• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Not only are Humans causing the Earth to warm, but the moon also!!!!

Jack Hays said:
Just another wrong graph. Here's the corrected version.

My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion
bundestagFig2.jpg
Click to expand...

Even your doctored version shows the minimal effect of albedo change due to land use.
 
Jack Hays said:
If the IPCC is so wrong about solar forcing there's no reason to confident in their assessment of albedo change either.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that the IPCC reports are wrong about either solar forcing or albedo change. Unsubstantiated claims and doctored graphs are not evidence.

Not that of this has anything to do with the OP :roll:
 
Surface Detail said:
There is no evidence that the IPCC reports are wrong about either solar forcing or albedo change. Unsubstantiated claims and doctored graphs are not evidence.

Not that of this has anything to do with the OP :roll:
Click to expand...

My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]We know from the climate-gate e-mails that the hockey stick was an example of shady science. The medieval warm period and little ice ages were in fact global and real. And, although the IPCC will not admit so, we know that the sun has a large effect on climate, and on the 20th century warming in particular. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
bundestagFig1.jpg
[/FONT][/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]In the first slide we see one of the most important graphs that the IPCC is simply ignoring. Published already in 2008, you can see a very clear correlation between sea level change rate from tide gauges, and solar activity. This proves beyond any doubt that the sun has a large effect on climate. But it is ignored. . . .
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]The fact that the temperature over the past 20 years has risen significantly less than IPCC models, should raise a red flag that something is wrong with the standard picture. . . .

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Having said that, it is possible to actually model the climate system while including the heat capacity, namely diffusion of heat into and out of the oceans, and include the solar and anthropogenic forcings and find out that by introducing the the solar forcing, one can get a much better fit to the 20th century warming, in which the climate sensitivity is much smaller. (Typically 1°C per CO2 doubling compared with the IPCC's canonical range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling). [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You can read about it here: Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776 . . . [/FONT]
 
Surface Detail said:
Well, yes. That's why scientists factor the effect of changing albedo into their calculations:

Radiative-forcing-of-climate-bar-chart-showing-totals-for-1750-2011-RF-hatched-and.png


On Earth, though, the effect of changing albedo is minuscule compared to greenhouse forcing.
Click to expand...
Not only is it minuscule, it is the opposite of what was actually recorded on the moon,
See land use as a negative, if it were really negative then the ground where the probe in in the moon would have gotten colder.
 
Jack Hays said:
My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

[FONT="][I][FONT="]We know from the climate-gate e-mails that the hockey stick was an example of shady science. The medieval warm period and little ice ages were in fact global and real. And, although the IPCC will not admit so, we know that the sun has a large effect on climate, and on the 20th century warming in particular. [/FONT][/I][/FONT]
[FONT="][I][FONT="]
bundestagFig1.jpg
[/FONT][/I][/FONT]​
[FONT="][I][FONT="]In the first slide we see one of the most important graphs that the IPCC is simply ignoring. Published already in 2008, you can see a very clear correlation between sea level change rate from tide gauges, and solar activity. This proves beyond any doubt that the sun has a large effect on climate. But it is ignored. . . .
[/FONT][/I][/FONT][FONT="][I][FONT="]Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals.[/FONT][/I][/FONT][FONT="][I] [/I][/FONT][FONT="][FONT="]The fact that the temperature over the past 20 years has risen significantly less than IPCC models, should raise a red flag that something is wrong with the standard picture. . . .

[/FONT][/I][/FONT][FONT="]Having said that, it is possible to actually model the climate system while including the heat capacity, namely diffusion of heat into and out of the oceans, and include the solar and anthropogenic forcings and find out that by introducing the the solar forcing, one can get a much better fit to the 20th century warming, in which the climate sensitivity is much smaller. (Typically 1°C per CO2 doubling compared with the IPCC's canonical range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling). [/FONT][FONT="]You can read about it here: [URL="http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/20thCentury.pdf"]Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776[/URL] . . . [/FONT]
Click to expand...


Oh, FFS, Jack. Do you have to hijack every single thread with your copy-and-paste spam? This has nothing at all to so with the OP.
 
longview said:
Not only is it minuscule, it is the opposite of what was actually recorded on the moon,
See land use as a negative, if it were really negative then the ground where the probe in in the moon would have gotten colder.
Click to expand...

It is possible to increase as well as decrease the albedo of a surface!
 
Surface Detail said:
Oh, FFS, Jack. Do you have to hijack every single thread with your copy-and-paste spam? This has nothing at all to so with the OP.
Click to expand...

You're the one who wrote: "There is no evidence that the IPCC reports are wrong about either solar forcing or albedo change."

Don't whine when your assertion is refuted.
 
Surface Detail said:
It is possible to increase as well as decrease the albedo of a surface!
Click to expand...
Yes, but the magnitude of the changes on the moon were quite large, for such a minor change in albedo.
 
longview said:
Yes, but the magnitude of the changes on the moon were quite large, for such a minor change in albedo.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can make a direct comparison, given the utterly different conditions on the surface of the moon and the Earth. In addition, we're talking about an extremely localised effect here, rather than the moon as a whole. As I mentioned, changes in the Earth's albedo are indeed considered when looking at the radiation balance on the Earth.
 
Surface Detail said:
I don't think you can make a direct comparison, given the utterly different conditions on the surface of the moon and the Earth. In addition, we're talking about an extremely localised effect here, rather than the moon as a whole. As I mentioned, changes in the Earth's albedo are indeed considered when looking at the radiation balance on the Earth.
Click to expand...
Remember that the imbalance is compared to the earth with a transparent atmosphere, that comes close to describing the moon.
roughly the same solar energy, but no atmosphere.
 
longview said:
Error - Cookies Turned Off
It seems that probes left by the Apollo Missions, drilled down several feet into the lunar surface
recorded warming, in the 1970's.
Click to expand...

So, the takeaway here is that you believe the liberal argument here is “humans are responsible for everything in the universe.”

I just want to clarify your position before I start laughing uncontrollably at your expense.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Eh??

How does the fact that the Moon warmed up more during the period when earth had a bit of a warming not show that it was not a factor on earth that caused a lot of the warming?
Click to expand...
That’s not how it works. You need to show how the two could possibly be linked, and how such a tiny sample of data could possibly be conclusive of anything.
 
longview said:
Yes, but the magnitude of the changes on the moon were quite large, for such a minor change in albedo.
Click to expand...

To be expected, in a vacuum.
 
Deuce said:
So, the takeaway here is that you believe the liberal argument here is “humans are responsible for everything in the universe.”

I just want to clarify your position before I start laughing uncontrollably at your expense.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I originally thought the thread was meant to be a bit a light-hearted banter and not to be taken seriously. I really didn't think that anyone would be daft enough to believe that the paper had any relevance whatsoever to climate change. It was both surprising and amusing to see that the usual suspects really are incapable of understanding and discussing a relatively simple scientific paper!
 
Deuce said:
That’s not how it works. You need to show how the two could possibly be linked, and how such a tiny sample of data could possibly be conclusive of anything.
Click to expand...

The link is, or is higly likely to be, the sun.

That the output from the sun increased causing the warming of both earth and the moon.

Just because you only have one data point does not allow you to discount it. You should not deny the science, you should not deny the evidence.
 
Deuce said:
To be expected, in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

Why?

Why would the lack of an atmosphere make such changes larger?

I also can't see some foot prints making such a massive difference to albedo. They did not uncover material of different color or anything.
 
Tim the plumber said:

The link is, or is higly likely to be, the sun.

That the output from the sun increased causing the warming of both earth and the moon.

Just because you only have one data point does not allow you to discount it. You should not deny the science, you should not deny the evidence.
Click to expand...

Read the paper. It's not just the warming; it's the pattern of warming at different depths. As the authors show, this is consistent with sudden warming of the surface at the time of probe deployment. It's difficult to imagine what could have caused this other than the actions of the astronauts themselves.

Also, the same pattern of warming (initially rapid, more rapid closer to the surface, gradually slowing) was seen for probes deployed on different dates, by Apollo 15 and Apollo 17. This alone pretty much rules out the possibility of any external influence.
 
Deuce said:
So, the takeaway here is that you believe the liberal argument here is “humans are responsible for everything in the universe.”

I just want to clarify your position before I start laughing uncontrollably at your expense.
Click to expand...
Not at all, the point is that we do not understand all the energy pathways in an out of a planet.
The data shows the moon warmed to a depth of 2 meters between 1971 and 1977 at several different sites. (4 probes, 2 sites).
The papers authors put forward a theory for the cause of the warming, as footsteps in the lunar surface,
changing the albedo.
 
Buzz said:
Ummm... wasn't the sun's irradiance on the decline for most of the years this test was done?

The reconstructions of historical total solar irradiance shown in Fig.... | Download Scientific Diagram
Click to expand...

If you read the associated paper, you see that the black line is observations from satellite and don't start till 1979. Prior numbers are from surface based observations, and get lower as the aerosols in the atmosphere get higher.

Were cars and factories affecting the moon also?

As for the general down slope in that period we don't know what the thermal inertia of the moon is. The subsurface heat signal might lag by over 90 degrees. It might also be immune from the 11 year cycle. That is a great deal of mass and the 11 year cycle might be completely smoothed out. The bottom line is, we really do not know.

I found that the precession is only 1.5 degrees for the 18.6 year cycle, so it would be little influence too. Still, the albedo change through a part of the 1.5 angle difference night explain it.

Again, we really don't know why we had such data., It's only speculation, and to assume the sun had no effect is denying science.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
If you read the associated paper, you see that the black line is observations from satellite and don't start till 1979. Prior numbers are from surface based observations, and get lower as the aerosols in the atmosphere get higher.

Were cars and factories affecting the moon also?

As for the general down slope in that period we don't know what the thermal inertia of the moon is. The subsurface heat signal might lag by over 90 degrees. It might also be immune from the 11 year cycle. That is a great deal of mass and the 11 year cycle might be completely smoothed out. The bottom line is, we really do not know.

I found that the precession is only 1.5 degrees for the 18.6 year cycle, so it would be little influence too. Still, the albedo change through a part of the 1.5 angle difference night explain it.

Again, we really don't know why we had such data., It's only speculation, and to assume the sun had no effect is denying science.
Click to expand...

The only one denying science is you. As I mentioned earlier, and you seem determined to ignore, the probes show similar temperature curves relative to when they were put in place. And they were put in place at different times. This alone rules out solar effects as the primary cause of the temperature change.

The derivation of theories from evidence is science, not speculation. Please try to learn the difference.
 
Surface Detail said:
The only one denying science is you. As I mentioned earlier, and you seem determined to ignore, the probes show similar temperature curves relative to when they were put in place. And they were put in place at different times. This alone rules out solar effects as the primary cause of the temperature change.

The derivation of theories from evidence is science, not speculation. Please try to learn the difference.
Click to expand...

I have been thinking.

The idea that a few foot prints would cause a large change in albedo seems unlikely to me. But the idea that the moon regulith was compacted by the astronauts and has since been shaken back to its' normal loose state by the moon quakes works.

Is that an idea that they have worked through?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom