Extraterrestrial Global Warming

People send me stuff. Alan Siddons writes in an email:

Researching for a paper that Martin Hertzberg, Hans Schreuder and I are writing, I chanced upon a chart that might intrigue or amuse you.

After temperature sensors were planted on the moon, you see, they reported an upward trend year after year. Too much CO2 up there?

Source: http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/docs/2650.pdf


Interesting find Alan.

Of course this is old data. Apollo 15 landed in summer 1971, so this graph extends to summer 1975. Curious though, what could be the cause? Solar? Sensor Drift? LEM and remnants providing a local energy absorbing MHI of some sorts? Disturbed soil making an albedo change? Or maybe it was the SUV they abandoned on the moon? We’ll probably never know for sure.

File:40 A15Sta8.jpg

Size of this preview: 800 × 160 pixels

Full resolution‎ (2,000 × 400 pixels, file size: 132 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

But there’s other extraterrestrial places that have hints of warming as well.

The Blog Prof writes:

Apparently, man-made global warming has gotten so out of hand because of SUVs and coal-chugging global warming skeptics that even the biggest planet in our solar system – Jupiter – is being affected by our addiction to carbon pollution. And that follows the other solar effects of our dependence on fossil fuels, including Mars losing its polar ice cap (what will Martian polar bears do now?), Neptune changing its reflectivity, Neptune’s moon Triton increasing in temperature by a whopping 5% due to the American energy-intensive lifestyle, and Pluto’s atmospheric pressure tripling due to higher temperatures because of Bushitler. From Yahoo! News via American Thinker: Jupiter Has Lost a Cloud Stripe, New Photos Reveal

This story was updated at 8:10 a.m. ET. A giant cloud belt in the southern half of Jupiter has apparently disappeared according to new photos of the planet taken by amateur astronomers.

The new Jupiter photos, taken May 9 by Australian astronomer Anthony Wesley, reveal that the huge reddish band of clouds that make up the planet’s Southern Equatorial Belt has faded from view.

Here’s the relevant pic:

Jupiter’s trademark Great Red Spot, a massive storm that could fit two Earths inside, is typically found along the edges of the planet’s Southern Equatorial Belt (SEB).  When the southern cloud belt fades from view, the Great Red Spot stands out along with Jupiter’s Northern Equatorial Belt of clouds in telescope views.


Change is in the air (or in space if you prefer).

More here at the Blog Prof

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 16, 2010 12:26 am

Obviously, Bush’s fault 😉

May 16, 2010 12:36 am

Sorry Triton, I know it’s because I eat cheeseburgers; all those cows.

May 16, 2010 12:39 am

Eeoww! If it turns out the sun changes those belts….

May 16, 2010 12:45 am

But, but, but… Solar Irradiation is totally static and never changes except the 11-year teeny tiny bump, the satellites say so, absolutely invariant. Now how can all of these hevenly bodies get warmer when the sun never changes? Believe me, some climatologist will take a grant to explain how and why. 🙁
Just ignore your eyes and common sense and trust their scientific peer-reviewed papers and drink if your that gullible.

Larry Fields
May 16, 2010 12:49 am

My basic question of the day: What does the putative ‘atmospheric temperature’ of the Moon at a specific location at a given time mean?
“The Moon has an atmosphere so tenuous as to be nearly vacuum, with a total mass of less than 10 metric tons.[73] The surface pressure of this small mass is around 3 × 10−15 atm (0.3 nPa); it varies with the lunar day. Its sources include outgassing and sputtering, the release of atoms from the bombardment of lunar soil by solar wind ions.”
With an atmosphere that thin, is it even possible to measure atmospheric temperature? Wouldn’t the IR ‘noise’ from the lunar surface–not to mention the sun–completely swamp any atmospheric temperature ‘signal’ that one attempted to read?

Arizona CJ
May 16, 2010 12:52 am

In all seriousness, that Apollo data might be very relevant; its timeframe covers the beginning of the claimed AGW upswing. That does make it look like the the causation is solar, with the Martian data as confirmation. Thanks for posting this!
There was an deeper subsurface temp sensor on the Apollo 17 ALSEP, 2.3 meters. according to http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2010/pdf/1353.pdf the same long-term warming was seen as on Apollo 15’s site. However, i can’t find the actual data. I also can’t seem to find how long the Apollo 17 data spanned.
There was a similar experiment in Apollo 16, but it failed due to a broken cable.
The siting was well away (several hundred feet) from the LEM for Apollo 15 and 17, so I can’t see that having much effect.
There is an 18 year cycle to the Moon’s orbit that is theorized to be one explanation, but if the Apollo 17 data covers a different timeslice, it should be possible to see if its temp rise profile matches what the 18 year cycle would theoretically produce.

Doug in Seattle
May 16, 2010 1:06 am

AGW theory is robust enough to encompass all warming events regardless of whether they are on earth.

May 16, 2010 2:03 am

It truly is worse than we thought. LOL!!

Mike McMillan
May 16, 2010 2:06 am

Jupiter’s southern belt has been fading for a while now. I think it finally disappeared while the planet was behind the sun (the night side). There are no polar bears on Mars, by the way. You’ve got them confused with penguins.
Any word on the runaway green house effect on Mars? Its CO2 percentage is about the same as on Venus. We have some temperature data for the planet, and I wonder if it might be useful as a “rural” station to help homogenize the average earth temperature, accounting for UHIP. We shall have to consult with Dr Hansen.
(For those of you with Google Earth, atop the page there’s a Saturn icon. If you click it, you can google Mars or the Moon.)

May 16, 2010 2:14 am

Hmm.. whats common about the heating systems of the Earth and the Moon. Could it possibly be the sun? Perish the thought. Some could be tempted to think if the Moon, without an atmosphere, were getting hotter, maybe the sun’s radiation was the cause. Could the moon’s temperature serve as a proxy for the the suns radiance? Could it be more accurate than tree rings?
But we all know that the warming on Earth has been caused by our cars and lawn mowers. How do we know? Al Gore, Hansen and Michael Mann tell us so.

May 16, 2010 2:20 am

how much will it cost to save the moon ?

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
May 16, 2010 2:44 am

OT – ‘grey literature’ is all okay to use in support of man-made global warming! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/7725266/Climate-body-chief-defends-use-of-grey-literature.html

Douglas Cohen
May 16, 2010 2:47 am

The decrease in Mar’s south polar cap may reflect a change in the planet’s climate, because it has continued over three Martian “summers”, but changes observed in the planets and moons further from the sun may be seasonal. These orbits of these bodies around the sun take a long time to repeat, a time longer than the time over which changes have been observed. One article on Jupiter’s band loss states, for example, that Jupiter seems to lose this band every ten or fifteen years, which very roughly matches the period of Jupiter’s orbit. (Jupiter takes about 12 years to go once around the sun)

Xi Chin
May 16, 2010 2:54 am

There is a faulty logic in presenting this info. Just because planet xyz has an increasing temperature, which is clearly not caused by human activities, does not mean that human activities do not cause temperature rises on planet Earth.
The extraterrestial info is a bit irrelevent since we alread know from the paleo record that the temperature of planet Earth can change without human influences. But that also suffers, because just because it did change without humans, does not mean that humans can’t change it.
It clear however, that there is very little, if any, evidence that humans have actually caused any detectable change to the climate. Yes, there are changes that have occurred coincidentally with the existence of industrialisation, but those changes cannot be attributed to industrialisation as opposed to “natural, internal forcings/fluctiations of a dynamic chaotic system” which would have occurred anyway.

May 16, 2010 3:09 am

Oh no! Europa’s melting! It’s all those nasty rocket exhaust gases put up their by NASA!

May 16, 2010 3:28 am

It’s gotta be something other than the sun:
Sunspot number was going down over that short period, so solar irradiance was probably declining, too. And remember that the moon has no atmosphere, or next to none, so the amount of radiation it receives pretty much determines the temperature.

Typical Climate Scientist
May 16, 2010 3:43 am

Look, it’s all TOTAL coincidence that all these other planets and moons are showing warming right now. After all… erm… the vast majority of scientits (was that a spelling error?) agree that Man is the cause. (Strike one: consensus.)
And these are some of the most respected scientists in the world. (Strike two: Authority.)
And… oh yes – without the Greenhouse Effect we’d be a ball of ice. (Strike three: Strawman.)
And…err… did I mention it’s a coincidence? I mean, just like it’s a coincidence that the coast lines of different continents seem to fit like a jigsaw puzzle! See?! Oh wait, scratch that last one… erm… BIG OIL!

A C Osborn
May 16, 2010 3:43 am

I wonder how Leif will explain this, probably by saying it is C**p and can’t be anything to do with the sun.

May 16, 2010 4:17 am

Oh, come on now! The astronauts has been driving around with their lunar vehicles up there for years by now. No wonder the temperature is rising!

May 16, 2010 4:21 am

Proof Positive that it is all ‘our’ (= your) fault!
Global Warming via man’s polluting activities …. has causes such an increase in outgoing radiation that it is heating up the Moon ! And Heaven Knows what you have done to Jupiter, Mars, etc. with your mucky habits! Maybe even the Sun is affected!
Subtext; We ( aka You) are really really bad; Look! you have polluted the whole solar system! Wait ’til God gets home and finds out what you have done! Severe Punishment is in order; even death may not be sufficient!
PS; Shame Greenies don’t actually believe in God, or they would have a more benign safety valve for their misanthropism.

May 16, 2010 4:42 am

AGW = Anthropogenic Galactic Warming?

May 16, 2010 4:43 am

A.G.W What.A.Joke.

frederik wisse
May 16, 2010 4:46 am

Why was not this integrated in al gores movie ? His belief reminds me of the maya culture where ritual killing was performed in order to pacify the gods . Are we as humans so important that we are able to change the universe ? Probably in universal studios only .

May 16, 2010 4:49 am

Apparently Uranus cooled between 1983 and 1998, at a time when the earth was warming up.
How could this be?
Amazing that we don’t yet know enough about Earth’s climate with all the data we have, but we can make positive announcements about climate change on planets and moons from scraps of information….
It would be great to see planetary climatic time series matched up with the solar cycle. Unfortunately, the extraterrestrial climate changes have been observed over very short periods, intermittently, and in some cases (like Mars) from only a fraction of the planet area. Still, it would at least approach something substantial to see if the extraterrestrial warming/cooling has been in sync (and whether or not it was actually global). A little bit of googling shows that the studies behind these generalised climate conclusions tend to emphasise internal climate dynamics rather than solar influence – which is not too surprising for celestial bodies further out than our own.

May 16, 2010 4:53 am

Well, we know it’s not the sun causing the Earth’s moon and planets to heat up. We’ve been told there a consensus on that. We’ve also been told there also a consensus that the plant Earth is warming up do to AGW. Therefore, I’m waiting to be told that the only possible cause for heating on the planets and the Earth’s moon is the AGW on Earth. All now makes sense.

May 16, 2010 4:59 am

Interesting period for the sun with huge solar flares and two huge sunspots.
Since the moon is not as protected as the planet, any flare coming close would increase temperatures.
Too bad we do not have any good representations of temperatures outside of our atmosphere for periods of time to coincide with this planets temps.

Tom in Florida
May 16, 2010 5:05 am

I am not a great chart reader but are we looking at an increase of 1 or 2 K? If so, what’s the big deal?

Harry Lu
May 16, 2010 5:07 am

Do not any of you read the documents????????
Conclusions: The increase in the length of the
summer day, the summer maximum surface temperature,
and the pre-sunrise surface temperature at the
Apollo 15 site all seem to be consistent with the hypothesis
that the change in solar incident angle associated
with the precession increased the overall heat input to
the lunar regolith. In further testing the hypothesis, it
is imperative that we find the missing 1975 data and
fully restore the data with 7.2-minute intervals.

May 16, 2010 5:31 am

barry says:
May 16, 2010 at 4:49 am
“It would be great to see planetary climatic time series matched up with the solar cycle. Unfortunately, the extraterrestrial climate changes have been observed over very short periods…”
Barry, we have one source on long time influence….food for thaught;

May 16, 2010 5:59 am

– One quick thing with regard to Uranus – IIRC unlike all of the other large solar system bodies, it rotates at a sidelong angle relative to the plane of the Solar System. I wonder how this affects its climate relative to other planets?

Ulric Lyons
May 16, 2010 6:22 am

timetochooseagain says:
May 16, 2010 at 3:28 am
“It’s gotta be something other than the sun:
Sunspot number was going down over that short period, so solar irradiance was probably declining, too.”
So what happens at solar minimum when there are no susnspots, ice ball?
The solar wind velocity would have been up. The hotter months here in 1975 were April, and July/August, how about looking at the detail rather than a whole year.

May 16, 2010 6:40 am

Orbital Variation! Happens all the time. Nothing to see! Keep moving!

Henry chance
May 16, 2010 6:46 am

So they can also claim our increase in CO2 causes the sun to give off more heat.

May 16, 2010 6:57 am

Tom in Florida says:
May 16, 2010 at 5:05 am
I am not a great chart reader but are we looking at an increase of 1 or 2 K? If so, what’s the big deal?
Because that is exactly the level of change that is going to cause the end of the world (or so we are told).

May 16, 2010 7:19 am

Well, sure. You’ve heard of Copernicus—the Renaissance astronomer who was the first to formulate heliocentric cosmology, which displaced the Earth from the center of the universe.
Well, his ideas don’t apply to global warming. Apparently the Earth is the center. Think about it; we’ve come full circle. Spatial relationships notwithstanding, we can all relax knowing that Earth is the center of robust galactic global warming. I’m wondering how far out does this effect go in parsecs. Certainly it must extend way, way beyond our Solar System.
The imagination is a powerful thing. 🙂

May 16, 2010 7:57 am

A C Osborn says:
May 16, 2010 at 3:43 am
I wonder how Leif will explain this, probably by saying it is C**p and can’t be anything to do with the sun.
The record is only four years long so could be anything. “Weather is not climate”. I wonder if there is more data past the four years…

May 16, 2010 8:07 am

Where is the Stenvenson screen on the moon picture? Where is it… I don’t see it.

May 16, 2010 8:25 am

The temperature sensors on the moon would have electronic components which are known to drift in value over time. They would need to be calibrated regularly using mercury thermometers. How often was that done?

May 16, 2010 8:34 am

Geez, I didn’t realize that all the fossil fuel burning smoke had drifted clear out to Jupiter.
Now that is clearly worse than previously imagined, and I cannot imagine how our smoke reached escape velocity.

R. Gates
May 16, 2010 8:50 am

It’s raining in Seattle and in Syndey…they must be getting rain from the same storm system…
Of course the sun influences Earth’s climate…as do GCR’s, but they are not the only influence and in no way negate effects by human activities. Also of course, all the other planets in the solar system have their own specifc brand of Milankovitch cycle.
I always find this kind of “Mars is warming” argument to be amusing in a pathetic kind of way…

May 16, 2010 9:16 am

But it’s *rotten* heat…

May 16, 2010 10:11 am

To Larry Fields,
I believe this probe is not measuring atmospheric temperature, but the temperature at various soil depths. From that they can calculate thermal conductivity and heat capacity assuming radiative heat transfer to and from the surface follows the Stephan-Boltzmann equation for a black body. The increase in temperature could just be the result of the soil compressing thus increasing thermal conductivity.

May 16, 2010 10:11 am

It is a real shame that we have all of the satellite data from all of the other planets, and that they are undergoing climate changes from being on the same, or opposite side of the sun from the galactic center.
If some one tries to apply for a grant to study the effects of the interactions of the Earth with the moon and other planets, on the weather and climate, there is no way in hell they are going to seriously considered let alone approved.
But it appears that the best handle we have on the climate changes we see in all of the planets we monitor are a result of the orbital dynamics and interactions between them, the same as the Earth.
I have a web site that researches these aspects, at no cost to the tax payer, since the Monday of Earth week it has been repeatably cyber attacked and is currently being moved to a more secure server, It should be back on line shortly.

May 16, 2010 10:14 am

Next time a warmist talks to me about ‘climate change’ I will send them this post from WUWT and explain that indeed the climate changes on Earth and other planet.
It would be interesting to know what did cause the Moon’s warming between 1971-1975.

Atomic Hairdryer
May 16, 2010 10:49 am

It’s that missing heat they were complaining about in the Climategate emails. If it’s not being trapped by CO2, it has to go somewhere. We’re emitting IR, they’re absorbing it. Will model for proof and say.. $30m? Even if we cut our emissions, they’ll still re-radiate in a great solar system bakeoff until equilibrium is resumed. Open to bids on what that equilibrium temperature should be. Al? Al? You in on this one?

May 16, 2010 11:54 am

barry says:
May 16, 2010 at 4:49 am
“Apparently Uranus cooled between 1983 and 1998, at a time when the earth
was warming up. [snip link – relevant?] How could this be?”
Over that period, Uranus was moving away from the Sun at over 9 million
miles per year.

May 16, 2010 12:21 pm

Space dust. Blocks the solar rays. Giant inter-galactic vacuum cleaner is pulling away all the space dust, a tiny bit at a time.

May 16, 2010 12:34 pm

That “moon” temperature sensor is actually in a sound stage in Arizona where the entire moon landing was faked. Didn’t you know? So the increase is actually the Earth temp increase over the same period. 🙂

May 16, 2010 12:47 pm

Typical Climate Scientist says: : “… the vast majority of scientits (was that a spelling error?) agree that Man is the cause.”
Yeah, you spelled ‘scientwits’ wrong.

May 16, 2010 1:32 pm

Good stuff. Solar and gravitational changes affect our solar system’s planetary surfaces more than CO2 does. That’s a fact. The only thing is you can’t tax the sun or gravity.

May 16, 2010 1:32 pm

I blame Flash Gordon and his primitive, smoky old space ship.

May 16, 2010 3:22 pm

A (possibly important) addition to the Jupiter “southern belt” changes:
This from the APL about the recent (last 4-5 years) significant increases in Jupiter’s atmospheric stroms: a SECOND Red Spot formed just a few years ago (2006) after three small storms merged together. That second Great Red Spot is now larger than the Great Red Spot first reported by Gallilelo, and has been joined by a third.
“The Little Red Spot, as it was named upon discovery in 2006, shows both size and speed in threatening to knock the former champion off its perch, with Junior’s maximum winds reaching 384 mph (172 meters per second).
“In terms of maximum wind speed, the Little Red Spot as measured in 2007 and the Great Red Spot when last measured in 2000 are just about the same,” said Andrew Cheng, physicist and lead study author at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland
Those winds far outstrip the 156 mph threshold that defines a Category 5 hurricane on Earth, and the Little Red Spot itself appears nearly as big as our whole planet.
Seeing spots
A third red spot on Jupiter was also announced last week by a different team, joining its larger super-storm cousins. The Great Red Spot has raged on for at least two centuries and perhaps as much as 350 years, ancient observations suggest.
Cheng’s team used image maps made by the New Horizons spacecraft to gauge wind speed and direction.
The Hubble Space Telescope provided visible-light images of the storms, while the Very Large Telescope in Chile used mid-infrared to glimpse the thermal structure of the storms below the visible cloud tops.
The thermal heat images showed that the Little Red Spot may already match the Great Red Spot for size, although the latter still appears almost twice as large on the surface of Jupiter’s atmosphere when examined in visible light.”
NASA JPL reports similar information:
“The official name of this storm is “Oval BA,” but “Red Jr.” might be better. It’s about half the size of the famous Great Red Spot and almost exactly the same color.
Oval BA first appeared in the year 2000 when three smaller spots collided and merged. Using Hubble and other telescopes, astronomers watched with great interest. A similar merger centuries ago may have created the original Great Red Spot, a storm twice as wide as our planet and at least 300 years old.
Sign up for EXPRESS SCIENCE NEWS delivery
At first, Oval BA remained white—the same color as the storms that combined to create it. But in recent months, things began to change:
“The oval was white in November 2005, it slowly turned brown in December 2005, and red a few weeks ago,” reports Go. “Now it is the same color as the Great Red Spot!”
“Wow!” says Dr. Glenn Orton, an astronomer at JPL who specializes in studies of storms on Jupiter and other giant planets. “

May 16, 2010 3:23 pm

jorgekafkazar says:
May 16, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Typical Climate Scientist says: : “… the vast majority of scientits (was that a spelling error?) agree that Man is the cause.”
Yeah, you spelled ‘scientwits’ wrong.”
Spelled Mann wrong too.
AGW extremism IS a Mann-made problem.

May 16, 2010 5:58 pm

One quick thing with regard to Uranus – IIRC unlike all of the other large solar system bodies, it rotates at a sidelong angle relative to the plane of the Solar System. I wonder how this affects its climate relative to other planets?
and Sleepalot,
Over that period, Uranus was moving away from the Sun at over 9 million
miles per year.

So for a cooling Uranus we look at properties particular to that planet, but for those that are warming, we ignore specific characteristics and posit a single-source influence?
Of course, neither of you are necessarily buying into that position, but you help illustrate that we need to look a lot harder at details before arriving at conclusions. Pluto, for example, was orbitally heading into its ‘summer’ when climate change was reckoned on that planet. Mars’ warming was not necessarily planet-wide, and the fraction of the surface with ice receding was reckoned to be a result of internal dynamics. As was quoted just above, the paper on the Lunar warming was reckoned to be an artifact of surface characteristics, and not likely solar influence.
And yet some people seem determined to possible extraterrestrial warming on solar activity, in defiance of what the experts observing such phenomena say. Weird, isn’t it?

May 16, 2010 6:01 pm

Me – “It would be great to see planetary climatic time series matched up with the solar cycle. Unfortunately, the extraterrestrial climate changes have been observed over very short periods…”
You – Barry, we have one source on long time influence….food for thaught;
That paper doesn’t discuss extraterrestrial climates at all. There are plenty of terrestrial hypotheses. Some of them survive scrutiny.

May 16, 2010 7:12 pm

Ray says:
May 16, 2010 at 8:07 am
“Where is the Stenvenson screen on the moon picture? Where is it… I don’t see it.
It’s next to the barbecue grill on the blacktop patio just past the air conditioner. That funny looking SUV is blocking the view in this particular photo.

May 16, 2010 8:32 pm

I wonder if Al Fin has some insight (oddly enough a re-reference to WUWT)…

May 16, 2010 8:41 pm

And more importantly, what would ram pressure have on a climate of a sphere of gas?

May 16, 2010 9:25 pm

The Apollo 15 and 17 geothermal heat flow data was recently analyzed in a 2010 paper by Nagihara, Taylor, Williams, and Saito. These authors concluded that the limited period of theses recordings showed a warming trend consistent with warming energy coming from the surface. While an increase in solar luminosity or energy reflected from the Earth could not be discounted, the surface temperature was almost certainly influenced by the 18.6 year lunar precession. Further, since the astronauts’ tracks in the vicinity of these sensors were likely to change the albedo of the lunar surface, the authors recommend some energy balance modeling to determine if this mechanism could source the warming.
Since you solely suggest a change in solar luminosity as the cause of the lunar warming, I can only hope that your paper will conclusively eliminate these other possibilities as suggested by the above authors. If all consideration leaves only solar irradiance, then I would hope you would confirm this by correlating solar changes during this period with data taken from other sources.

Ted Annonson
May 17, 2010 1:11 am

I blame it all on Daylight Savings Time. They took away an hour from the cool mornings and added an hour to the hot afternoons. This had to have some warming effect when applied to the earth over an extended period. I’m not too sure about the moon and other planets, since I’m not sure if DST also applies to them. Will be applying for a grant for further studies.

May 17, 2010 4:56 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 16, 2010 at 7:57 am
The record is only four years long so could be anything.
“Weather is not climate”.
Webster’s Dictionary says:
Main Entry: cli·mate
Pronunciation: \klī-mət\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English climat, from Middle French,
from Late Latin climat-, clima, from Greek klimat-klima
inclination, latitude, climate, from klinein – to lean
Definition #2 : the average course or condition of the weather at a place
usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature,
wind velocity, and precipitation

It seems that whereas “Weather is not climate”,
climate is “weather at a place” “over a period of years”.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?

RR Kampen
May 17, 2010 5:34 am

For the moon, global, I mean: earthly dimming apparently was the cause.

Charlie K
May 17, 2010 6:25 am

I would think this would prove that electric vehicles aren’t the answer. If NASA’s electric buggy caused the moon to warm that much that quickly, how hot will it get on earth when millions of us get our UN mandated electric cars?
Charlie K

May 17, 2010 7:03 am

The solar System was designed to last a couple more years. People were designed to never know everything. But it sure looks like we’ve foud all the missing heat the Earth was supposed to have and somehow lost. Who would have thunk it, it’s on the Moon. Bet the Dark Side has been heating up too.

May 17, 2010 7:15 am

Obviously they left the rover running.

fred houpt
May 17, 2010 10:58 am

Way too many comments to read through, so forgive me if someone has commented similarly to mine. What crossed my mind is the contention of the solar plasma guys and gals that the Sun is the prime warmer/cooler of all our solar system bodies (I guess that is pretty much obvious on one level) and that even as far out as Pluto the Sun is responsible, so they say, for rising or falling apparent temperatures. Hence, the idea that here on Earth we have a special situation with man made inputs that have or will tilt our planet into such a runaway effect that we’ll turn ourselves more into Venus….etc. Does make you wonder….I vote for the Sun as the main driver, end of all stories. Ice and Warm ages are triggered by the sun, not possibly by us. Not now and not ever.

May 17, 2010 11:08 am

When I look at that graph, I see 12 cycles per year: the full moon – new moon
– full moon cycle. So how come the temperature only varies by 6 degrees?

j r
May 17, 2010 12:33 pm

Obviously, we need a moon tax to go along with the carbon tax. Better have Saturn and Mars taxes too, and since humans are apparently effecting the sun we better have a sun tax. Then we can declare ‘War on the Solar System.’

May 17, 2010 1:13 pm

BTW, did you know that the earth´s thermosphere temperature is 2500°K?

Tom in Florida
May 17, 2010 1:50 pm

fred houpt says: (May 17, 2010 at 10:58 am)
“I vote for the Sun as the main driver, end of all stories. Ice and Warm ages are triggered by the sun …”
The Sun doesn’t change enough to trigger glacial and interglacial periods. What does change is the the amount of energy received by the Earth due to conditions of the Earth including orbital changes, changes in obliquity, precession, cloud cover and maybe a some stuff in space we haven’t figured out yet. Throughout it all, the Sun remains pretty stable.
…”not possibly by us. Not now and not ever.”
Ditto on that.

brad tittle
May 17, 2010 2:55 pm

What would happen if that plot of temperature on the moon were plotted from ZERO.
Perfect set of units. My professors though kept chastising me for not starting from an applicable zero point. Why is it that no one else seems to have been provided this tutelage?
Yes, it makes for really boring presentations. We might not be in this mess if we had really boring presentations. Al Gore wouldn’t have been able to take a lift up to the top.

David Mayhew
May 18, 2010 6:14 am

“Leif Svalgaard says:
May 16, 2010 at 7:57 am
The record is only four years long so could be anything.
“Weather is not climate”.
Been seeing this understandable comment coming up for months on blogs. Time to nail it to the wall.? Suggestion:
In respect of the period in which we have measuring devices:
“Climate” is the sum from time 1 to n of “Weather” at points 1 to x.
“Weather” is defined as measurement at a certain place and time of values of temperature , pressure, etc. “Weather” is physical observation and “real” .
“Climate” is defined as condensed and processed data and has no objective physical existence, it is a mental abstraction. Without weather data, there is no climate data.
To discuss in the same framework, first agree on n, the length of time, and x, the number of places/geographic area. Then define the condensation of data. (And dont invent data for points when the data doesnt exist!.)
On the other hand we could just continue to make the assertion that climate is not weather.

May 18, 2010 8:55 am

what a country of idiots, they all believe to the moon landings and to all the BS they watch on TV……hahahah… 🙂

May 18, 2010 10:34 am

Here’s some terrestrial “global warming”:
Gettin’ rich off of “global warming”:
“How green is Al Gore’s $9 million Montecito oceanfront villa?”

May 18, 2010 2:35 pm

The reason the lunar ground temperature records are limited to a duration of three years or so is because the data was analyzed only for this time period. The temperatures sensors were working until 1977 when they failed, and the data was collected, however nothing was done with it apparently. Nagihara and others (2010) http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lunargeo2010/pdf/3008.pdf reported that they are trying to recover the data all the way to 1977 from archived tapes.
They also found scant evidence that the long-term temperature increase was due to the 18.6 year lunar precession, but this was weak and does not rule out sensor drift or increased solar energy. If they can reconstruct the data until 1977, this will shed light.

John Wright
May 19, 2010 3:24 pm

This article is from the space special interest group of the high IQ society Mensa.
Global Warming on Mars and Climate Change from Space
Mars Global Surveyor studied the surface of Mars from 1999 to 2006, four Martian years, this coincided with a five and a half year rise in solar activity reaching the Solar Cycle peak in 2002. During a Solar Cycle maximum the Sun irradiates 0.1 percent more energy than at a Solar Cycle minimum, for Mars this means an increase in Global temperature of 0.21 Kelvin in three Martian years. At Perihelion Mars receives 44 percent (6.8 percent for Earth) more radiation than at Aphelion as the orbit of Mars is seven times more eccentric than Earths, a 21 percent eccentricity. Mercury is the only planet to have a more eccentric orbit than Mars. Perihelion occurs during the Southern Summer and ever since the 1830s it has been noted that during warming periods a dark band appears around the periphery of the shrinking polar cap, and with dust storms being more common during this period, this has decreased the Martian Albedo from 0.16 to 0.15 and increased the Martian Global temperature by 0.65 Kelvin. This has also caused more frozen CO2 to melt and turn into gas than usual for three Southern Summers in a row. With 95 percent of the Martian atmosphere made up of CO2 (0.038 percent on Earth) and only 0.03 percent Water vapour (1 percent on Earth). CO2 induced Global Warming is almost an irrelevance for Mars as it is for the Earth, as the CO2 has already absorbed most of the radiation available for absorption. The Warming on Mars raises the average surface temperature by 3 Kelvin to 211 Kelvin from 208 Kelvin. Both Planets can cool much faster than they can warm up, so Mars with almost a 100 percent transparent dry CO2 Atmosphere and without the problems with feedback (other than dust storms) from Water Vapour, Clouds, Oceans or an Atmospheric Mass 2,600 times that of CO2. Then Mars is the perfect example to use to test the theory of CO2 warming on Earth. Mars receives the equivalent of 81.5 percent of the Solar Radiation that the Earth receives. The surface has a 7 millibar CO2 atmosphere (0.39 millibar CO2 atmosphere on Earth). So the equivalent 7 millibar CO2 Atmosphere on Earth would produce a temperature of 3.68 Kelvin. If you deduct the 0.24 Kelvin increase for a doubling of CO2, four times you get 2.72 Kelvin for a 0.4375 millibar Atmosphere. This makes 2.7 Kelvin for a 0.39 millibar Atmosphere. The 2.7 Kelvin includes, 1.2 Kelvin for CO2 absorption only, plus half of the 1.5 Kelvin that CO2 absorption shares with Water vapour. Confirming that the CO2 induced Warming on Earth is about 2 Kelvin, and also four times weaker than on Mars. Confirming the irrelevance of its ability to increase Global temperature much more, even with significant increases in Carbon Dioxide.
Man made CO2 is natural CO2 which has been fossilised for millions of years and does not have the Carbon-14 Isotope. Levels of this Isotope show that 4 percent or 15ppm of the increase in CO2 in over 100 years is due to Man & 85ppm due to Nature, this is also confirmed by the ratio of Carbon-12 to Carbon-13 in the Atmosphere. All evidence in Ice core data and direct measurements point to changes in the temperature causing the changes in CO2 levels as on Mars, this increase being due to the 0.76 Kelvin increase in Global Atmospheric temperature over the last 200 year bounce back from the Little Ice Age. But ice core data shows that this is mainly due to the 800 year lag in the changes in deep ocean CO2 levels after the Medieval Warm Period, the ocean contains 93.5 percent of the Earths CO2. The increase has added only 0.1 Kelvin to the 2 Kelvin that CO2 gives to the Warming of the Earths Surface Temperature. This means that man-made CO2 has only increased the Global temperature by 0.015 Kelvin. The Solar Cycle Amplitude and more importantly the Solar Cycle Length and the Forbush Effect being responsible for the further 0.66 Kelvin increase.
The largest effect on Climate Change is the Length of the Solar Cycle, short Solar Cycles cause a warming and long Solar Cycles cause a cooling. Between 1913 and 1996, only one of eight Solar Cycles was longer than the mean Solar Cycle length of 11.04 years. The last of these was the shortest Solar Cycle for more than 200 years. Short Solar Cycles cause a decrease in cosmic rays when Solar activity is high, decreasing cloud cover and leading to the enhancement of Global Warming on the Earth, a 1 percent decrease in cosmic rays causes a 0.13 Kelvin increase in Global temperature. This is called the Forbush effect and is caused by coronal mass ejections which are ten times more common during Solar maximum and have a ten day period that can be predicted four days before the event. This is carried by the solar wind to the Earth on the Suns magnetic field lines.
A study of Luna Earthshine shows that the Albedo of the Earth decreased from 0.32 in 1985 to 0.29 in 1997 showing a 6.5 percent decrease in cloud cover. The Earths Albedo has since increased to 0.31 showing that 69 percent of solar energy is absorbed, 50 percent by the Surface, 19 percent by the Atmosphere (13.3 percent by Water Vapour, 1.6 percent by Carbon Dioxide and 4.1 percent by Dust, Ozone, Nitrous-Oxide, Methane and other gases). In the last hundred years the Earths Albedo has been as high as 0.44 and as low as 0.29 with an average of 0.36. The Albedo effects the North more than the South because the land snow zone for the south is mainly in the sea.
Weather from the Sun was first postulated two hundred years ago when William Herschel tried to prove the price of grain was inversely correlated with the sunspot number, which was subsequently proven, the sunspot number being low during the Dalton Minimum (1790-1820) at the end of the Little Ice Age. The sunspot number was close to zero during the earlier Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) during the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, this is also confirmed by tree rings formed at sunspot minimum which have a higher amount of carbon-14 due to the Forbush Effect.
The enhancing effects of the Albedo changes on the Earth and Mars would more than explain Global Warming on both Planets and would explain why the cause of Global Warming on other Planets is not that definite other than the finding that the changes in the brightness of Neptune correlate with the changes in the Earths Global Surface Temperature.
When the Earths temperature increased, the Atmospheric Water Vapour content increased, but if this increase had been due to CO2 then the Tropospheric temperature would have increased at twice the rate of the Surface temperature increase. This did not happen. Over half of all Solar radiation is absorbed by the Earths Oceans which are almost 300 times the mass of the Earths Atmosphere. This helps to regulate the effects of the changes in the Earths climate which then responds to these changes after a five year lag. Global Warming peaked in 1998 and ended with the last Solar Cycle peak, and after a five year lag in the Climate. Global Warming finally ended in 2007. As did the increase in Atmospheric Methane. So it seems quite clear that Climate Change is ruled by the Sun.
There are also long-term future causes of Climate Change in Astronomy. The inclination of Mars varies between 35 degrees and 14 degrees over a period of 50,000 years while that of the Earth only varies between 22.1 degrees and 24.1 degrees over a period of 41,000 years, both planets are at the half way point, Mars at 25.19 degrees and the Earth at 23.44 degrees. This cycle and other changes in planetary axis and orbit produce Ice ages every 100,000 years, in periods when more ice is exposed to the Sun heightening the Albedo, which causes the cooling. The Galactic Orbit of the Solar System every 240 million years produces Ice Age Epochs every 120 million years which are caused by the Sun passing through the Galactic spiral arms increasing the level of cosmic rays and therefore cloudiness, we are at present in an ice age epoch caused by our presence in the Orion armlet.
But the Final Global Warming Terror will be when the Sun turns into a Red Giant. In one billion years time the Oceans will be boiling and in five billion years time the Earth will be eaten up by the Sun, leaving Mars as the most inner Planet of the Solar System.
The information above comes from many sources such as The Guinness Book of Astronomy Facts and Feats by Sir Patrick Moore, Encyclopaedia Britannica but mainly from Scientific papers found on Google Scholar.

Warmist? or just thinking?
May 25, 2010 3:36 pm

What does the solar system’s other planets’ warming have to do with warming on Earth? It’s reasonable to assume that the sun is not the cause of warming on the Earth and other planets, because the sun’s radiance has NOT changed significantly in recent years. Data:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights