Talk:Extraterrestrial atmosphere/Archive 1

Redirected and Deleted at the same time

Impressive how you call it a Redirect when in actual fact you simply deleted the article from Wikipedia! I like your style not. ~ Rameses 09:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how User:Quarl arrived at his decision, but he described his action fairly. The article is not deleted from Wikipedia, but in fact still there (as you can see e.g. from the existence of this talk page). You can access the article itself like this, and previous versions via the history. --Stephan Schulz 09:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Stephan for the information, I stand corrected. My apology to Quarl for doubting him. ~ Rameses 16:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Theory

This is a minority-held view, and goes against the global warming theory in a few ways. I know a lot of people will want to be deffending Global Warming in this (sepecificly environmentalists); but can we please try to keep this one civil and NPOV. It is a scientific theory, and though it does not have the consesnsus of the entire scientific community, it is a scientific theory none the less... just as all theories started out as. This is not a place for political environmentalist attacks. This is a place for defining, explaining, deffending, and rebutaling a theory. A gathering of information. Please, let's keep it that way. Thank you. SadanYagci 15:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This has... absolutely no sources at all. Hardly scientific. Have you got even *one* scientific paper to support this "minority" viewpoint? William M. Connolley 21:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I put this up as a stub yesterday. It grew to this in a single day. I didn't write it, so if you have a problem with what is writen, don't blame me. I found this theory a while ago. The main sourse of information I have on it is from this web site:[1]. I have found it a few other places as well. I was not planning on making such a shoty article. It does have a lot of problems, but I do not think it should be deleted. Torn up and salvaged for anything remotely useful, yes... but deleted... I hardly think that is useful for an encyclopedia, especialy since (minimum) this has been proposed by a few people and organizations, and people might want to know about it (such as myself.) I know from one end we are going to get those that hate the environmentalists trying to put in any little two cents to help it... and at the other end, environmentalists trying to take it down... but maybe it can be made into a decent article conserning something that someone might want to know about. SadanYagci 13:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't "grown": all thats happened is that people ahve copied material from Climate of Mars into that, which is completely useless William M. Connolley 13:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

By "grown" I mean it was small, and now it is bigger. As for copying, I agree that not enough of this is explained to take that bit of information and shove it in here. As for copying the information, it is done all over wikipedia. If you don't like it, put it here, and it can be worked on, and inserted later (when there is more here for the theory itself.) SadanYagci 15:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy: No original research

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for the supposed "theory" of solar system warming. Zero. Zilch. Nil. Nada. None. The term "solar system warming" is unknown in the scientific literature. Unless you can find a reliable source that proposes this supposed "theory", it needs to go. Until then it is a near-perfect example of the type of synthesis that is prohibited as original research. To quote WP:SYN:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, that would be an example of an unpublished synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and it constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Will be tagged for deletion. Too long, unfortunately, for speedy deletion. Raymond Arritt 04:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for Evidence in order for a Theory to be Scientific. As for a source proposing it, K.I. Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Observatory attributes the changes to increased levels of solar activity, asserting that "parallel global warmings—observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth—can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance." ~ Rameses 05:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It’s too bad that people have to use wikipedia for political agenda's. Some of the ref's used for the "theory" actually disprove it. Such as the statement in the article: "The Max Planck Institute has asserted that solar activity over the past 60 to 70 years may have been at its highest level in 8,000 years". This is in spite of the fact that the referenced article goes on to state that it is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of global warming during the past three decades. Definitely OR and POV. --I already forgot 04:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)\

I wholeheartedly agree with you - It’s too bad that people have to use wikipedia for political agenda's. The statement regarding the Max Planck Institute is a simple fact. ~ Rameses 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The letter from Max Planck Institute appears to be research in the beginning stages of formulating a theory...far from fact and beside the point that the ref makes no claim to a solar system warming theory and also states that the level of solar activity is "unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades", which ironically is the only mention of any type of warming in the letter. --I already forgot 19:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

see the AfD for further discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Solar_system_warming DGG 06:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The book "Solar Activity and Earth's Climate"

The above named book by Rasmus E. Benestad discusses solar activity and climate change on Earth and compares and also looks at other planets in the solar system. The author writes: "We will glean some information from two other earth-like planets, Venus and Mars, as well as the Moon, and compare these to our own Earth. Both the planets have an atmosphere which exhibit similar features as well as different attributes to the Earth's atmosphere. If variations in the Sun produce changes in the Earth's climate, one may expect to see similar fluctuations in the brightness temperature on Venus and perhaps Mars." (page 4) [2] I quote this section of the book because of the current effort to delete this article. This is just one example of evidence showing that the Sun's role in warming on other planets is a subject of scientific interest. The effort to delete this page is purely an effort to censor information rather than deliver information to Wikipedia readers. RonCram 11:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice find, and Rasmus is of course sensible. Which is why I doubt he'll agree with you interpretation. You omit the following sentence, about how time series of T is necessary to study the relation on Mars, and is not available William M. Connolley 11:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ron, I suspect William is refering to this. ;-) --Stephan Schulz 12:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

William and Stephan, I was not quoting Benestad because I believed he agreed with the thrust of the article as it is presently presented. I quoted him because it shows that the question has been raised and is worthy of discussion. I do not understand why you want this article deleted. Why not just make certain the science presented is sound? William, regarding the fact time series of T was not available when the book was written in 2002, that did not relate to my purpose in quoting him. However, since you have raised the issue, a greater time series of T is available now than before. I do not yet know if a recent study has been published. RonCram 12:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no science to present - if there was, people wouldn't be linking to junk like prisonplanet. As to longer time series: which longer series are you referring to, exactly? If you know of one, why havent you introduced it before? William M. Connolley 12:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

William, I said I did not know if anything has been published yet. About five years have past since he wrote the book and a longer temperature record exists somewhere now than before. Whether it is long enough for a decent analysis, I do not know. RonCram 12:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No: there is no evidence for any time series at all. 5 years have passed, yes. But thats all. Please don't assert that the series *is* available when you have no evidence at all that it exists William M. Connolley 13:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

William, I assume you will pardon me while I continue to look for published results myself. RonCram 13:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The book "The Real Mars"

This book by Michael Hanlon has a chapter titled "Global Warming on Mars." Not much of the chapter is available through Google Book Search but I did find one interesting quote: "Mars is changing and it is changing on a time scale we can measure and observe" - Mike Malin (2001). (page 156) [3] The warming of Mars does not seem to be a seasonal event, like winter and summer here on Earth. The warming on Mars appears to have been going on for some years. The book by Hanlon apparently contains a series of pictures over time.RonCram 11:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Unknown causes of solar system warming

When people learn that Earth, Mars, Neptune and Pluto are all warming, I think it is natural for people to look for the obvious climate forcing these planets share. People naturally look for evidence the warming is caused by the Sun. I have not yet found much conclusive evidence the Sun is responsible. For example, Pluto is warming even though it is moving away from the Sun. Neptune's moon Triton is warming and it is about the same distance from the Sun as Pluto. Is it possible the warming could be from solar variation? Maybe but scientists are not saying that yet. I found an article that discusses warming on Pluto and Triton. While solar input is discussed, the scientists are mostly crediting changes to the atmosphere and increased atmospheric pressure for the higher temps. But a great deal of uncertainty is still involved. "This is a very complex process, and we just don't know what is causing these effects" on Pluto's surface, Elliot said. "That's why you need to send a mission." [4] This article can be very informative to Wikipedia readers who are wondering if the warming on all these planets is connected.RonCram 18:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you see what you are doing? You are gathering information to create or prove the theory instead of gathering information showing the theory exists. Big difference. Using wikipedia to prove a theory is considered original research. --I already forgot 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You must have missed the entry I made to the article. I changed the wording from "theory" to "controversial hypothesis," which does exist. There is no original research in my entry. RonCram 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pluto

I hope this thing dies; but in case it doesn't I've added some stuff about Pluto from the ref. One of the things this article should emphasise is the lack of any T obs. Pluto seems to be guessed from atmos p from stellar occulation; and as far as I can tell they have two datapoints 14y apart William M. Connolley 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And I added Triton.

Also I took out Jupiter, since I couldn't see anything about warming in the article PP linked to. A more reliable ref - [5] - does predict changes; but its clear from that that they are redistributions of heat linked to dynamic changes in the atmosphere. Hmm. OK, worth adding actually... William M. Connolley 20:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that Pluto orbits the Sun in about 250 years (i.e. it's "year"). Thus 14 years of data is less than even a season. Others have said it already, but this whole article is nothing more than people pushing a specific agenda while ironically accusing those of us trying to bring real science to the discussion of having an agenda. --Jespley 20:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To be pedantic (who, me?), 14/248 < 1/12 so it's less than a month in Earth terms. Not that the proponents of the "theory" care about such things. Raymond Arritt 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I say - I hope this thing dies (tell all your friends to vote - the keepers are). But while its here it might as well be sane (characteristically, those voting "reluctant keep - should be here but needs to be improved" - are doing nothing to improve it) William M. Connolley 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I voted to keep the article because many people are interested in it. The article is a good place to put all the information about the different planets in one place and will answers questions for people. I am not trying to push any agenda. I noted on the deletion page that Stephan's theory this is just planetary seasonal warming is possible for the distant planets but not possible for Mars. Since I have read more, I have learned that Pluto is warming while it is growing more distant from the Sun. That does not indicate seasonal warming and tells us that something very different is going on. The scientists who study Pluto think it has to do with increasing atmospheric pressure on Pluto, but the uncertainties are high. I invite you to make the article better by adding quality science. I really do not think there is anything for your side to fear from this article. You shouldn't be so jumpy and insecure about it. It makes it look like you are trying to hide something. RonCram 22:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ron. You have read too much out of too little again. I have not suggested that "all the planets" or even "many planets" are undergoing seaonal warming. I just stated that the varying distance of the planets in their elliptical orbit is a natural source of perodic warming and cooling. And it is indeed the preferred explanation for Pluto's (extremely tentative!) warming trend. Yes, Pluto is moving away from the sun, but it is still near the closest approach, and hence may still be heating up. Read your own sources ;-). And we still have no reliable source that claims global warming for Mars. --Stephan Schulz 22:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, you are correct. One of the scientists compares Pluto to being at 1:15 pm and expects the high temp to be at 2 or 3 pm. While his point has a semblance of logic, I do not think it works that way. While the orbit of Pluto takes 250 years or so, it rotates on its axis every 6.39 days. That means every point on Pluto cools every 6.39 days. As you can see, I don't think his analogy holds up. The warming on Pluto could be the result of volcanic activity or factors we do not even know. Or, it could be the Sun. I'm not saying it is but I am saying I do not think it is reasonable to rule it out yet.RonCram 22:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

He probably is using the wrong analogy, the seasonal one is better: it isn't hottest in the NH on 21st june, but somewhat later in the year William M. Connolley 23:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

William, at least your analogy makes more sense. Perihelion (when the Earth is closest to the Sun) occurs in early January and the Earth is most distant from the Sun in early July. Perihelion would be just after the start of summer for the southern hemisphere, so the tilt of the axis also has to be taken into account... I am starting to tire and my brain is refusing to work properly so I am going to end for the day. Best wishes. RonCram 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Warming on Pluto is due to changing albedo because of methane ice condensation in the shadowed polar region. It is a normal seasonal process. Michaelbusch 23:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

All or Some

I changed "all" in the intro to "some", on the grounds that only a few had even been listed. Is the hypothesis really "all"? This rather shows into sharp relief how OR this entire thing is: how are we supposed to know? Whose hypothesis is this anyway? William M. Connolley 20:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This source [6] says "the entire solar system" while an article in the esteemed journal prisonplanet.com says "almost every planet in our solar system"www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/161106suvjupiter.htm] I suspect the answer is that you pick the planets that fit the "theory" best, and ignore the others. Raymond Arritt 21:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, I'm impressed - you've found something even less reliable than PP! It even has aether in it. Sadly I fear the rifts between dimensions stuff renders it too wacky even for the solarphiles William M. Connolley 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont know, I thought we were making it up as we went along? Yeah, who is in charge of this theory hypothesis? --I already forgot 21:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I invited the originator of this page to contribute, in the hope that he might know something about it, or at least know what it was supposed to be. The original text was all, so that might well be the proper theory William M. Connolley 21:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the entire solar system, because that is what the hypothisis conserns. I have found nothing stating it conserning only part of the solar system. However, if you feel it is best as some, based on lack of information on this topic so far, change it and if it needs changing back later, it can be done then. SadanYagci 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

But you didn't put in anything for the entire SS either. Unless you think prisonplanet constitutes a reliable source. Do you? William M. Connolley 22:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider them a reliable source; and I do not have much time right now to go searching for a source for that. However, there was a wikipedian that said in the deletion page that they have found some good results on Google for searching for these things. I suggest that they be contacted... at least for some help with this. SadanYagci 23:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be Ron. He is rather good at finding reliable sources that say roughly the opposite of what he thinks they do, and at finding blog entries that sometimes don't (sorry Ron, but that's about it...). --Stephan Schulz 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, Stephan. I don't think that is quite fair. You were reading into my post too much. I did not claim Benestad held the view, only that he discussed the Sun's role in the climates of these different planets. This is an interesting and valid subject where you can get reliable sources. I think it makes for an interesting article. And my entries to the article have been fair as well. RonCram 23:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope you noticed my tongue-in-cheek there ;-). But no, this is not an interesting and valid subject. It's composed of interesting and valid sub-topics that some try to connect in a suggestive way. If this article becomes worthwhile, it will only be to debunk this suggestion - which we shouldn't have in the first place, as it is unsourced and plain wrong. --Stephan Schulz 23:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, whether you consider it interesting and valid or not is beside the point. The idea the warming on these different planets is connected is out there. People are talking about it and they want more information about it. Whether the idea comes from scientists or not is beside the point. Wikipedia has to provide the answers science gives. RonCram 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Whether the idea comes from scientists or not is beside the point. Wikipedia has to provide the answers science gives." Aren't you saying two diametrically opposing things in these two sentences? Raymond Arritt 00:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean because science always restricts itself to only answering questions posed by scientists - right??  ; ) -- Brittainia 04:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Order of the sections

Childhe reordered the section, on the grounds that Moved Jupiter and Triton section in relevance order - No rovers on Jupiter/Pluto, and Sun's influence on Earth obviously more similar to Mars than to farther bodies. Is this indeed part of the theory? Ie, that we are specifically looking for things similar to the earth? I though it was about warming throughout the solar system. If it *is* part of the theory, it should be mentioned as such on the page. Or should we be honest and retitle the article "yet another attempt to explain global warming as something, anything other that co2"? William M. Connolley 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty obvious that we have more data regarding Mars than regarding Pluto, and that our data regarding Mars is more reliable than our data regarding Pluto. Mars rovers are only one example of how advanced we are regarding Mars compared to other planets. Also, I did not touch what you inserted regarding Pluto, but that seems to me pretty humorous. Pluto's mean surface temperature is estimated at 44 Kelvin, which is close to absolute zero. There is so little Sun energy/heat/rays that reach this place that I wonder how Pluto can be relevant to this article.

And by the way, the article that you cite ends with "This is a very complex process, and we just don't know what is causing these effects" on Pluto's surface, Elliot said. "That's why you need to send a mission." I guess we'll have to add that. --Childhood's End 01:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Too late, the witch is dead William M. Connolley 09:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Your pleasure looks like that of a kid who just got the expensive gift he long asked his parents unaware of the sacrifice he asked them to make for it. --Childhood's End 13:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Plaut quote

I have again removed the quote from Plaut. The space.com article cited is guilty of false advertising. If you read the papers which are the basis of the press release that the article used, you find that the climate variations on Mars are due strictly to oscillations in the Martian spin state. So stop adding the stuff back in: you are mis-representing the speaker. That said, the PR for Martian climate research is not as careful as it should be (see my statements on Talk:Mars), which is why this article exists at all. Michaelbusch 04:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn, there go those crazy Martian PR guys again!!  ; ) -- Brittainia 04:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Pluto

All of the articles cited as purported sources of 'global warming' on Pluto say exactly the contrary of the thesis presented in this article. They are not relevant: the changes in the temperature of Pluto are caused by thermal inertia and changes in albedo as methane ice condenses in permanent shadow. The one reference that might have implied 'solar system warming' was again a researcher taken out of context: he admitted that we don't understand the process on Pluto in all details. That is hardly an endorsement of 'solar system warming'. Such mis-representation is not acceptable. Michaelbusch 04:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the original documentation? --I already forgot 04:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The MIT press release the quote was taken from: [7]. Jim Elliot was explaining that much about Pluto remains unknown and advocating the New Horizons mission. He wasn't claiming anything about the warming being external. In fact, the article says very clearly that the warming is due entirely to processes on Pluto's surface (quotes from the various researchers involved). The writers of this article have been very selective in the information they took from their sources.

More mis-representation

The above mis-representation concerns apply also to the material on Jupiter (where the oscillations in climate are proposed based on cloud physics models) and Triton, where the temperature changes are uncertain and can be accounted for by strictly local changes in albedo. I have removed this material per the above. Note: this article did have one purpose, although not that which the authors intended. It emphasizes the dynamic nature of planets: they change, they oscillate, they do strange and wonderful things. But the variations presented on this page are explained by processes that are different in every case, and the climate changes on Earth have their own cause (us). Michaelbusch 04:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Luckily the Earth does not change, oscillate, or do strange and wonderful things. It feels so reassuring that we can pin the entire blame on just one cause with such absolute confidence! ~ Rameses 05:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A little planetary science, to explain what the authors of this page have used to conceive of 'solar system warming':

• Oscillations in the spin state of Mars, caused by solar and planetary perturbations, on tens of thousands to million-year timescales. These lead to massive variations in climate across the planet on long timescales. This is an active area of research (observational, theoretical, experimental, and modeling), but all the variations are driven by orbital perturbations and are long-term.
• Changes in the temperature of Pluto as it moves outward from perihelion. Caused by changes in albedo from methane ice being deposited in permanent darkness instead of on areas that receive sunlight and the simple thermal inertia of the object.
• Similar (although unconfirmed) changes on Triton, these from re-surfacing by dark material ejected from the surface by liquid-nitrogen geysers.
• Multi-decadal variations in Jupiter's cloud decks, which may be caused by a great many things (atmospheres are complicated) or may not be happening at all. Again, this is a big area of research in the planetary science community.
• The climate change on Earth. This is different from the others in three respects: it is fast (~100 years), non-oscillatory (the famous hockey-stick graph), and it has a very well documented cause (CO2 concentration increasing due to human burning of fossil fuels).

As a planetary scientist, I am interested in all of these things. Also as a planetary scientist, I do not understand how anyone would conclude that these have common cause. Perhaps I am too close to my subject, but it seems like we need better PR if stuff like this page is not to clutter up my inbox. Michaelbusch 04:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have voted for this page to be deleted. I hope that it is, because it is nonsense. However, while it is still here, mis-representation cannot be tolerated. The Mars section was the only thing that contained someone actually advocating 'parallel global warming', so I have not purged it completely. Michaelbusch 04:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess we should count ourselves lucky you stopped purging while there was still something left on the page! ~ Rameses 05:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he has done well with cleaning it up. SadanYagci 05:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dry, very dry indeed. ~ Rameses 08:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)