• 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!!!!

longview

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
44,721
Reaction score
14,479
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Man-made warming – on the moon![/h][FONT=&quot]WUWT reader “ES” writes: It is not bad enough we have global warning but, now we have warming on the moon. “increased from 1.6 C to 3.5 C over the roughly six-year period measurements were being taken.” Astronauts’ movement increased subsurface temperatures on the moon, study finds. The presence of astronauts on the moon caused…
[/FONT]
June 12, 2018 in Climate News.
 
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...

Page 1135;

It seems that the temperature increased by 1.9c between 1971 and 1977. Although I am not that confident of my ability to keep up with the paper in a skim reading.

But that is much faster than anywhere on earth. Why has the Moon not melted yet????
 
Tim the plumber said:
Page 1135;

It seems that the temperature increased by 1.9c between 1971 and 1977. Although I am not that confident of my ability to keep up with the paper in a skim reading.

But that is much faster than anywhere on earth. Why has the Moon not melted yet????
Click to expand...

As scientific papers go, it's quite a straightforward read. Interesting, but obviously of no relevance to Earth's climate.
 
We should send Greta, Al Gore and Extinction Rebellion to the Moon so they can all complain over there. :2razz:
 
Surface Detail said:
As scientific papers go, it's quite a straightforward read. Interesting, but obviously of no relevance to Earth's climate.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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...

Interesting.

What ever is causing it, the earth is most likely doing warming by about the same forcing agent.
 
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...

He is proving to us once again that he is a denier of science.
 
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...

Oh, for Heaven's sake, read the paper! It's not that hard to understand.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Then please enlighten us as to what you see that we don't.
Click to expand...

It's a really simple paper. How can you not understand it? :(

To summarise:

Probes that had been inserted by Apollo astronauts into the lunar surface indicated a short period of warming of the lunar regolith (soil) after the astronauts had left. Analysis of the temperature changes suggested that the most likely reason for this warming was a reduction in the albedo of the surface above the probes due to disturbance of the regolith by the astronauts themselves. This caused more solar radiation to be absorbed, thus warming the local regolith.

In short, the warming was caused by the astronauts themselves, not by any external factor.

That's why it has nothing at all to do with terrestrial warming.
 
Last edited:
Surface Detail said:
It's a really simple paper. How can you not understand it? :(

To summarise:

Probes that had been inserted by Apollo astronauts into the lunar surface indicated a short period of warming of the lunar regolith (soil) after the astronauts had left. Analysis of the temperature changes suggested that the most likely reason for this warming was a reduction in the albedo of the surface above the probes due to disturbance of the regolith by the astronauts themselves. This caused more solar radiation to be absorbed, thus warming the local regolith.

In short, the warming was caused by the astronauts themselves, not by any external factor.

That's why it has nothing at all to do with terrestrial warming.
Click to expand...

Try separating the data from the supposition.
The data is that the soil several feet down warmed quite a bit in a few years,
The supposition, was that the warming was caused by the changes in albedo, from the astronauts footprints.
While this is a plausible theory, it is just that, a theory!
 
Surface Detail said:
It's a really simple paper. How can you not understand it? :(

To summarise:

Probes that had been inserted by Apollo astronauts into the lunar surface indicated a short period of warming of the lunar regolith (soil) after the astronauts had left. Analysis of the temperature changes suggested that the most likely reason for this warming was a reduction in the albedo of the surface above the probes due to disturbance of the regolith by the astronauts themselves. This caused more solar radiation to be absorbed, thus warming the local regolith.

In short, the warming was caused by the astronauts themselves, not by any external factor.

That's why it nothing at all to do with terrestrial warming.
Click to expand...

That doesn't work. They rationalized reasons why there may have been an increase, completely ignoring the solar changes. The math they used showed just less than a 0.05 albedo decrease could do it, but the 0.05 would have to be for a huge area around the bore site.

They rationalized:

albedo
precession
Radiation from earth
direct radiation down the borehole.

The did not even entertain the notion of solar changes.

In reality, I suspect it was a combination of the moons precession and solar changes. It was just a few years of data they have, so we really cannot distinguish a pattern.

But do you realize how laughable it is for you to champion the albedo idea, when every time I bring it up for ice melting you deny the idea?

Does your likeness accompany the definition of hypocrisy?
 
longview said:
Try separating the data from the supposition.
The data is that the soil several feet down warmed quite a bit in a few years,
The supposition, was that the warming was caused by the changes in albedo, from the astronauts footprints.
While this is a plausible theory, it is just that, a theory!
Click to expand...

Relativity and evolution are also plausible theories. They are the theories that best fit the available evidence, so we assume that they are true unless and until another theory is formulated that is a better fit to the evidence.

In this instance, the authors of the paper determined that changes to the local albedo due to disturbance of the surface was the theory that best explained the observed subsurface temperature rise. That's what the paper is about. It gives the reasoning and calculations that led them to this conclusion. And that will remain the accepted explanation unless and until someone else can formulate a theory that is a better fit to the evidence.
 
Surface Detail said:
Relativity and evolution are also plausible theories. They are the theories that best fit the available evidence, so we assume that they are true unless and until another theory is formulated that is a better fit to the evidence.

In this instance, the authors of the paper determined that changes to the local albedo due to disturbance of the surface was the theory that best explained the observed subsurface temperature rise. That's what the paper is about. It gives the reasoning and calculations that led them to this conclusion. And that will remain the accepted explanation unless and until someone else can formulate a theory that is a better fit to the evidence.
Click to expand...
As I said plausible, but still a theory, it could also be the probe itself conducting heat, or changes in the solar spectra
at ranges that we can not observe, or a combination of all of the above.
One winter fishing technique I have used is to look for the rocks in cold sunny weather.
The rocks transfer the heat down into the water faster supposedly, but the fish do seem to bite better near the rocks.
 
longview said:
As I said plausible, but still a theory, it could also be the probe itself conducting heat, or changes in the solar spectra
at ranges that we can not observe, or a combination of all of the above.
One winter fishing technique I have used is to look for the rocks in cold sunny weather.
The rocks transfer the heat down into the water faster supposedly, but the fish do seem to bite better near the rocks.
Click to expand...

There is a general principle in science known as Occam's Razor, which basically states that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is usually the correct one. In this case, the authors noted the change in the albedo of the surface and calculated that this would be consistent with the measured temperatures. The simplest explanation that fits the evidence is therefore that the change in surface albedo due to the actions of the astronauts is the reason for the change.

There is no need to go searching for other, more esoteric, explanations when you already have a simple one that fits the observations! There is a small possibility, of course, that there is some other explanation, but until someone can demonstrate another explanation that better fits the facts, the one presented in the paper remains the most likely one.

Note also that it is nonsensical to level "still a theory" as a criticism. The entire edifice of science is build on ideas that are "still a theory", such as general relativity, the electromagnetic theory of light and quantum theory. Theories are the building blocks of science.
 
Surface Detail said:
There is a general principle in science known as Occam's Razor, which basically states that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is usually the correct one. In this case, the authors noted the change in the albedo of the surface and calculated that this would be consistent with the measured temperatures. The simplest explanation that fits the evidence is therefore that the change in surface albedo due to the actions of the astronauts is the reason for the change.

There is no need to go searching for other, more esoteric, explanations when you already have a simple one that fits the observations! There is a small possibility, of course, that there is some other explanation, but until someone can demonstrate another explanation that better fits the facts, the one presented in the paper remains the most likely one.

Note also that it is nonsensical to level "still a theory" as a criticism. The entire edifice of science is build on ideas that are "still a theory", such as general relativity, the electromagnetic theory of light and quantum theory. Theories are the building blocks of science.
Click to expand...
If the subtle changes in albedo on the surface of the moon, had such a dramatic effect on the ground temperature,
then perhaps all of our land use changes on the earth could also be responsible for some of the observed warming.
Think about all the forests cut down, the buildings, roads, parking lots, ect, ect, ect, added over the last 40 years.
If a few foot prints cause such a massive temperature swing in a few years on the moon, then why not on the earth?
 
longview said:
If the subtle changes in albedo on the surface of the moon, had such a dramatic effect on the ground temperature,
then perhaps all of our land use changes on the earth could also be responsible for some of the observed warming.
Think about all the forests cut down, the buildings, roads, parking lots, ect, ect, ect, added over the last 40 years.
If a few foot prints cause such a massive temperature swing in a few years on the moon, then why not on the earth?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom