What can we do about Climate Change?

[GoatCheese]

Hello.

I think the Climate Change is mostly because of this interstellar cloud right outside our solar system.

In this study below, published in a 1978 Astrophysical Journal, they calculated that if simultaneous climate change will start happening on Mars and here on Earth, that would be evidence that there is such a cloud, from which interstellar gas brings extra energy to our solar system. ..at the time of publishing this article, they didn’t have the Voyager results yet ..and as it turns out, both the planets and other celestial bodies in our solar system started experiencing changes in the 1970’s-80’s, and it is probably because of this hot and highly magnetized cloud of gas right in the edge of the heliosphere.

Thou humans have polluted this planet, it appears that Climate Change is mostly because of changes in the whole solar system.


Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1978ApJ...223..589V/0000589.000.html


Solar System Passing Through Interstellar Cloud
http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/blogs/solar-system-passing-through-1
“NASA's two Voyager probes have been racing out of the solar system for more than 30 years. They are now beyond the orbit of Pluto and on the verge of entering interstellar space—but they are not there yet.
"The Voyagers are not actually inside the Local Fluff," says Opher. "But they are getting close and can sense what the cloud is like as they approach it."


Peace.

 

[MoldyFrogToe]

It's basically common knowledge that the solar system isn't to blame. And 1978? Cmon.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The argument that Martian warming disproves anthropogenic global warming fails on two points - there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming and Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations.

 

[ibjamming]

If it's really "climate change", there's probably nothing we can do about it. Climate is long term...it took a long time to see the change...it will take a long time for the change to "peak"...and it will take a long time to go "back to normal".

What can we do? Kill about 6 billion people and go back to our agrarian past. Tear up the cities, stop burning fossil fuels, that kind of stuff.

It ain't gonna happen...the "governments" will just make everyone do expensive things to "fix" it...knowing damn well it's just a money making scheme...it won't make a damn of a difference...the shit will continue to spew...

We're overpopulated...that's the bottom line. Oil allowed us to grow in population exponentially...unfortunately, it will be to our own end. You think there's a problem with the poor and underfed now? Just wait until energy starts getting expensive. It's been ridiculously cheap in the past...it won't be forever. Hell, the oil going up to $140 a barrel started this whole financial mess we're dealing with now. It began the precipitous slide. Oil hit $140 in the summer...by winter...we were in trouble and the stock market tanked.

The government "bailed us out" by postponing the inevitable. The crash still needs to happen...the longer it's put off artificially, the harder it will be.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

What do you guys think of this idea?
Even the denial crowd should be able to whole heartedly support development of this tech....

This one seems viable as an idea... and won't raise anyone's taxes...

continue using the same fuels (gasoline, Diesel, etc) but acquire the fuels from the atmospheric greenhouse gasses already present, instead of adding CO2 back into the atmospheric system which mother nature had sequestered deep underground.

A Universal Replacement for Petroleum

The world is highly dependent on the existing transportation and fuel delivery infrastructure. Automobiles, trucks, trains, ships and planes powered by liquid fuels are crucial to our way of life. Other alternative technologies under consideration to replace conventional liquid fuels such as biofuels, fuel cells, hydrogen and electric batteries, require substantial infrastructure changes in order to be useful on a meaningful scale.

Carbon Sciences' breakthrough technology transforms greenhouse gases into common fuels such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel that can be used directly in existing infrastructures. By using CO2 and CH4 (methane gas) derived from natural and renewable sources such as natural gas fields, landfills, algae, switch grass, wood, human and animal waste, our technology can fundamentally replace petroleum as the feedstock for the production of liquid portable fuels to meet our transportation needs.

Wherever there are sources of greenhouse gases, countries, cities, and villages can use our CO2-GTL technology to produce liquid portable fuels in a sustainable and clean lifecycle. The following are just a few example applications of our breakthrough technology.

http://www.carbonsciences.com/01/applications.html

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I wholeheartedly say; develop away!
Means little.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

means little in the mind those who ignore or dismiss what the science demonstrates the reality to be...

I'd imagine independence from foreign oil, and an unlimited source of liquid fuel to power our future without having to modify our existing infrastructure to be QUITE meaningful... all in your perspective, though...

 

[GoatCheese]

The argument that Martian warming disproves anthropogenic global warming fails on two points - there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming and Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations.

Mars started changing it’s look around 1970’s. This is around the same time they say Earth started warming.
Something started to move that lighter colored dust on Mars ..that was the change in windspeeds ..this means there was a change in Mars’s climate.
And more darker colored surface has warmed Mars even more.

Second, I’m not talking about solar variations here, but about incoming cosmic helium and hydrogen, from the interstellar cloud, ..but ofcource this effects the Sun also.
Cosmic gasses, when they hit the planets atmosphere and radiation- and magnetic fields give rise to charged elementary particles which cause effects in the planets core, to it’s magnetic and gravity fields, so changing it’s many pressures and also climate etc.

It's basically common knowledge that the solar system isn't to blame.

And 1978? Cmon.

What common knowledge?! ..they are pretty much saying we don’t have enough knowledge how cosmic energies shape plants and in what ways.
..all most every time people show links to other planets showing changes in our solar system, the scientist say “well you can’t say that for sure cause we don’t have enough data, that it isn’t due just to their normal seasonal changes ” ..meaning they still do not know that much. … and many planets show changes in atmospheric pressure etc ..planets’ moons are showing changes in their internal heat and so on

All this points to that there is external energy flowing into the solar system which then effects the energy content of the planets and the sun ..Saturn’s radiation belt is showin changes, Venus and Pluto has changes in their atmospheric pressure

What is wrong with the study being from 1978 ..did you even read it? ..and NASA just confirmed the gas cloud being there only few years ago!



..I’ll come back with link so all the changes in the solar system little later ..i have a few saved.

Laters

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Mars started changing it’s look around 1970’s. This is around the same time they say Earth started warming.
Something started to move that lighter colored dust on Mars ..that was the change in windspeeds ..this means there was a change in Mars’s climate.
And more darker colored surface has warmed Mars even more.

Second, I’m not talking about solar variations here, but about incoming cosmic helium and hydrogen, from the interstellar cloud, ..but ofcource this effects the Sun also.
Cosmic gasses, when they hit the planets atmosphere and radiation- and magnetic fields give rise to charged elementary particles which cause effects in the planets core, to it’s magnetic and gravity fields, so changing it’s many pressures and also climate etc.

A dust storm is not a change in climate, it is a weather event.
Were there a 'space cloud' causing the warming, then why in the lower atmosphere warming while the thermosphere is collapsing?

The primary empirical evidence for long term, global warming on Mars comes from Fenton 2007. Fenton compared a composite snapshot of Mars from 1977 taken by the Voyager spacecraft to a 1999 image compiled by the Mars Global Surveyor (referencing work from Geissler 2005). The 1977 snapshot showed a brighter planet. In 1999, the planet had a lower albedo, with prominent darker regions in the southern mid and high latitudes. Using the albedo changes in a general circulation model, Fenton calculated a 22 year global warming trend of 0.65°C.

To put these results in proper perspective, an understanding of what drives Martian climate is required. Global dust storms increase the surface albedo by settling brighter dust on dark surfaces. Within a year after a dust storm, various wind systems remove the dust and Mars returns to a normal, lower albedo.

The 1977 snapshot was taken after a global dust storm had deposited dust over the southern latitudes, lightening the planet surface. Before the storm, the planet had albedo comparable to recent measurements (Szwast 2006).


The apparent long-term warming between the 1970's and 1990's is largely a consequence of the timing of the two snapshots used. The "brighter" 1977 snapshot was immediately after a global dust storm when the planet was temporarily lighter. The "darker" 1999 snapshot was of the planet in it's usual state. There is little evidence that Mars is undergoing decadal-scale, long term global warming. In fact, following the 2001 global dust storm, the southern hemisphere was brighter than in 1977 (Szwast 2006).


The empirical evidence isn't conclusive on whether global warming is happening on Mars. However, to answer the question on whether the sun is causing Earth's global warming, there is plentiful data on solar activity and Earth's climate. Many papers have examined this data, concluding the correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.



A good example of how dust affects Mars climate: over 2007, Mars suffered a titanic dust storm that engulfed the entire planet. The dust storm contributed to a temporary warming effect around Mars, raising the temperature of the atmosphere by around 20-30°C. Interestingly, whereas the atmosphere of the planet heats up, the surface of the planet cools down because it receives much less solar heat.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/abs/nature05718.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992mars.book.1017K
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/uploads/File/People/mir/Szwast_JGR2005JE002485.pdf

 

[GoatCheese]

Hey

..here are some links about changes in the whole solar system ..not just climate changes but changes in radiation fields, magnetic fields, tectonic plate changes..


I’ll just cut and paste this bit here for starters:

In this study below, published in a 1978 Astrophysical Journal, they calculated that if simultaneous climate change will start happening on Mars and here on Earth, that would be evidence that there is such a cloud, from which interstellar gas brings extra energy to our solar system. ..at the time of publishing this article, they didn’t have the Voyager results yet ..and as it turns out, both the planets and other celestial bodies in our solar system started experiencing changes in the 1970’s-80’s, and it is probably because of this hot and highly magnetized cloud of gas right in the edge of the heliosphere.
The cosmic helium and hydrogen cause more charged elementary particles (neutrinos and these type) to effect the planets an the sun in various ways, even the molten material beneth the planet’s surface ..changing the planet’s magnetic fields so the magma starts to move more, so warming the planet from inwards.

Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1978ApJ...223..589V/0000589.000.html

Solar System Passing Through Interstellar Cloud
http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/blogs/solar-system-passing-through-1
“NASA's two Voyager probes have been racing out of the solar system for more than 30 years. They are now beyond the orbit of Pluto and on the verge of entering interstellar space—but they are not there yet.
"The Voyagers are not actually inside the Local Fluff," says Opher. "But they are getting close and can sense what the cloud is like as they approach it."



Climate Changing on Mars ..ice cap diminishing for three Mars’s summers. ..so not just seasonal melting.
They say that Mars has been warming because the winds have blown the lighter colored dust into pits ..well, what caused those wind speeds to rise ..warming climate perhaps?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
“In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.”


Changes on Saturn. It shows also changes in it’s wind speeds ..also since the early eighties ..like Mars and our planet Earth.
Saturn’s radiation belt has also changed lately.

Research Shows Saturn's Winds Winding Down
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/display.cfm?NEWS_ID=5249
”Saturn, one of the windiest planets, has recently had an unexpected and dramatic change in weather: its equatorial winds have subsided from a rapid 1700 km/hr during the Voyager spacecraft flybys in 1980-81 to a modest 990 km/hr from 1996 to 2002.”

New Transient Radiation Belt Discovered Around Saturn
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914111821.htm
The changes on Saturns radiation belt, (prolly also in its gravitational effects) are effecting it’s moons also.
Planetary science: Tectonic overturn on Enceladus
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n2/full/ngeo763.html
“The south pole of Saturn's icy moon Enceladus is anomalously warm, geologically youthful and cryovolcanically active. Episodic convective overturn explains how the moon's modest sources of internal heat can be channelled into intense geological activity”


http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/04/-will-saturns-moon-enceladus-prove-a-second-genesis-confirming-life-as-a-feature-of-the-universe.html
“..Cassini’s findings of elevated temperatures in the moon’s polar region, as well as an enormous plume of icy particles shooting tens of thousands of kilometers into space.”

Just a Phase: Enceladus's Mysterious Behavior May Be Transient
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=saturn-enceladus-episodic-overturn

.. it’s Titan moon also
The Four Seasons of Titan: Weather & Climate Change on Saturn's Largest Moon
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/06/the-four-seasons-of-titan-weather-climate-change-on-jupiters-moon.html
“….The only exception is timing -- clouds are still noticeable in the southern hemisphere while fall is approaching.
"Titan's clouds don't move with the seasons exactly as we expected," said Sebastien Rodriguez of the University of Paris Diderot, in collaboration with Cassini visual and infrared mapping spectrometer team members at the University of Nantes, France. "We see lots of clouds during the summer in the southern hemisphere, and this summer weather seems to last into the early fall. It looks like Indian summer on Earth, even if the mechanisms are radically different on Titan from those on Earth. Titan may then experience a warmer and wetter early autumn than forecasted by the models."



Planet Jupiter has changes it’s look in recent years which they have told quite widely in mainstream news. It has seen changes in it’s dots and stripes.

Jupiter Loses a Stripe
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/display.cfm?ST_ID=2302

Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/04/21_jupiter.shtml

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html
”Jupiter's recent outbreak of red spots is likely related to large scale climate change as the gas giant planet is getting warmer near the equator.”



The magnetosphere of Mercury has changed since the 1970’s

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/multimedia/jan_media_conf.html
“Researchers are amazed by the wealth of images and data that show a unique world with a diversity of geological processes and a very different magnetosphere from the one discovered and sampled more than 30 years ago.”


Planet Neptune has been getting more cloud cover. They say it’s because of seasonal change, the southern parts have been getting more clouds ..but so has the northern parts, so it’s not just the “sunny side” that has been changing. So the change is on the whole planet.

Neptune’s Increased Brightness Provides Evidence for Seasons
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/media/Neptune2003.htm
Springtime on Neptune?
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/display.cfm?NEWS_ID=5131
“..the planet is exhibiting a significant increase in brightness. The changes, observed mostly in the planet's southern hemisphere, show a distinct increase in the amount and brightness of the banded cloud features that are a distinctive feature of the planet.
.. While Neptune has an internal heat source that may also contribute to the planet's apparent seasonal variations and blustery weather, when that is combined with the amount of solar radiation the planet receives, the total is so small that it is hard to understand the dynamic nature of Neptune's atmosphere.”


Changes also on Neptunes moon Triton:

MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html
“We're not the only ones experiencing global warming. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher has reported that observations obtained by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and ground-based instruments reveal that Neptune's largest moon, Triton, seems to have heated up significantly since the Voyager space probe visited it in 1989. The warming trend is causing part of Triton's surface of frozen nitrogen to turn into gas, thus making its thin atmosphere denser.”

Neptune's Moon Triton: Summer Sky of Methane and Carbon Monoxide
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100407094452.htm
“Based on the amount of gas measured, Lellouch and his colleagues estimate that Triton's atmospheric pressure may have risen by a factor of four compared to the measurements made by Voyager 2 in 1989, when it was still spring on the giant moon. The atmospheric pressure on Triton is now between 40 and 65 microbars -- 20 000 times less than on Earth.”



Pluto is also changing, thou it is moving further away from the Sun.
Pluto thought to be warming up
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1697309.htm
“Dr Greenhill says the results are surprising because they show Pluto is warming up.
"It looks as though the atmosphere has not changed from 2002, which is pretty surprising because we expected the atmosphere would freeze out as the planet moved further away from the Sun," he said.
"But so far, if anything, the atmosphere has gotten even denser."

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html



..And there is probably many more changes on the celestial bodies in our solar system, but this is plenty.

…see, the changes on the planets are much more than just “warming” ..changes in their atmospheric pressures, on their radiation fields, and so I imagine, also on their magnetic/gravitational fields.
All these changes are not caused by the Sun’s activity, but, I believe, it is because of the highly magnetized, hot interstellar cloud just outside the heliosphere, which is protecting the solar system ..now, cause more and more charged cosmic helium and hydrogen is flowing in to the solar system, these gasses cause more and more charged elementary particles to enter the planets, and (maybe) changing their cores also, with their atmospheres ..so the planets are warming from “downwards” also.

This is a field which the climate scientists don’t talk about that much. They only talk about changes in sun radiance and how bright it is, but not much else..

Laters

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

the characterisation that the whole solar system is warming is erroneous. Around 6 planets or moons out of the more than 100 bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling (Young 2001). http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf

Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo. Global dust storms increase the surface albedo by settling brighter dust on dark surfaces. Higher albedo leads to more sunlight being reflected which has a cooling effect. Snapshots of Mars' surface in 1977 and 1999 find that the surface was brighter in 1977 and darker in 1999. However, this doesn't necessarily point to a long term warming trend - the 1977 snapshot was made shortly after a global dust storm while the 1999 snapshot occured before a dust storm. Consequently, there is little empirical evidence that long term global warming on Mars is occuring (Richardson 2007). http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.P31D..05R

Neptune's orbit is 164 years so observations (1950 to present day) span less than a third of a Neptunian year. Climate modelling of Neptune suggests its brightening is a seasonal response (Sromovsky 2003). Eg - Neptune's southern hemisphere is heading into summer.

Neptune's largest moon, Triton, has warmed since the Voyager space probe visited it in 1989. The moon is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years. During this special time, the moon's southern hemisphere receives more direct sunlight (Elliot 1998).
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2003/17/paper.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v393/n6687/abs/393765a0.html

Jupiter's storms are fueled by the planet's own internal heat (sunlight is 4% the level of solar energy at Earth). When several storms merge into one large storm (eg - Red Spot Jr), the planet loses its ability to mix heat, causing warming at the equator and cooling at the poles (Marcus 2006).
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006DPS....38.3903M


Pluto's warming is not clearly understood. Pluto's orbit is much more elliptical than that of the other planets, and its rotational axis is tipped by a large angle relative to its orbit. Both factors could contribute to drastic seasonal changes. As Pluto's orbit is equivalent to 248 Earth years and observed warming spans only 14 years, it is likely this is a seasonal response (Sromovsky 2003). http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2003/17/paper.pdf

We've learned a lot since 1978.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

post by Graham Wayne

I’ve always thought it rather specious to demand conclusive causative evidence that anthropogenic CO2 causes climate change. Skeptical Science has frequently demonstrated how good a case science can make for anthropogenic climate change (ACC), including a round-up of multiple lines of empirical evidence.

Yet the evidence does not impinge on some arguments. In desperation, I’ve also tried logic – don’t laugh – and it’s hard to know quite how the wheels can come off so fast, except to observe that logic depends on conventions that both sides of a debate must consistently observe. The glorious advantage of the ‘missing link’ argument is, as creationists already know, it presents a perfect, self-reinforcing paradigm of scientific failure, built on the straw foundations of mathematical proofs applied to linear systems; predictable – if not inviolable, processes. The inferential science of observation and rationalisation is demeaned and denied, even though a control Earth to play with is a patently absurd idea. So many arguments depend on the exclusive precepts of classical science; rule and regulation, set in stone (or so they appear to the unwary). Too bad the ecosystem doesn’t work like that.

* * *

William of Ockham’s razor often gets wielded in a dangerous manner. When you apply it properly, you have a fairly standard reductionist chain of inference that leads to anthropogenic climate change, because no other contender is left standing. This isn’t a popular line of reasoning in the climate debate, however, because it lends itself to easily to rebuttals that focus on what you might call a negative proof e.g. ‘it’s what is left’. In fact, science works through many hypotheses in this way, starting with as many ideas as can be generated, before testing them with the ubiquitous razor – truly the cut and thrust of science: last theory standing.

Personally, I don’t have any problem with this rationalisation, although I have read enough science to know that the evidence is very coherent. I was won over by the sheer weight of it; overpowered, actually. Only the cautionary note of scepticism remained: it was theoretically possible that some exotic, as yet undiscovered, causative mechanism was at work, heating up the planet. Theoretically. The weight I assign to this probability is measured by the time we’ve had to postulate, let alone find, such a mechanism. For all the hot air, the denial industry has failed spectacularly to suggest anything that fits all the criteria.

All the criteria. There it is; the catalyst for this article. I’ve been looking for a better way to explain how climate science adds up, and when I read Naomi Oreskes reference to "multiple, independent lines of evidence converging on a single coherent account", I found what I was looking for.

Climate science is a Pandora’s box, out of which come primary questions. These questions, which are fundamental, cannot be un-asked; we asked what would happen to the climate if we artificially increased the proportions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and the answer is important. Science cannot get bored with the question, turn to something more interesting. Nor can it be halted by threat, by intimidation or censure, by propaganda or popular opinion. We are compelled now, as ever, to answer the primary questions that science is asking. And when we consider the sheer scope of potential and observed climate changes and the multi-disciplinary range of investigation, it becomes evident how powerful a paradigm anthropogenic climate change really is, for it is the ‘single coherent account’ that Oreskes identifies so well.

Anthropogenic climate change is not where science starts, thinking to fit the theory to as many phenomena as it can. ACC is where you end up following any single line of enquiry. Only when you reach this destination do you look around, to discover that everyone else has arrived at the same terminus. This is the consensus of climate change: the end point of all journeys for those studying sea level rises, the Arctic, the Antarctic, the glaciers and the ice caps, the changes in precipitation, seasonal periodicity, changes in ocean pH, weather events, droughts and famines, resource management, agriculture – and every effect being studied is occurring simultaneously. (I cannot stress how important I believe this last point to be: nearly all phenomena associated with climate change have occurred in the past – and this is a common argument of course. What rarely gets asked is this: at what point in the history of the earth did all these things happen at the same time, and at the same speed?)

Every discipline that finds itself affected or threatened by climate change reaches the same broad conclusion, the ‘single coherent account’ that is anthropogenic climate change. It is time we stopped pretending there is likely to be another theory, another causative agent, that could be changing the planet’s ecosystem, and owned up. So far, we look rather more like children crying ‘I didn’t touch it...it fell all on its own’, than adults accepting responsibility for what we do. We have a coherent account; let’s match it with actions that are equally coherent, and let’s do it while we can, because we are surely running out of time.

 

[GoatCheese]

hey.

the characterisation that the whole solar system is warming is erroneous. Around 6 planets or moons out of the more than 100 bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling (Young 2001).

http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf

[/quote]

I’m refereeing to other changes than just warming. Changes in radiation fields etc. like Saturn is experiencing ..Mercury’s magnetosphere has also changed relatively lately

Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo. Global dust storms increase the surface albedo by settling brighter dust on dark surfaces. Higher albedo leads to more sunlight being reflected which has a cooling effect. Snapshots of Mars' surface in 1977 and 1999 find that the surface was brighter in 1977 and darker in 1999. However, this doesn't necessarily point to a long term warming trend - the 1977 snapshot was made shortly after a global dust storm while the 1999 snapshot occured before a dust storm. Consequently, there is little empirical evidence that long term global warming on Mars is occuring (Richardson 2007).

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.P31D..05

Well, as I pointed out all ready ..something caused the start of those rising winds that moved the lighter dust away from the darker surface ..it was the start of the warming on the planet, which caused more wind on the planet.

Neptune's orbit is 164 years so observations (1950 to present day) span less than a third of a Neptunian year. Climate modelling of Neptune suggests its brightening is a seasonal response (Sromovsky 2003). Eg - Neptune's southern hemisphere is heading into summer.

Neptune’s south was heading in to summer and this is what they used to explain the increased cloud cover on the southern hemisphere of the planet ..but as I wrote earlier ALSO the northern started to get more clouds.

Neptune's largest moon, Triton, has warmed since the Voyager space probe visited it in 1989. The moon is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years. During this special time, the moon's southern hemisphere receives more direct sunlight (Elliot 1998).

http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2003/17/paper.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v393/n6687/abs/393765a0.html

The atmospheric pressure has changed on Triton, can it be explained by the summer of the southern hemisphere? ..there is summer all the time on the moon at some altitude. it can be.

It ‘s quite easy to lose all the causes of these changes into ‘seasonal changes’ and explain all of them with that. But like the scientists say themselves, they are only theorizing at this point cause there isn’t enough data.

..but then there are changes on other planets and bodies occurring at the same time ..like I wrote before Mars’s polar ice has been growing smaller for many of it’s summers in a row, so it is not just seasonal changes, but longer period changes.
There is huge drop on Saturn’s winds, and it has grown a new layer on it’s radiation field.

Jupiter's storms are fueled by the planet's own internal heat (sunlight is 4% the level of solar energy at Earth). When several storms merge into one large storm (eg - Red Spot Jr), the planet loses its ability to mix heat, causing warming at the equator and cooling at the poles (Marcus 2006).http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006DPS....38.3903M

Well are the increased levels of neutrinos and other carrier particles from the “Local Fluff” (the gas cloud) could be the cause for the “sudden” changes in the Jupiter’s internal heat.
See particles like neutrinos do not effect the atmosphere or atomic mass on the surface on the planet. These type of particles effect places with most pressure/gravity/magnetism ..the planet’s core ..which then cause the magma etc. to move more, and so producing more internal heat.

In many of these simultaneous planetary changes in our solar system, the scientists are only talking about ‘seasonal changes’ ..during the time of many of these articles, they hadn’t even confirmed the existence of the “Local Fluff”, so they haven’t even considered the changes it brings into the solar system. ..and now that they know it is there, they say it might effects the planets’ climate etc.

Solar System Passing Through Interstellar Cloud]…Astronomers call the cloud we're running into now the Local Interstellar Cloud or "Local Fluff" for short. It's about 30 light years wide and contains a wispy mixture of hydrogen and helium atoms at a temperature of 6000 C. The existential mystery of the Fluff has to do with its surroundings. About 10 million years ago, a cluster of supernovas exploded nearby, creating a giant bubble of million-degree gas. The Fluff is completely surrounded by this high-pressure supernova exhaust and should be crushed or dispersed by it.
"The observed temperature and density of the local cloud do not provide enough pressure to resist the 'crushing action' of the hot gas around it," says Opher.
So how does the Fluff survive? The Voyagers have found an answer.
"Voyager data show that the Fluff is much more strongly magnetized than anyone had previously suspected—between 4 and 5 microgauss*," says Opher. "This magnetic field can provide the extra pressure required to resist destruction."
NASA's two Voyager probes have been racing out of the solar system for more than 30 years. They are now beyond the orbit of Pluto and on the verge of entering interstellar space—but they are not there yet.
"The Voyagers are not actually inside the Local Fluff," says Opher. "But they are getting close and can sense what the cloud is like as they approach it."
The Fluff is held at bay just beyond the edge of the solar system by the sun's magnetic field, which is inflated by solar wind into a magnetic bubble more than 10 billion km wide. Called the "heliosphere," this bubble acts as a shield that helps protect the inner solar system from galactic cosmic rays and interstellar clouds. The two Voyagers are located in the outermost layer of the heliosphere, or "heliosheath," where the solar wind is slowed by the pressure of interstellar gas.
Voyager 1 entered the heliosheath in Dec. 2004; Voyager 2 followed almost 3 years later in Aug. 2007. These crossings were key to Opher et al's discovery.
The size of the heliosphere is determined by a balance of forces: Solar wind inflates the bubble from the inside while the Local Fluff compresses it from the outside. Voyager's crossings into the heliosheath revealed the approximate size of the heliosphere and, thus, how much pressure the Local Fluff exerts. A portion of that pressure is magnetic and corresponds to the ~5 microgauss Opher's team has reported in Nature.
The fact that the Fluff is strongly magnetized means that other clouds in the galactic neighborhood could be, too. Eventually, the solar system will run into some of them, and their strong magnetic fields could compress the heliosphere even more than it is compressed now. Additional compression could allow more cosmic rays to reach the inner solar system, possibly affecting terrestrial climate and the ability of astronauts to travel safely through space… [/quote]
http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/blogs/solar-system-passing-through-1

Pluto's warming is not clearly understood. Pluto's orbit is much more elliptical than that of the other planets, and its rotational axis is tipped by a large angle relative to its orbit. Both factors could contribute to drastic seasonal changes. As Pluto's orbit is equivalent to 248 Earth years and observed warming spans only 14 years, it is likely this is a seasonal response (Sromovsky 2003). http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2003/17/paper.pdf

And Pluto is having changes thou it is moving away from the sun again, and has since 1989. ..so it is not because of it’s elliptic orbit.

We've learned a lot since 1978.

You clearly miss the point with the 1978 study.
They calculated then, in the 1978, the presence of the hot Local Fluff, which the NASA just recently found ..get it?..and the effects of that cloud hasn’t been taken into account in any of these earlier planetary change studies/theories, ok.

And on the 1978 study they calculated that if Mars and Earth will have simultaneous change in climate, then the cloud is near by ..and now even NASA has found it few years ago.
It is there, right outside the heliosphere, and leaning against that protective radiation field of the solar system, and it is leaking helium and hydrogen into the solar system, or has been for quite some time now. ..and Mars and Earth (and other bodies) are showing recent simultaneous changes, like the study suggested they would.

The “leaking” of the “Local Fluff” effects the Suns fluxes (including the intensity of the heliosphere), which then allow even more cosmic rays and material to flow into the solar system.

Here is a good page to read of the 1978 study which mentions many changes such cloud could have on solar systems
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1978ApJ...223..589V&db_key=AST&page_ind=10&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

Laters.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

It ‘s quite easy to lose all the causes of these changes into ‘seasonal changes’ and explain all of them with that. But like the scientists say themselves, they are only theorizing at this point cause there isn’t enough data.

..but then there are changes on other planets and bodies occurring at the same time ..like I wrote before Mars’s polar ice has been growing smaller for many of it’s summers in a row, so it is not just seasonal changes, but longer period changes.

Sorry, there is no evidence that a space cloud is causing global warming.
only 5% of the bodies in our solar system are warming.
the activity you mention is explainable by known mechanism (including but not limited to seasonal change)... We have not even observed an entire 'neptune year' worth of neptune weather data, and you're implying there is a change in neptune's climate? That'd be like basing the entire Global warming argument on the January through April weather from this year.
Don't fall for a denier distraction.

Like you posted there is not enough data(about the space cloud theory) to draw conclusions, However there is enough data about greenhouse gasses and their current warming of the planet for there to be a consensus among 97% of scientists knowledgable in the field.

to echo mr. Wayne...

Personally, I don’t have any problem with the (Ockham's razor) rationalization, although I have read enough science to know that the evidence is very coherent. I was won over by the sheer weight of it; overpowered, actually. Only the cautionary note of scepticism remained: it was theoretically possible that some exotic, as yet undiscovered, causative mechanism was at work, heating up the planet. Theoretically. The weight I assign to this probability is measured by the time we’ve had to postulate, let alone find, such a mechanism. For all the hot air, the denial industry has failed spectacularly to suggest anything that fits all the criteria.

Do you really imagine NASA scientists did not consider their own observations?
We've learned a lot of things in the 30+ years since 1978.

Have you bothered to look as deeply into the consensus science as you have into the space cloud theory?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

For all the hot air, the denial industry has failed spectacularly to suggest anything that fits all the criteria.

Thing is, the majority of humans do not have scientific backgrounds. And really, only those who do have the knowledge to be able to actually perform these tests and studies are really capable of grasping all that is presented to them. There are those who may feel they are quite capable of grasping it all, but I contend that they are simply smart enough to understand and buy what is being fed to them by someone, and even astute enough to grasp the numbers thrown their way...but they still have to possess that inkling of faith to be able to be completely on board. Especially for those who have absolutely no training in the area of the sciences in question.

Funny how these folks, who undoubtedly hold a high level of faith in what others are telling them, seem to think that they have the irrefutable and undeniable answers to all these questions. But, as I have stated, these folks who so easily call names of those who don't buy into things as they have, are going on faith.

I also find it hilariously funny that some of you find now that switch grass and GTL technology is something that we should look at..Hell, GW Bush has been telling folks about the technology for years, but of course he was an idiot, right? Thing is, the math puts the screws to these technologies being viable replacements...in our lifetime. Math puts the screws to many a wild hypothesis.

 

[MoldyFrogToe]

Funny how these folks, who undoubtedly hold a high level of faith in what others are telling them, seem to think that they have the irrefutable and undeniable answers to all these questions. But, as I have stated, these folks who so easily call names of those who don't buy into things as they have, are going on faith.

That falls apart when you consider we rely on professionals and solely those professionals every day to run society in the best way possible, have been doing it forever, and that it is our only option. For uneducated masses to snub an entire global scientific census is obnoxious and stupid. We get people who misinterpret and think they know more than a global scientific consensus who survive and rely on that consensus every single day for everything else they do, and it gets even dumber!

I find it amazing how first it was 100% denial that global warming was happening at all, then it was "ok, it's happening" and then it was "ok, it's happening, and humans probably have something to do with it" over the years coming from the naysayer side. What a joke. It's just like cigs causing cancer, it's just like water pollution, it's just like acid rain, it's just like the ozone - no matter what, some minuscule minority will beat their chests and think it isn't happening, citing industries which are completely against rational evidence in the name of maintaining profit until the very bitter end, where even they themselves cannot believe the utter stupidity of what they are screaming.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I don't see where taking in all of the available information, recognizing that some conclusions are so likely as to be almost assuredly correct, while keeping an open mind to factor in any new information as it becomes available and modify my position when warranted can be compared to faith.... Any more than it takes faith to believe that x=4 when 3x+1=13.

Fully educating one's self with all of the observable and verifiable information, and factoring the many independent multiple lines of information into a coherent "big picture" seems to lead the vast overwhelming majority of those who peruse such information to the same unavoidable conclusion.

97% of those who have the educational background to know, agree.

Here's a good conservative article, about how denialism is ruining the credibility of conservatism.

Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause


Have you heard about the “growing number” of eminent scientists who reject the theory that man-made greenhouse gases are increasing the earth’s temperature? It’s one of those factoids that, for years, has been casually dropped into the opening paragraphs of conservative manifestos against climate-change treaties and legislation. A web site maintained by the office of a U.S. Senator has for years instructed us that a “growing number of scientists” are becoming climate-change “skeptics.” This year, the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation gave a speech praising the “growing number of distinguished scientists [who are] challenging the conventional wisdom with alternative theories and peer reviewed research.” In this newspaper, a columnist recently described the “growing skepticism about the theory of man-made climate change.” Surely, the conventional wisdom is on the cusp of being overthrown entirely: Another colleague proclaimed that we are approaching “the church of global warming’s Galileo moment.”

Fine-sounding rhetoric — but all of it nonsense. In a new article published in the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, a group of scholars from Stanford University, the University of Toronto and elsewhere provide a statistical breakdown of the opinions of the world’s most prominent climate experts. Their conclusion: The group that is skeptical of the evidence of man-made global warming “comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers in the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups … This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that [about] 97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of [man-made global warming].”

How has this tiny 2-3% sliver of fringe opinion been reinvented as a perpetually “growing” share of the scientific community? Most climate-change deniers (or “skeptics,” or whatever term one prefers) tend to inhabit militantly right-wing blogs and other Internet echo chambers populated entirely by other deniers. In these electronic enclaves — where a smattering of citations to legitimate scientific authorities typically is larded up with heaps of add-on commentary from pundits, economists and YouTube jesters who haven’t any formal training in climate sciences — it becomes easy to swallow the fallacy that the whole world, including the respected scientific community, is jumping on the denier bandwagon.

This is a phenomenon that should worry not only environmentalists, but also conservatives themselves: The conviction that global warming is some sort of giant intellectual fraud now has become a leading bullet point within mainstream North American conservatism; and so has come to bathe the whole movement in its increasingly crankish, conspiratorial glow.

Conservatives often pride themselves on their hard-headed approach to public-policy — in contradistinction to liberals, who generally are typecast as fuzzy-headed utopians. Yet when it comes to climate change, many conservatives I know will assign credibility to any stray piece of junk science that lands in their inbox … so long as it happens to support their own desired conclusion. (One conservative columnist I know formed her skeptical views on global warming based on testimonials she heard from novelist Michael Crichton.) The result is farcical: Impressionable conservatives who lack the numeracy skills to perform long division or balance their checkbooks feel entitled to spew elaborate proofs purporting to demonstrate how global warming is in fact caused by sunspots or flatulent farm animals. Or they will go on at great length about how “climategate” has exposed the whole global-warming phenomenon as a charade — despite the fact that a subsequent investigation exculpated research investigators from the charge that they had suppressed temperature data. (In fact, “climategate” was overhyped from the beginning, since the scientific community always had other historical temperature data sets at its disposal — that maintained by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, most notably — entirely independent of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, where the controversy emerged.)

Let me be clear: Climate-change denialism does not comprise a conspiracy theory, per se: Those aforementioned 2% of eminent scientists prove as much. I personally know several denialists whom I generally consider to be intelligent and thoughtful. But the most militant denialists do share with conspiracists many of the same habits of mind. Oxford University scholar Steve Clarke and Brian Keeley of Washington University have defined conspiracy theories as those worldviews that trace important events to a secretive, nefarious cabal; and whose proponents consistently respond to contrary facts not by modifying their hypothesis, but instead by insisting on the existence of ever-wider circles of high-level conspirators controlling most or all parts of society. This describes, more or less, how radicalized warming deniers treat the subject of their obsession: They see global warming as a Luddite plot hatched by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and Al Gore to destroy industrial society. And whenever some politician, celebrity or international organization expresses support for the all-but-unanimous view of the world’s scientific community, they inevitably will respond with a variation of “Ah, so they’ve gotten to them, too.”

In support of this paranoid approach, the denialists typically will rely on stray bits of discordant information — an incorrect reference in a UN report, a suspicious-seeming “climategate” email, some hypocrisy or other from a bien-pensant NGO type — to argue that the whole theory is an intellectual house of cards. In these cases, one can’t help but be reminded of the folks who point out the fluttering American flag in the moon-landing photos, or the “umbrella man” from the Zapruder film of JFK’s assassination.

In part, blame for all this lies with the Internet, whose blog-from-the-hip ethos has convinced legions of pundits that their view on highly technical matters counts as much as peer-reviewed scientific literature. But there is something deeper at play, too — a basic psychological instinct that public-policy scholars refer to as the “cultural cognition thesis,” described in a recently published academic paper as the observed principle that “individuals tend to form perceptions of risk that reflect and reinforce one or another idealized vision of how society should be organized … Thus, generally speaking, persons who subscribe to individualistic values tend to dismiss claims of environmental risks, because acceptance of such claims implies the need to regulate markets, commerce and other outlets for individual strivings.”

In simpler words, too many of us treat science as subjective — something we customize to reduce cognitive dissonance between what we think and how we live.

In the case of global warming, this dissonance is especially traumatic for many conservatives, because they have based their whole worldview on the idea that unfettered capitalism — and the asphalt-paved, gas-guzzling consumer culture it has spawned — is synonymous with both personal fulfillment and human advancement. The global-warming hypothesis challenges that fundamental dogma, perhaps fatally.

The appropriate intellectual response to that challenge — finding a way to balance human consumption with responsible environmental stewardship — is complicated and difficult. It will require developing new technologies, balancing carbon-abatement programs against other (more cost-effective) life-saving projects such as disease-prevention, and — yes — possibly increasing the economic cost of carbon-fuel usage through some form of direct or indirect taxation. It is one of the most important debates of our time. Yet many conservatives have made themselves irrelevant in it by simply cupping their hands over their ears and screaming out imprecations against Al Gore.

Rants and slogans may help conservatives deal with the emotional problem of cognitive dissonance. But they aren’t the building blocks of a serious ideological movement. And the impulse toward denialism must be fought if conservatism is to prosper in a century when environmental issues will assume an ever greater profile on this increasingly hot, parched, crowded planet. Otherwise, the movement will come to be defined — and discredited — by its noisiest cranks and conspiracists.



Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...lity-to-the-conservative-cause/#ixzz0u8X8BKR0
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...lity-to-the-conservative-cause/#ixzz0u8Wg24q1

 

[sparkjumper]

You can fart into a bag,seal it up,and bury it deep.Methane is much worse than co2.I patented a cow fart sealing apparatus but was laughed out of the office.We will see who laughs last

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Converting the co2 & methane into liquid fuel makes more sense than burying it, though....
Doesn't it?

 

[GoatCheese]

Do you really imagine NASA scientists did not consider their own observations?
We've learned a lot of things in the 30+ years since 1978.

Have you bothered to look as deeply into the consensus science as you have into the space cloud theory?

..again ...NASA confirmed the existence of this cloud just few years ago, ok ..They say themselves that "the cloud shouldn't have even be there", but it was. so they didn't even know about it but just recently, but the existence of such cloud was calculated allready in the -70's
..the Climate studies on cosmic effects (based on computer models) are from earlier times than the confirmation of this cloud, and so they haven't taken the Local Fluff into account ...simply cause they didn't know it even existed!

Consensus = the loudest guys win (the loudest guys in this case are people who the establisment wants to promote).

..and NASA even itself says on the Fluff Cloud article that the cloud could effect planetary climate.