There have been claims that warming on Mars and Pluto are proof that the recent warming on Earth is caused by an increase in solar activity, and not by greenhouse gases. But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity.

The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myth special: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans). If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto.

Our solar system has eight planets, three dwarf planets and quite a few moons with at least a rudimentary atmosphere, and thus a climate of sorts. Their climates will be affected by local factors such as orbital variations, changes in reflectance (albedo) and even volcanic eruptions, so it would not be surprising if several planets and moons turn out to be warming at any one time.

However, given that a year on Mars is nearly two Earth years long, and that a year on Pluto lasts for 248 Earth years, it is rather early to start drawing conclusions about long-term climate trends on the outer bodies of the Solar System.

What do we know? Images of Mars suggest that between 1999 and 2005, some of the frozen carbon dioxide that covers the south polar region turned into gas (sublimated). This may be the result of the whole planet warming (see Mars images hint at recent climate swings).

Dwarf planet
One theory is that winds have recently swept some areas of Mars clean of dust, darkening the surface, warming the Red Planet and leading to further increases in windiness - a positive feedback effect (see Dust blamed for warming on Mars).

There is a great deal of uncertainty, though. The warming could be a regional effect. And recent results from the thermal imaging system on the Mars Odyssey probe suggest that the polar cap is not shrinking at all, but varies greatly from one Martian year to the next, although the details have yet to be published.

Observations of the thickness of Pluto's atmosphere in 2002 suggested the dwarf planet was warming even as its orbit took it further from the Sun. The finding baffled astronomers at the time, and the cause has yet to be determined.

It has since been suggested that this is due to a greenhouse effect: as it gets closer to the sun Pluto may warm enough for some of the methane ice on its surface to turn into a gas. This would cause further warming, which would continue for a while even after Pluto's orbit starts to take it away from the Sun.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642-climate-myths-mars-and-pluto-are-warming-too.html

Wow.

You just keep on lapping up that bullspit.

Meanwhile, those of us who bother to stay away from the kool aid dispense will continue to pay attention to the fact that Mars, Jupiter, Pluto...NONE of them have people on them.

Yet they are still warming.

Ever consider that the same forces, if not solar activity, that are causing the warming on those planets, are the same forces that may be causing the warming of OUR planet??

Of course not. Your Kool Aid mustache is firmly in place.

Drink up.

All I have to say on the matter of climate change is, you have to be dumber than dog **** to not see and know that the planet changes...always has, always will until the Andromeda and Milkyway collide in about 4 1/2 billion years.

They aren't arguing the change itself.

They are arguing about the cause of the change.

Natural cycle vs. man made

As far as I know there is NO irrefutable proof from either side to say it IS or is NOT man made, but I haven't read all the info floating around out there. Just know this to be fact there are two side the right, and the left. One stands to lose billions on this and the other stand to gain billions. This whole thing for the overwhelming most part is political horse ****. Until the talking heads on the networks start having biologists on, I won't listen. There's not a politician one that has any background in biological sciences that I know of. Listening to a Senator or member of Congress talk about this is identical to Barbara Streissand talk about Hurricanes.

The worst part is that even the " scientists " ( I use that term loosely ) who's work the entire Global Warming religion is based on have failed to point out that computer models are flawed and that a whole lot of the " scientists " involved actually massaged the data to make it show what they wanted it to.

. . . . .Correct me, if I'm wrong:

Our galaxy (including most of the others) is elipse shaped. The solar system is said to be located somewhere near the furthest side of the figure (i.e. elipse) -- from what I remember from the time I studied the subject almost 20+ years ago. It takes roughly 60-65 million years to get to the diddle of our gallaxy, the narrowest of it's parts -- the closest to the centre of our gallaxy: the hottest and the most volatile part.

*** Is it just a coincidence the Dynasaurs become extinct approximately 60-65 million years ago???

But, if that's the case, then it would stand to reason that we are at the end of the outer swing, as it were, and it would take another 60-65 million years to get back to that point.

I don't really know whether the changes being seen currently could be attributed to that kind of timeline. I would think that the changes would be MUCH more gradual almost to the point of being unnoticeable.

Definitely an interesting thought, though.

You might be Right, but then you might be Left!

The Solar system's location is just an approximation -- nobody really knows where we currently are -- except of the scientists. But they are prohibited from informing the general public -- for the fear of the mass panic!!!

Pluto isn't a planet anymore, so it does not count. Oh wait its a dwarf planet? So its still a planet? But it does not count because its a dwarf!? Oh hell if I know.

Damn, its getting cloudy in here...