Posted on 05/14/2007 10:46:56 AM PDT by beebuster2000
Skeptics of manmade global warming have found further support in research linking solar output with the planet Neptune’s brightness and temperatures on Earth.
The findings appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters. The authors of the article, H.B. Hammel and G.W. Lockwood from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Observatory since 1950.
Those measurements indicate that Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980. And infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that Neptune has been warming steadily as well.
The researchers plotted on a graph the changes in visible light from Neptune over the past half-century, changes in temperatures on Earth during that period, and changes in total solar irradiance.
The results: The correlation between solar irradiance and Neptune’s brightness was nearly perfect; so was the correlation between changes on Earth and solar output, according to a report on the research appearing on World Climate Report, a climate change blog.
“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,” World Climate Report notes. “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 . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at news.newsmax.com ...
A quote from the referenced paper:
"Low formal statistical significance does not mean the correlations we find are in fact spurious, only that we cannot demonstrate otherwise."
So the correlations they describe in the paper could very well be -- spurious. Meaning basically nothing more than coincidence.
And that's what the AUTHORS themselves wrote.
Hello, qam1. Reading the abstract of the paper (supplied by chessplayer above) is illuminating.
What an inconvenient truth.
True.
However, they say that because this is real science. The man made GW proponents write “scientific” articles that accept only possible variations of bad, worse, disasterous. No possibility that their theories are spurious. If they were honest about their so called research, there would be a lot of similar caveats in their publications. But they are not honest and there are none.
The data.
or
The plots.
We can talk about correlations or lack there of until we are blue in the face but the data will tell the tale. Hopefully some techie-Freeper has the necessary connections.
For ME, the most revealing part of these stories of warming on other planets correlating with changes in solar irradiance is that they all collect so much less power from the Sun than Earth does... Mars (~1.5x the distance) gets only about half as much radiation as Earth. I haven’t looked at the other planets to compare, but it is quite remarkable to me that temperature changes/ weather changes/ have been detected on so many of them, apparently due to the changing solar radiation, despite the inverse-square relationship dictating a smaller amount of radiation from Sol - and yet that relatively small amount getting smaller still affects their climate!
Someday, someday, the global alarmists will be forced to revisit their models to account for what is quite apparent now to be the Sun’s “greater than expected” influence on Earth’s temperature.
After such a close encounter with a moonbat, particularly one foaming at the mouth, I'd consider getting checked for rabies or some other highly contagious disease. [grin]
What is the time period over which this change is assessed, and how much has it changed?
You are one of the chief people who frequent this site who needs to independently research this issue - and attempt to overcome the alarmists’ infiltration of your mind. You really have to get rid of the notion that these model-driven fears have anything to do with reality.
No matter what you have been taught by them, well over half of the Earth’s temperature change (I believe about 80% as I’ve told you before) during the 20th Century was driven by the changes of the Solar Irradiance. The modellers clearly have something wrong in the way they assess solar influence, as can clearly be seen could be the case when you realize they only have about 15% of the Sun’s radiation affecting temperature here. I don’t know exactly what is the problem but it sure is clear the MODELS are wrong.
As for the “time period over which this change is assessed”, I leave it as an exercise for the student. Try to put aside your preconceptions and revisit the DATA (not RealClimate’s reinterpretation of it) about planetary temperature changes on most of the solar bodies studied. If you can force yourself to do so - REALLY do so - you will see that the warming of those objects is clearly due to the recent, historically unusual, warmth of the Sun.
The best I can come up with (actual observational numbers) is an estimate of a solar radiation increase of 0.036 - 0.05% per decade (solar cycle max/min excluded). I'm not worrying about models or climate or clouds or cosmic rays or anything else. Now I request that you demonstrate this is sufficient to be the primary climate forcing factor on Earth and on other Solar System bodies. This seems like a pretty small change in solar output to me.
That's not what the statement means. You are distorting a plain sentence to suit your bias. A noisy and visually uninteresting correlation could easily be "statistically significant" with enough data points, but scientifically useless. The social sciences are full of them. No useful research finding in those fields has ever relied on statistical significance. The error terms are just too large for practical application.
The useful findings jump off the paper at you, even though the numbers may be too small to meet the formal statistical parameters. I suspect the atmospheric sciences are the same way.
Meteorology has some well-defined mathematical theory which puts it in the physical sciences and deductive proof. Social science, historiography, the part of psychology that is not physiology use statistics to find patterns or make patterns, but since there is no covering theory of general acceptance the methods tend to be inductive and particular. As they say, history does not repeat, although sometimes it rhymes.
.
I'm just guessing but wouldn't you expect the temperature to rise linearly with solar radiation. If so a simple calculation using the .0005/decade figure gives a 2.67 degree Fahrenheit increase over a century. Isn't that about what we have experienced?
As you undoubtedly know, Neptune is the Roman god of the sea, analogous to the Greek god Poseidon. And he’s so enraged with all the carbonic acid he’s ingesting in the terrestrial seas right now that his face on the planet Neptune is heating with anger. Or so a neo-pagan liberal witch might say.
No tenure for these guys.
-PJ
The change from solar max to solar min is about 0.2%, so if this was true we'd see much more solar-driven variability over the 11-year solar cycle. The climate sensitivity to radiative forcing is not this strong, by far.
Not so.
You cannot ignore the inertia of the overall thermal system. It takes a long time to heat the earth and the seas so short term cycles are damped. It's like a moving average or a low pass filter - the short term effects are damped out but the long term trends are still there.
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.