar cycle over the last 30 years of global warming. When the solar cycle is at a maximum (1980, 1991, 2002), temperature rise is steeper. When it's at a minimum (1985, 1996 and now), temperature flattens or even falls. Of course, other factors like El Nino causing a spike in 1998 or the Pinatubo eruption in 1992 causing a temperature drop. This leads me to believe that temperature rise will start accelerating within a few years and the solar cycle maximum in 2011 (which NASA predicts will be a big one) will be a particularly hot year.

Oh and as for direct measurements of solar activity before 1978, I was refering to sunspot numbers - the same graph you posted. But it's also pertinent that TSI and radio flux have both showed no rising trend from 1978 till now - this is the same period where Foukal's TSI graph has a distinct rise implying a correlation between TSI and temperature.

It led me to discover that Foukal (whose dodgy reconstruction was used in Hammel's study) has since updated his work and concluded that solar variations are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. So why Hammel used Foukal's outdated older study instead of more recent work or direct observations (such as the sunspot numbers you posted) baffles me.

Again, as I pointed out before, using studies like this are disingenuous because there is just not one "solar" factor involved.

So yeah, changes in luminosity all by themselves might be too small to directly cause all the warming, however combined that with all the other factors (including indirect effects) and yes it can.

They even sort of admit this in the study

Quote
"Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present"

I also learnt that Uranus is cooling which is an interesting little factoid you don't hear quoted on many skeptic blogs.

Don't see it, All I see is one data point in 1998 that's lower than 1983 but it's still higher than 1977. There's a gap in data between 1983 and 1998 and they are assuming it's a cooling trend.

But since 1998, while there hasn't been and stellar occulations to see the temperatures but we can infer by the many intresting things that have happened on Uranus since

See

Stormy Uranus takes astronomers by surprise

When the space probe Voyager 2 visited the planet in 1986, its surface was virtually featureless. But that view has changed dramatically with recent images showing a large number of dynamic storm systems. In fact, a single image of Uranus taken in 2004 shows 18 distinct cloud systems - eight more than Voyager saw during its entire months-long flyby.

Here's another one

First dark spot discovered on Uranus

As we all know storms and clouds on the gas giants are caused by heat,

How come no dark spots were seen during it's last spring?

That said, I've not heard of Solar Magnetic Cycles and SSC's until now. I'm not sure how SMC variation would affect our climate - correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. But SSCs do sound intriguing (shame your graph displayed as a broken image). Do you know of any research that draws a causation link between SMCs or SSCs and global warming?

I will try the graph again, for some reason Freerepublic doesn't seem to like it

If it's not showing try the direct link to it

Try Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña see section 13

I doubt that very much, you got your liberal talking points and you are going to stick to 'em no matter what. You want to believe that those eeeeeeeevviil capitalist are hurting the planet.

Re sunspots, I think you misunderstand my position. I agree that solar output after 1950 is higher than the century average (in fact higher than the last few centuries). My point is that sunspot activity (which directly correlates to TSI) leveled out after the 50's. Eg - you have solar cycles, of course, but there's been no rising trend similar to the dramatic rise in TSI in the early 20th century. Your article 'Solar activity reaches new high' confirms that - solar levels *are* greater than past centuries but crucially, solar levels stopped the rising trend after 1950 while temperatures continued to rise after 1970.

I understand your position well but

1) Again, the solar cycle lengths are smaller and the sunspot number is higher during the minima so the average number of sunspots are greater

2) The biggest flaw is you are assuming any changes in solar output will only have an immediate and instantaneous effect, you are ignoring the cumulative effects. There are many buffers to instant changes (most notable of course is the oceans which are heat sinks), so even if the sun peaked in the 1950's and held steady at high levels it's going take the Earth years and decades for the full changes to totally manifest themselves.

And is that is exactly what we've seen.

Because even though CO₂levels have continued to increase in the 21st century, the temperatures peaked in the late 90's and have since leveled off.

The solar output dipped at this time, so there's another amazing solar coincidence we are once again suppose to ignore

But that sulfate aerosol excuse is silly

1) Most of the cooling between 1940-1976 occurred between 1945-1950 when most of the world was recovering from WWII

and between 1950-1960 when everything ramped up the world warmed slightly only to again fall.

2) While we in the US reduced Sulfate Aerosols since the 1940's-1970's, back then China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, etc weren't as industrialized as they are today, so there are actually more "sulphate aerosols" being released today in the world then there was back then when it was basically just us,

Here see for yourself

Thick aerosols blanket much of China's Huang He, or Yellow River, in this true-color MODIS image from October 22, 2001

Nothing we released back then approached those levels, yet the Earth isn't cooling.

Sorry but there's no consistent pattern there to suggest sulfate aerosols or any other pollutant had anything to do with the cooling

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.