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

worldclimatereport.com ^ | May 8, 2007

[edsheppa]

It may be purely coincidence. As we infer from various historical temperature proxies, the Earth's temperature is highly variable. It's not unreasonable to suppose that other planet's, especially ones with complex atmospheres, might be similarly variable. We've only been looking intensively at the other planets for a short time so maybe the correlation is only random.

But I think it's more likely that there is some underlying causal explanation that we will discover in time. For example, IIRC, some have proposed that increased solar activity decreases cosmic ray activitys which decreases cloud formation which increases temperatures.

[zeugma]

Other interesting facts about Neptune...

Current distance from Earth: 29.718 AU

Travel time from Earth at C: 4h 7m

Above is as of 15:42:17 Central time.

 
 

[wolfcreek]

ALGORE says: HUMBUG!

[qam1]

It may be purely coincidence. As we infer from various historical temperature proxies, the Earth's temperature is highly variable. It's not unreasonable to suppose that other planet's, especially ones with complex atmospheres, might be similarly variable.

Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Triton and Pluto are all showing signs of warming, with no body with an atmosphere that we know of is cooling or remaining stable*, so that's 7 out of 7 of our controls that are also heating up, sorry but only a warped Liberal mind can find that just one big coincidence.

* The only other bodies left with atmospheres are Venus and Titan, but in both cases their clouds are too thick to know what's going on one way or the other.

We've only been looking intensively at the other planets for a short time so maybe the correlation is only random.

I find it funny we are to infer global warming due to humans here on earth due to 20-30 year regional trends but on other planets it's "too short of time"

Being that there's only 3 things a planet can be doing: warming, cooling or remaining stable, if it were just random natural variation there's would be a 1/3 chance any given planet you look at is warming. Now to find all 7 out of 7 planets that are warming the odds become 1 in 2,187!!!! Now to continue to find planets year after year still warming the odds become astronomical of it all being one big coincidence

[qam1]

For the sun to do this to Neptune (and Pluto), the effect on earth would be 900 times as much. That is, the oceans would boil. Boil off.

Not necessarily because you are assuming increased solar output would effect the planets the same way.

Neptune and Earth are two totally different planets in size, atmospheric makeup, distance from the sun, orbital eccentricity, etc. So you wouldn't expect them to react in the same exact matter over the same period of time to changes in solar variability.

See some basic Neptune atmospheric chemistry

Clouds (On Neptune) form this way: solar ultraviolet radiation destroys methane high in Neptune's atmosphere by converting it to hydrocarbons such as ethane, acetylene, and haze particles of more complex polymers. The haze particles freeze and become ice particles. These ice particles eventually fall into the warmer layers of the atmosphere, where they evaporate back into gases, mix with hydrogen gas and are reformed as methane. Methane clouds then rise high into the atmosphere.

This fits perfectly on how a more active sun would cause global warming on Neptune

What is happening is an increase in solar output means increased UV radiation which will destroy more methane in the atmosphere which then freeze out of the atmosphere as more complex hydrocarbons, which will release heat (from solidification) thus warming the atmosphere. Then as these hydrocarbons sink they will react with hydrogen and reform into methane which will again release heat and warm up the atmosphere further. The newly created methane as it rises will form into clouds increasing Neptune's brightness, as the clouds dissipate the cycle repeats with greater intensities, which = Global warming on Neptune kicked off by a more active sun.

[RightWhale]

900 is a large enough factor. A different kind of link could explain it. Hoagland favors hyperspace connectivity. That’s the ticket. 19.5

[qam1]

900 is a large enough factor. A different kind of link could explain it.

Previously Neptune's brightness was correlated with the 11 year solar cycle until it went off kilter in the 1990(Just like Earth's temperature) so yes even at it's vast distance Neptune does react to small changes in solar output

Hoagland favors hyperspace connectivity. That’s the ticket. 19.5

Doesn't he also think global warming on Jupiter was caused by a nuclear explosion from when the Galileo spacecraft plunged into the planet?

[John Cook]

It's helpful to read the original article abstract which concludes "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." In essence, the fact that Neptune and Earth are both warming means nothing but isn't it fun to put the two graphs next to each other?! Hardly a ringing endorsement and yet this article is quoted with triumph by global warming skeptics.

The strangest thing about the article is it's graph of TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) from an outdated reconstruction of solar irradiance by Foukal et al made 5 years ago which ends in 1990. Foukal's reconstruction contradicts direct satellite measurements by PMOD that have found solar output has shown no rising trend since 1978, sunspot numbers which have leveled out since 1950, the Max Planck Institute reconstruction that shows irradience has been steady since 1940 and solar radio flux or flare activity which shows no rising trend over the past 30 years.

So what's causing Neptune's warming? The planet reached its farthest point from the sun in 1960 so it's been moving towards the sun ever since. Neptune's orbit is 163 years so observations of Neptune's orbit (1950 to present day) spans less than a third of a Neptunian year. This has led astronomers to conclude that Neptune brightening is a seasonal response.

So why Neptune is brightening is clearly not related to increasing solar output. The only mystery here is how such an ambiguous and misleading article could get through the peer review process.

[qam1]

It's helpful to read the original article abstract which concludes "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." In essence, the fact that Neptune and Earth are both warming means nothing but isn't it fun to put the two graphs next to each other?!

I don't see why this is a big deal, Neptune and Earth are two totally different planets in size, atmospheric makeup, distance from the sun, orbital eccentricity, etc. You wouldn't expect them to react in the same exact matter over the same period of time to changes in solar variability. But what we are seeing is both (as well as 6 other planets) are showing a warming trend along the same period of time.

Hardly a ringing endorsement and yet this article is quoted with triumph by global warming skeptics.

Signed up date Today.

Welcome to Freerepublic

So what's causing Neptune's warming? The planet reached its farthest point from the sun in 1960 so it's been moving towards the sun ever since.

Neptune has one of the most circular orbits of all the planets, it's only a close 2nd to Venus in orbital eccentricity. So it's relative variation in distances from the sun is minimal and won't make much of a difference. Not that it would matter anyhow because it's axis tilt is ~29° so like here on Earth one hemisphere should be getting colder while the other warmer, like the same way on earth as we move closer to the sun in January it's getting still getting colder in the northern hemisphere

Neptune's orbit is 163 years so observations of Neptune's orbit (1950 to present day) spans less than a third of a Neptunian year. This has led astronomers to conclude that Neptune brightening is a seasonal response. This has led astronomers to conclude that Neptune brightening is a seasonal response.

It's helpful to read your own paper, because what I find funny, while you try to make a big deal of this of the "low formal statistical significance" thingy in the "Suggestive correlations..." paper, in the paper you are using to try and debunk it contains a whole section titled "Conflicting observations"

I'll take "Low formal statistical significance" over "Conflicting observations" anytime

But one of these "Conflicting observations" stands out as particularly interesting

Quote "Although our simple seasonal model fits most disk-integrated observations at 467 and 472 nm well, it is not consistent with the local brightness increase beyond 30°N, especially between 1998 and 2002; that hemisphere ought to be declining in overall brightness according to the seasonal model.

Which means seasonal changes can not totally account for the brightness/warming trend seen on Neptune which confirms what the “Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature” paper you are trying to debunk it with says.

So why Neptune is brightening is clearly not related to increasing solar output.

The evidence and the process of elimination suggest otherwise

The only mystery here is how such an ambiguous and misleading article could get through the peer review process.

Probably because the people who peer reviewed it didn't receive their funding from Al Gore, The UN or any other leftest government or entity

As for the solar stuff, We've been over it and I'm going to bed. Keyword, globalwarming, or start here

[RightWhale]

Doesn't he also think global warming on Jupiter was caused by a nuclear explosion

No. His function is to point out things in the solar system.

[edsheppa]

The only other bodies left with atmospheres are Venus and Titan, but in both cases their clouds are too thick to know what's going on one way or the other.

Don't clouds obscure the surface of Jupiter and Neptune too? Why would cloud cover matter anyway, don't they get hotter too?

[there] would be a 1/3 chance any given planet you look at is warming

It is likely higher. You assume there is a 1/3 chance of temperatures being observed to stay the same on the time scales we're dicussing and 1/3 is low, at least for Earth which is the only one we have direct measurements for.

the [probability] become[s] 1 in 2,187

Low probability events happen all the time. They're so common we have a name for it, coincidence. At this level, no one should rule out chance without some pretty robust theory and we don't have one yet.

[chopperman]

The solar theory has a lot more going for it than the ‘Manmade CO2 Theory’.

[edsheppa]

The solar theory has a lot more going for it...

What do you mean by "the solar theory?" That changes in solar energy output impinging on, for example, Pluto directly account completely for temperature changes there? I'd say that's basically impossible given how small these changes are. If there is a causal connection between solar variation and large changes in Pluto's temperature, there must be some other mechanism at work.

[John Cook]

You don’t need that study on seasonal influence to debunk the whole “Neptune is being warmed by solar variations” theory. It’s well and truly debunked if you look at direct measurements of solar irradiance, sunspot numbers and radio flux. I’ll take direct observation over outdated reconstructions anytime. How can anyone insist earth’s and neptune’s warming must be due to solar variations when the solar output leveled out in the 50’s? I’d be very interested in hearing that answer.

As for the “conflicting observations” such as “it is not consistent with the local brightness increase beyond 30°N, especially between 1998 and 2002”, the study points out that it’s most likely a regional anomaly. The thing about global warming is that it doesn’t mean the entire globe is all warming at the same time and rate. It means the global average temperature is rising. You have weather anomalies and regions that buck the trend (eg - on Earth, the southern hemisphere warms slower than the north as there’s less land mass).

[chopperman]

When you have all of the planets warming up at the same time, you have to go with the common denominator. It doesn’t take an Einstein.

[FreedomCalls]

Changes in solar energy output are far too small to directly account for temperature changes on Earth, let alone Neptune where the effect would be more than 50 times smaller.

The data sourced in this article doesn't claim that Neptune is getting hotter, only that Neptune is getting brighter from measurements of light reflected from the sun.

[John Cook]

chopperman, there are around 100 bodies in our solar system - half a dozen or so have shown warming. For most of those planets, the observed warming has been for a period shorter than their actual orbit - you can’t make climate change judgements over less than a solar cycle. That’s like saying earth is undergoing global warming from winter to summer.

Then when you look at solar output as measured by satellites, sunspot numbers, radio flux, we find that solar output has been steady for the last 50 years. From that fact alone, it doesn’t take an Einstein to work out that variations in solar output can’t explain global warming, on our planet or others.

[edsheppa]

The data sourced in this article doesn't claim that Neptune is getting hotter, only that Neptune is getting brighter ...

True, and I think it's the same with Pluto and the others, pretty indirect evidence.

[qam1]

You don’t need that study on seasonal influence to debunk the whole “Neptune is being warmed by solar variations” theory. It’s well and truly debunked if you look at direct measurements of solar irradiance, sunspot numbers and radio flux.

For starters as per sunspot numbers you are incorrect,

Yes, that cycle in the 1950's produced the most sunspots during it's maxima, but one cycle doesn't make a trend. As you can see the sunspot # following that cycle were all well above the century average. And just as important, the number of sunspots at the minimas are also much higher than the century average (as well as higher than both sides of the 1950's cycle).

Also the most important part is not necessary the sunspot number but the length of the sunspot cycle which correlates much better with the observed temperature than CO₂

Now back to Neptune,

The ultraviolet output of the sun increases markedly with sunspot activity,

More sunspot activity and shorter sunspot cycle = more ultraviolet rays striking Neptune which will destroy more methane in the atmosphere which will then freeze out of the atmosphere as more complex hydrocarbons, which will release heat (from solidification) thus warming the atmosphere. Then as these hydrocarbons sink they will react with hydrogen and reform into methane which will again release heat and warm up the atmosphere further. The newly created methane as it rises will form into clouds increasing Neptune's brightness, as the clouds dissipate the cycle repeats with greater intensities, which = Global warming on Neptune kicked off by a more active sun.

I’ll take direct observation over outdated reconstructions anytime.

Your direct measurements only go back to 1978 which is conveniently when Global Warming re-started, the rest are computer reconstructions

How can anyone insist earth’s and Neptune’s warming must be due to solar variations when the solar output leveled out in the 50’s? I’d be very interested in hearing that answer.

I'd doubt you are interested in hearing anything that contradicts your religion

But solar output most certainly hasn't leveled out since the 1950's

See Solar activity reaches new high for one.

There's also Geomagnetic Storm Sudden Commencements (SSCs) which have also increased

Being that SSCs effect El Nino/Southern Oscillations cycles here on Earth, no doubt they have a huge effect on our climate.

Just look at the chart, the average # of them rose in the 1st half of the 20th century (Hey just like the temps here on Earth!), declined through the 1960's and 1970's (Again, Hey just like the temps here on Earth!) then started to rise again peaking in the late 1990's (Again, Hey just like the temps here on Earth! What an amazing coincidence)

When it comes to the sun, global warming cultist are disingenuous in that when trying to dismiss it, they pick just a single factor (i.e. solar irradiance, sunspot numbers, SSCs, cosmic rays) and attack it as if it's the only thing that has an effect. The fact is there isn't one single solar property that is solely responsible for global warming, but take them all together and they correlate way better than CO₂

As for the “conflicting observations” such as “it is not consistent with the local brightness increase beyond 30°N, especially between 1998 and 2002”, the study points out that it’s most likely a regional anomaly. The thing about global warming is that it doesn’t mean the entire globe is all warming at the same time and rate. It means the global average temperature is rising.

Anomaly from the New Liberal dictionary: Anything that contradicts the religion of global warming.

Must be easy being a Liberal, simply hand-wave away anything that contradicts your viewpoint and that's it, no further reason to think.

That's one reason I can't buy Global warming, your religion requires way too many anomalies and coincidences for any reasonable person to accept.

You have weather anomalies and regions that buck the trend (eg - on Earth, the southern hemisphere warms slower than the north as there’s less land mass).

There are no such land/ocean mass differences or any other differences on Neptune like there is here on Earth, unlike earth Neptune is a pretty uniform planet at all latitudes, there is nothing on Neptune to cause such anomalies except of course for solar variation.

[qam1]

The only other bodies left with atmospheres are Venus and Titan, but in both cases their clouds are too thick to know what's going on one way or the other.

Don't clouds obscure the surface of Jupiter and Neptune too?

No, Jupiter and Neptune don't have surfaces

Why would cloud cover matter anyway, don't they get hotter too?

Maybe

Titan: is too far and small to know what's going on, we can see what's happening with Triton's and Pluto's atmospheres because when they pass in front of a star we can see what's going on by the way the starlight is effected as it passes through. Titan's atmosphere is just too dense that no starlight can pass through thus we can't observe it

Venus: It's Albedo is near 65%, any chances would just be drown out in the light reflected. Plus being that Venus surface temperture is 850°F, even a 10° change would be too difficult to detect.

[there] would be a 1/3 chance any given planet you look at is warming

It is likely higher. You assume there is a 1/3 chance of temperatures being observed to stay the same on the time scales we're dicussing and 1/3 is low, at least for Earth which is the only one we have direct measurements for.

No that 1/3 would be for the 2nd observation after an initial one (You need 2 points to make a trend)

So a second observation for 7 out of 7 planets if it was all just random variation would be a 1 in 2187

A third observation for 7 out of 7 to still be continuing to heat up would be 1 in 4782969

and so on

Low probability events happen all the time. They're so common we have a name for it, coincidence.

And the DNA evidence showed that there was a 99.99954% chance that OJ was the killer

Some people also believe it too was a coincidence and he was innocent

At this level, no one should rule out chance without some pretty robust theory

You got it backwards, when 7 out of 7 of your controls (the planets) are heating up like you sample (earth) you have to rule out it's only common link (sun) is not the cause.

and we don't have one yet.

Yes we do

Mars:
1)More heat from the sun = more dust storms
2) more dust storms = warmer atmosphere,
3)Warmer atmosphere = Global Warming Caused by the Sun!!!!

Jupiter & Saturn:
1)More active sun = more solar storms,
2)more solar storms = more energy transferred from the solar wind to their atmospheres
3)more energy transferred from the solar wind to their atmospheres = a warmer atmosphere
4) A warmer atmosphere = Global Warming Caused by the Sun!!!!!!! 

Neptune & likely Uranus
1) More active sun = more ultraviolet light
2) More ultraviolet light = More Methane converted to other hydrocarbons in the atmosphere
3) More Methane converted to other hydrocarbons in the atmosphere = more hydrocarbons that freeze out of the atmosphere
4) More hydrocarbons that freeze out of the atmosphere = more heat of solidification released and more chemical heat released as the hydrocarbons react with hydrogen to reform into methane
5) More heat of solidification released and more chemical heat released as the hydrocarbons react with hydrogen to reform into methane = a warmer atmosphere
6) A warmer atmosphere = Global Warming Caused by the Sun!!!!!!! 

Triton:

The frost pattern and changes in the ice’s reflectivity on Triton are caused by ice volcanoes, as the volcanoes leave prominent dark streaks across the surface (seen below)

Unlike Earth or even Io the volcanoes on Triton are driven solely by heat from the sun,

Thus

1) More heat from the sun = more volcanoes
2) More volcanoes = more dark streaks & thicker atmosphere
3) More dark streaks & thicker atmosphere = even more heat absorbed from the sun
even more heat absorbed from the sun = rinse & repeat
4) rinse & repeat = Global Warming Caused by the Sun!!!!