I applaud Rob for trying to apply some common sense physics to the discussion back in Mar of 2007, but he made a huge and misleading mistake in order to shoot holes in theory that climate change is caused by solar fluctuations. He’s confusing the DISTANCE from a source of radiation with the STRENGTH of that source of radiation; they are two separate things. In a three-dimensional universe, any kind of radiation from a point source will fall off as the inverse square — you got that right (before you went off on that square root thing). But at a particular distance, any sort of measurement of any sort of radiation (electromagnetic waves, gravitons, whatever) is directly proportional to the what’s coming out of the source.

What’s that have to do with this discussion? In the absence of atmosphere, the Earth and Pluto should be seeing similar percentage changes in radiation levels because solar cycles affect the source strength, not our distance from the sun. Therefore, the temperature changes on other planets and moons are should be in the ballpark of the changes we see on earth.

If he really believes everything he says, isn’t he the worst sort of elitist-wealthy hypocrit? And if he doesn’t, then aren’t his followers being snowed? Here we are, about to ruin our own economy, in ways that TRULY harm the poorest people, based on assumptions that are not truly backed by solid science.

What’s more, I challenge those of you think we face impending doom, not from foreign conflict or energy shortages, and those of you who believe we can get all our energy from solar, wind and biofuels alone, to practice what you preach. Before you dictate what kind of lifestyle the rest of us can live, live it yourself. Stop using oil–that is don’t just drive a hybrid, drive a bio-diesel car. Put solar panels on your roof and get ALL your electricity that way. Practice what you preach.

But obviously, the extend of temperature heating of each planet in response to solar changes are extremely different, due to atmospheres, albedos clouds, whether, materials etc etc. In response to more heat we just know that they will heat up in to some extend.

But take a looooong look at Pluto. The behaviour of this one planet
(x-planet!) in one go ruins all “ALarmists” arguments: Pluto is a hard isball with hardly any mechanism to disturb observations, and what do we see??

IT WARMS!!!
EVEN THOUGH IT IS MOVING AWAY FROM THE SUN!!

But if just one of these planets where cooling, the picture would be noisy. But it aint.

“I rest my case”

Also explain to me why, all of the warming trends started in the 70’s Yet we have had industry in the U.S. since before World War II.

We have nearly doubled the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and we are supposed to wait a century for a rise of 1-6 degrees Celsius?

“Gravity is still slowly compressing the atmosphere of Jupiter, and doing so produces heat.” No, it isn’t.

A stars radiant energy comes from the proton proton chain, or the Carbon cycle, and fights against it’s collapse due to gravity. Gravity only causes heat when there is net movement (i.e. if Jupiter were shrinking in diameter) If Jupiter is producing more heat than received from the sun, then it is more likely due to fission processes, and certainly not due to it’s high gravity. (Unless you can show me that Jupiter is shrinking in diameter, which it isn’t.)

At the end of the day, to be real ’science’. Global warming needs to address why the other planets are warming up. They need to address their own statistics.

Water is a greenhouse gas, please explain how we are to reduce it’s amount, shall we pipe it to Mars for terraforming purposes?

Greenpeace urged Australia to eat kangaroo, because they produce less Methane than cattle…That is insane: average methane concentration is on the order of a half part per million.

I would also like it to be explained to me why the term “Green house gas” was chosen. Plants are vociferous scavengers of Carbon dioxide, so in a mostly sealed Greenhouse, the concentration of Carbon dioxide will be very low, relative to outside the greenhouse…

If you want to fear monger, be my guest, but if you want to brand your fear mongering as science, then do some damn research you wonderful, very contributive, hippies.

I’m working on a post for my blog that would give an Excel table that goes through the calculations using blackbody radiation analysis.

Sorry for the equation error. It was stupid and I was wrong, at least in magnitude of the Earth temperature change. I admit that. The overall analysis still stands, though.