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.

Roger

"Roger Steer" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Roger

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.

George wrote:
"Roger Steer" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Roger

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.

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

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.

Why?

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.

Why?

Clear skies
Carsten A. Arnholm
http://arnholm.org/
N59.776 E10.457

"Carsten A. Arnholm" wrote in message
...
George wrote:
"Roger Steer" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Roger

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.

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

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.

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.

Why?

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.

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.

Why?

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

George wrote:
"Carsten A. Arnholm" wrote in message
...
George wrote:
"Roger Steer" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Roger

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.

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

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.
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.

Why?

Because the sun's intensity drops off as a function of distance.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why?

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

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
http://arnholm.org/
N59.776 E10.457

"Carsten A. Arnholm" wrote in message
...
George wrote:
"Carsten A. Arnholm" wrote in message
...
George wrote:
"Roger Steer" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Roger

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.

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

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.
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.

Why?

Because the sun's intensity drops off as a function of distance.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

Why?

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

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?


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.

--
Carsten A. Arnholm
http://arnholm.org/
N59.776 E10.457

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.

George Hein wrote:
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 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.

In article .com,
Roger Steer wrote:
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.

Roger

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 he

http://solarmuri.ssl.berkeley.edu/~h...r_constant.doc

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-03a.html


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
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

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.