Is global warming even real?

It is actually fascinating when you think about it IMO.
image c/o wiki

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The difference in the other image between 1996 and 2002 is significant given the vast distance from the sun that Neptune orbits.
I see approximately a 5-8% gain in luminosity over that time and I doubt the image could be legit as that would put the Earth into melt down ( exaggerated ) or in other words the solar luminosity issue would be way too obvious here on earth to be ignored. So I am unsure about the veracity of the image taken from the video.


except if I consider my original assessment about internal geothermal heating instead of solar...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The scientific community has been measuring solar luminosity directly - without bouncing it off of Neptune - for many years now. They have also been measuring proxies for solar flux in various materials on earth. That's where the claim of decline comes from - measurement, year by year.

Do you have some evidence that these measurements are -all of them, day by day and year by year for decades now - wrong?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No however there has been conflicting data published and then "pulled down" over the years that tends to suggest some serious info management is involved.

Just to clarify my position.

I don't believe climate change is driven only by solar luminosity ( as often suggested by that particular lobby) but more the uniform causation of solar and planetary over heating, ( inside out) that when combined demonstrates what we are seeing. Obviously if the sun was over heating then it would brighten but so too would Neptune and all other large objects of mass, especially in the IR spectrum. So a combination of gains in reflected and radiated light (EMR) may be the result. (ie. the X-ray emissions from Saturn)
Also given that the debate on Solar system wide warming is totally confused with various serious fear based assessments and ideological agendas none of the commentary is worthy of significant trust.

I personally have done little research into planetary changes in the solar system mainly because any outcome would be futile for three reasons:

1. I would be considered a denialist and credibility would be destroyed.
2. Significant info management appears to be in place.
   
3. If I was found to be correct, there is absolutely nothing we as a race can do to alter our fate any way. ( which does not necessarily mean end times btw)

At the moment I am more interested/concerned about Sink Hole phenomena that seems to be gaining in frequency globally

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When did the decline become most apparent?

 

deleted : reason: inadequately researched

 

Most likely explanation is that it is because Neptune has slowly been entering its Spring - as it does on a 160+ year cycle - each season lasting 40 years or so. In fact since it was discovered it has only just completed one of its years.
Ever since we could observe the planet closely enough, however, it has basically been Autumn/Winter on Neptune - and now it is Spring/Summer - the poles get differing levels of sunlight, creating slightly more white cloud within the atmosphere, which reflect more light.

Further, the sun's irradiance cycles on an 11-year period, and the period between 1996 to 2002 was during an upward path, so there would have been a general increase in brightness during this time, all other things being equal.
However, this cycle has been going on for... well... a rather long time, with the 11-year average actually dropping in the past 20 years or so.
So unless we have seen Neptune brighten and darken on an 11-year cycle (I am not aware that we have) it is unlikely to be the underlying cause of the perceived changes in luminosity.

My money is on the gradual change in season on Neptune.

 

You appear to be correct in you assessment.
Neptune spring

It is not being ignored as the above link shows. Where do you think the pictures you posted came from?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Seems to me you are jumping to the conclusion that there is a 'dramatic' change in the solar systems planets based on the pictures of the cloud cover of one planet - Neptune.

 

The change occurred on Neptune, not on the Sun. Now who is denying what?

Neptune's cloud bands have been getting wider and brighter," says Lawrence A. Sromovsky, a senior scientist at University of Wisconsin- Madison's Space Science and Engineering Center and a leading authority on Neptune's atmosphere. "This change seems to be a response to seasonal variations in sunlight, like the seasonal changes we see on Earth.

source​

It's pretty stupid to believe that some cabal is controlling basic information like this. But it's plain moronic to conclude that the Sun is getting brighter based on a change in the reflection from Neptune. But don't let that stop you from setting up your own solar irradiance station, to prove that the folks at NOAA (etc.) are liars. You would become a billionaire overnight.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

But first you want to prove all those science fair projects wrong, because the kids will be in control someday, hovering around you in your vegetative state, wondering if it's time to pull the plug.

http://www.nrel.gov/education/pdfs/educational_resources/high_school/solar_projects_hs.pdf

Before you try to read Neptune's brightness through a cheap optical telescope, be sure to try the 20 dollar calibrated photocell, or the 50 dollar light meter, since you obviously don't trust those monsters at NOAA (and every other science agency on Earth).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/

Thanks for clearing this up.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

 

Yes it appears that this is the consensus that the significant increase in luminosity of the "entire Neptunian disc" can be explained by Neptune entering it's spring.

Have another look at the image:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

1. If it were tilt (seasonal) related as so many so called astute persons have claimed then why are both poles demonstrating and increase in luminosity and not just one pole. In fact seasonal changes would make no over all difference to luminosity in any way, if I am not mistaken. (there would only be a very minor brightness shift from one pole to another )
2. If the green "cloud" (*?) is any indication of poles there has been no polar tilt change (relative to Hubble Earth) in those 6 years any way.
3. The entire disc is uniformly brighter and not a sign of a polar shift in brightness.

Hint: Don't look just at the bright spots (Clouds) but at the general blue coloration as well. You will notice that the blue is generally brighter across the entire disc.

Am I wrong?

 

Trust is earned and is easily lost.
Explain the Neptunian Spring hypothesis properly and I might learn to trust again...or are you just going to kick back and trust blindly everything they say?

Maybe I should apply for a job at Madison's Space Science and Engineering

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sounds like they could use a quack or two!

 

Do you, or do you not, believe that the past century's direct measurements of solar output by all the countries and universities and military forces and corporate weather forecasters and satellite technicians (with big money on the line) and agronomists and civil engineers and solar power engineers and the hundreds of scientists and thousands of less high-falutin' measurers around the globe,

all agreeing with other within reason,

are probably reasonably accurate?

 

What I believe is irrelevant. The image if we are to assume it to be legit says all there needs to be said.
The image, if legit, is prima facie evidence that Neptune increased it's brightness by a significant amount between the years 1996 and 2002. Whether that is because of solar luminosity increases or internal changes to Neptune is up for grabs. But the fact is the planet is definitively brighter by a significant amount.
The article by Hubble site indicates a serious issue of consistency also, when it states that the IR output of Neptune has dramatically increased.

"In the 2002 images, Neptune is clearly brighter than it was in 1996 and 1998," Sromovsky says, "and is dramatically brighter at near infrared wavelengths. The greatly increased cloud activity in 2002 continues a trend first noticed in 1998."
src: Hubble site
Yet the article fails to discuss the issue of the "dramatic" IR increase in the context of it's "seasonal" hypothesis.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you took simplistically, these two factors.

1. Significantly brighter disc (not-seasonal related)
   
2. Dramatically increase IR output ( amount undisclosed ???)

What would you simplistically be suspicious of?

To me it indicates extraordinary internal over heating. ( not reflecting more, just glowing more)
Solar activity is almost ruled out because one could presume that for the sun to be the primary cause Earth would most likely be a cinder block.

 

Have you taken into account that Neptune is much farther from the sun, and has a much longer orbital period than the earth? Which means Neptune's seasons can't really be compared to terrestrial ones? Could be a factor (in fact, it definitely is a factor). Another factor is the axis of rotation--not like earth's but similar.

How long do you think Neptune's spring is in terrestrial years? How often do you think Neptune's winter to spring transition has been observed with the resolution in those images you posted? (The answer is once).

 

Yeah the images are really amazing to be honest..
However regards your point... if the images included seasonal change would the image show this with the green "polar" area changing position relative to Hubble?
It seems obvious that the axis has not changed relative to Hubble but maybe I am looking at it wrong.
Also what do you make of the "dramatic" undisclosed increase in IR output referred to in the Hubble space Article?

 

No, it isn't up for grabs. The solar luminosity has been measured, directly, and ruled out - it does not account for Neptune's brightening. You have to think of something else.

 

so what do you think was the dramatic increase in IR? Can't find anything on the net...yet...
FYI
Neptune's more varied weather when compared to Uranus is due in part to its higher internal heating. Although Neptune lies half again as far from the Sun as Uranus, and receives only 40% its amount of sunlight,[11] the two planets' surface temperatures are roughly equal.[85] The upper regions of Neptune's troposphere reach a low temperature of 51.8 K (−221.3 °C). At a depth where the atmospheric pressure equals 1 bar (100 kPa), the temperature is 72.00 K (−201.15 °C).[86] Deeper inside the layers of gas, the temperature rises steadily. As with Uranus, the source of this heating is unknown, but the discrepancy is larger: Uranus only radiates 1.1 times as much energy as it receives from the Sun;[87] whereas Neptune radiates about 2.61 times as much energy as it receives from the Sun.[88] Neptune is the farthest planet from the Sun, yet its internal energy is sufficient to drive the fastest planetary winds seen in the Solar System. Depending on the thermal properties of its interior, the heat left over from Neptune's formation may be sufficient to explain its current heat flow, though it is more difficult to simultaneously explain Uranus's lack of internal heat while preserving the apparent similarity between the two planets.[89]
wiki

 

Which might simply be due to more white flecks that are indiscernible at the resolution of the images other than to increase the overall luminosity.

 

By contrast, knowledge learned is rightfully earned and never lost.

See my post above where I quoted NASA. Or are you going to just kick back and distrust blindly everything they say?

Maybe you should discuss science in a science forum, rather than use it as a platform for antagonizing people who studied science.

 

So be the good scientist and explain the "dramatic" increase in IR outputs...I would bet you can't ...
"In the 2002 images, Neptune is clearly brighter than it was in 1996 and 1998," Sromovsky says, "and is dramatically brighter at near infrared wavelengths. The greatly increased cloud activity in 2002 continues a trend first noticed in 1998."
as mentioned earlier

 

So...