[Indeed it has had very consistent storm patterns in the PAST, rings of weather and the famous red spot]. WHY would there not be Alien Life on other planets. Summer is coming to Neptune’s southern hemisphere, bringing more sunlight, as it does every 164 years. I'm just curious if our temperature changes might be related to the position of our solar system withon the galaxy, just as seasons temperatures can change based on our position around our sun. What the Energy Cycles Of Other Planets Can Tell Us About Climate Change On Earth Categories: Climate Feature Stories By Megan Gannon - Oct 27, 2017 Theories for the creation of the Local Cloud suggest that the magnetic fields are strong, of the order of 4–7 mG.". And yet here we are, with another type of "skeptic," who asserts that other planets phenomena, whose frequency is completely unknown to us, must be due to a warming climate. . IBEX has been directly sampling neutral helium atoms from the interstellar cloud as part of its mission to map the boundary between the solar system and the rest of the galaxy. All of it. It would be a suitable place for life if it were not so cold: its surface is at a freezing -180 °C. Likewise if it's been out of the oven for 30 minutes and you do want it a little warmer, you don't have to cook it for an hour again, starting from scratch. Falsified every textbook you had on the subject - so of course it is unimportant to you, you still use them. A multitude of weather phenomena have become observable on other planets only because we have recently acquired the means to observe them. But if the sun’s output has levelled off or even diminished, then what is causing other planets to warm up? What do we do to achieve the least expensive means to accomplish this? What can we do to achieve some concensus? But let's skip your analogy and use the real Earth. You have any reference defending that idea? There is absolutely no way of telling whether these phenomena happened regularly before or not. I would also like to see an equally serious reference as to why any weather event on a planet whose climate has not been oberved through a full orbit can be ascribed to a "warming climate.". What do we do to achieve the least expensive means to accomplish this? I also have another source, please check it out: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24153-solar-system-caught-in-an-interstellar-tempest/ highlights: "The solar system is travelling through much stormier skies than we thought, and might even be about to pop out of the huge gas cloud we have been gliding through for at least 45,000 years. If Venus ever had any oceans, they dried up long ago. ESA's missions to Venus, Mars and Saturn's moon Titan will soon provide useful information to understand how our own planet's climate is regulated. I'm sorry but that's not convincing. Unfortunately for Joseph (and Jacksan), Opher et al make no claim that "the Solar System has begun to pass into" the magnetic field. Always guessing, always adjusting, always trying to save face for ones' ego. I would also like to see some scientific reference explaining why it is reasonable to assume that we can detect a climate change on a planet whose climate is barely hypothesized. This is place for discussion of the science and you cannot hope to make some useful criticism of science without spending some effort actually understanding it. Not to worry, for Jacksan has additional evidence. "It's like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun.". This argument is part of a greater one that other planets are warming. - (source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-e-joseph/passing-into-the-energy-c_b_405086.html ). Pluto’s seasons are the least understood of all: its existence has only been known for a third of its 248 -year orbit, and it has never been visited by a space probe. Just as those connections exist between the planet and moon - they exist between the sun and the planets. “Many of the same tools we use to model climate change on Earth can be adapted to study climates on other planets, both past and present,” said Michael Way, a researcher at GISS and the paper’s lead author. Do you realize you're even arguing against yourself? Every single atmosphereic scientist in the world was stunned by what they found, yet you discount this newly discovered source of energy as unimportat????? Things could be more delicate than most of us realize.So, if the Sun has such a major impact on the Earth's weather, how much more does our own galactic weather have on our Sun and it's solar system? Note, further that this energy is not new energy. As a complete contrast to Venus, there is Mars. ScientiFix Can bacteria ‘migrate’ to other planets & survive? The information they collect is used for long-term weather forecasting and climate change studies. ESA's Venus Express mission, due for launch in 2005, will try to find out why is there so much carbon dioxide in the Venusian atmosphere and what made Venus evolve so differently from Earth. [PS] This is getting repetitive and you have failed to answer points made about your previous post. With a lot more satellite use since the height of the previous solar cycle, NASA was warning of potential problems from the coming cycle. THINK positively, and critically! For Mars, Jupiter and other planets going outward from the Sun, 30 orbits translates into respectively 56, 356, 884, 2522, 4947 and 7435 years. It really is that simple. Worse, this is not newly discovered energy. The Earth's climate seems to be changing much more quickly than it used to do. Other Planets Influence Earth's Climate, University Of Toronto Scientist Says. You make no logical case at all against that idea, you don't even try and just hand wave. and your link is actually mashing four different phenomenon and three separate issues rolled into the one account. Heating attributed to other solar bodies remains unproven. (Ian McClintock). Take a brisket and put it in your oven, setting the oven at 175 degrees Fahrenheit. Life on Earth would disappear due to the extreme temperatures long before reaching even half of the concentrations of carbon dioxide on Venus. Then refrain from typing for awhile, ponder, and read it again. I tried your link, it didn't load for me; I couldnt' evaluate whether they cited any scientific work and how faithful to the original content it was. To any respondents, please likewise follow those guidelines before discussion goes west and I have to start deleting comments. Carefully. Even the error term of that calculation is 1400 times greater than the "new" energy to which you point. Jupiter. What could have triggered such a huge change in climate? Additionally, I have checked with the external references cited in the author’s piece. Extra milliWatts can be safely ignored. Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune, Pluto, and others share the fate of Earth. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20080103_prt.htm. No thermodynamics problem there? In his Huffington Post article, Joseph cites M Opher as claiming that "that the Solar System has begun to pass into" a magnetic field that is "at least twice as strong as had previously been predicted". How does that make any sense? Right now we can only detect earth's solar connection. Remember the phrase “There's always one” and with scientists that is certainly the case.) Response to sjw40364 from inappropriate thread: I looked at all the links provided, and not a single one of them alludes to a warming of the climate of the planets mentioned. According to NASA, the Themis spacecraft have "... made three important discoveries about spectacular eruptions of Northern Lights called "substorms" and the source of their power" (emphasis added). He finds room to quote "The fact that the wind is shifting over the span of mere decades means that the interior of the cloud is either unusually turbulent, or that the solar system is a mere 1000 or so years away from punching its way out" but not to quote the actual scale of the shift: "But then NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX), launched in 2009, revealed something odd: the wind has changed direction. That Jupiter lost an entire band - and if we are not talking climate - not just on small scales but ones that have lasted just how many years? The ‘evidence’ for climate change consists of just two observations made in 1988 and 2002. Sunlight at Pluto is 900 times weaker than it is at the Earth. Why then are we so arrogant as to think there is not an elite in science as there is in sport and that cobbled together misquotation is a genuine substitute for scientific expertise? Opher et al (2009) find that "We find that the field strength in the local interstellar medium is 3.7–5.5 μG", which is more than twice the previous estimates mentioned in the paper of 1.8-2.5 μG. But simultaneously, as the Earth's temperature increases, the Earth emits more energy to space. That seems to be in the same category as the recently discussed profession of "IR astronomer." Then attempt to quantify what effect that amount of energy would have on the small rocky planet, 300 times less massive and much closer to the star. All these debates prove one thing— lack of concensus and that scientists are not gods afterall. Tom Dayton, First I'll acknowledge that this is a simplistic analogy. Pluto: the warming exhibited by Pluto is not really understood. All the outer planets have vastly longer orbital periods than Earth, so any climate change on them may be seasonal. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter. We are not even fully understanding weather events happening on these planets. Last updated on 15 September 2010 by gpwayne. have damaged our ecosystems - just a debate over the degree to which we have damaged things. Other ropes quickly followed: "They seem to occur all the time," says Sibeck.". Something is clearly wrong in the "skeptic" camp. The next solar cycle did not start until 2010, the maximum until 2014, and it was the lowest maximum since 1958 (and probably since the early 20th century): Jacksan recommends that we should "Question everything and always do your own research and take your own conclusions." However, I think that it is crucial to taken into account the atmospheric conditions as well as the orbital eccentricity of each respective planet as these can vary greatly so we cannot use these planets as exact analogues for Earth to explain our temperatures. Crops will be rotated and adjusted as mother nature has always done, and not all crops will be lost (unless pollinators continue to decline), we will make adjustments to planting seasons as man has for thousands of years. Wow! That doesn't mean it met its equilirial temperature for that heightened state of solar activity. Since our solar system is roughly 25,000 light years from the galactic center, then our solar system would need to travel around 20,000 light years to get into the more densely-starred inner regions, where, let us suppose [though it isn't] the background radiation level is the equivalent of 1 degree hotter (i.e. mkuske, please do not refresh the page after submitting a comment. The findings, published this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, were obtained with a model similar to the type used to predict future climate change on Earth. THIS IS THE PROBLEM Science has taken a knee to politicians and federally funded scientists. There is no doubt that human industry, war, nuclear testing, pollution, deforestation, etc. That makes the rate of temperature increase slow down. . That indicates a change in wind direction of about 6 degrees in only 40 years.". Venus will help us understand what happens when the greenhouse effect is really extreme. THey are just models to help us understand what is going on. The later, at least, is true. Eventually you could, I guess, but the barrage of stones required would be quite interesting. We can measure the various activities of the sun pretty accurately from here on Earth, or from orbit above it, so it is hard to ignore the discrepancy between the facts and the sceptical argument that the sun is causing the rise in temperatures. Make up your minds please. Consequently the situation is that water was found by the first observing platform that was capable of doing so. The original researchers have only created models in predicting a potential increase in temperature on Jupiter as a result of the whirlpool and sunspot activity on this planet. ; "In fact, most scientists had either minimized the possible significance of the interstellar energy cloud or dismissed the whole notion of its existence altogether. We will learn a final lesson and go on with life. Does it snow on other planets? Enter a term in the search box to find its definition. The only other planet showing any sort of climate change at the moment is Jupiter, where the giant red spot has changed recently. The interesting part is...its also changing in all the other planets. ), yet, some of you would have the world accept AGW as solid science and irrefutable. That in turn is an overestimate of the forcing as approximately only 10% of energy transfered to the thermosphere (let alone the ionosphere) makes it to the lower atmosphere, the rest being radiated to space. Use the search engine. It seems more realistic, and cheaper, to minimize losses to property and life by removing some existing development and prohibiting further development in sensitive area, continue to put more research into green technologies and water conversion and delivery methods to live more sustainably. So I conclude that on all three issues mentioned by your link, there is nothing that requires fresh investigations. The connection you form is of the nature of a leap of faith. I found this claim very interesting and I was intrigued how this claim could support the idea that climate change in natural and not caused by anthropogenic factors. . But pretending 15 hours or less of internet searches (or even a year of internet searches) is some kind of substitute for those hard yards is arrogant nonsense. If you discover something just because you started looking, that thing was probably happening all along. How does one do that here. Your reasoning is shown to consist of taking some unanalyzed (by you) data from the news and simply assume that it automatically applies in support of your theory (without analysis) and that it is very significant (again without analysis and in very stark contradiction to the facts). Please provide scientific references explaining specifically what are flux ropes. Watch your tone and no accusations of fraud. The greenhouse effect is so called because the certain gases in Earth’s atmosphere act like the glass in a greenhouse. It is also very new science (as written it had yet to pass peer review and I see no sign of publication today) so should not be accepted from what is just one 'paper in submission'. That's old news and there is a number of threads exploring the question on this site. - "On Christmas Eve, 2009, the startling hypothesis that our Solar System, the Sun and all its planets, are moving into a potentially dangerous and destabilizing interstellar energy cloud, was resoundingly sustained." It's reasonable to hypothesize that galactic weather could have a much greater effect on the solar system, as a whole, during certain galactic weather events. As for Earth -- and the rest of the solar system -- because of the extended Solar Grand Maximum, the Earth has been in the "oven" and constantly asborbing a hightened level of radiation for an extended period of time (since approximately 1900). What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system What The Science Says: Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly. http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Global-temps.png. It has stored some of that heat radiation and gets to temperature much more quickly. "It was very large, about as wide as Earth, and located approximately 40,000 miles above Earth's surface in a region called the magnetopause." So those who claim to follow science are going to contiinue to ignore that during the same time frame that the earth became warmer - the Winds of venus increased - over the entire timeframe that the mission proceeded. It has no significant bearing on the (already known) existence of and scale of the energy transfer. That is because heat introduces turbulence that decreases the velocity of the wind. You select snippets from news stories, fail to look into their true significance, and automatically assume that they support your theory, while said theory is itself ill defined and rather free of constraints from basic physics. Its readings show that, instead of Earth passing through the sun’s helium tail in late November, the peak came about a week late, in early December. University Of Toronto. . "; "The fact that the wind is shifting over the span of mere decades means that the interior of the cloud is either unusually turbulent, or that the solar system is a mere 1000 or so years away from punching its way out. That Mars warmed up during this same time frame so that we can now oberve the effects of liquid water on its surface? I heartilly recommend to as many people as possible that they do do the hard yards to become genuine scientists. However, these atmospheric gases trap some of the outgoing energy, and it is retained as heat. So, overall, the "rubber-band" oscillation of our solar system within the galaxy . The temperature of the brisket will have continued to rise! In particular: Provide a source for your "flux ropes". That's worth somewhere between a rabitt's fart and a mouse turd on the scale of reality based understanding. If you expect anyone to take this seriously then please present evidence of other heating sources that represent even a 1/10th of extra heating provided by increased GHG (ie 4W/m2). Can climate change lead us to life on other planets? That would be a grave situation — indeed, a situation of extreme gravity! Consequently there is no basis from this data to conclude that changes in the solar wind are warming or cooling the Earth. That's approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake.". Be sure to read the Basic tabbed pane, then the Intermediate one, then the Advanced one. Now put the brisket back on the oven and lower the oven's temperature slightly to 325 degrees Fahrenhiet for a half hour. The 2009 NASA article to which you refer merely discusses improved understanding on what modulates that energy transfer. Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson offered an outta this world solution on Sunday to the planet's environmental crises. There is a right answer. Only Pluto and Neptune are exhibiting increased brightness. (For comparison, the Earth's magnetic field at the surface is 250,000 to 650,000 μG, and the Interplanatery Magnetic Field at Earth's orbit is 10 μG.) Please use this form to let us know about suggested updates to this rebuttal. A body of knowledge with which you have confessed lack of familiarity. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/whycassini/cassini20110420.html. I am straining how you can give the appearance of being rational and acknowledge your superficial understanding of a scientific subject matter while at the same throwing out an opinion that dismisses an entire body of knowledge as, also, mere opinion.