Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 14 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Monday June 11, @04:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the anthropogenic-lost-records dept.

Science Alert has a story about a long running Lunar temperature measurement that apparently was lost and forgotten for decades.

Between 1971 and 1977, Apollo scientists conducting experiments on the Moon discovered that the surface of our li'l satellite buddy got mysteriously warmer. But the data from 1974 onwards went missing, and the strange warming phenomenon remained an enigma. The experiment was called the heat flow experiment, and it was designed to determine the rate at which the interior of the Moon loses heat.

Astronauts with Apollo 15 and 17 drilled holes into the lunar surface, up to depths of 2.3 metres, and probes measured the temperature at several depths in the holes.

These were long-term experiments, left in place after the astronauts departed, and transmitting data back to Earth.

The measurements revealed that the temperature of the moon at all measured depths got warmer from the date the experiment started in 1971 all the way till measurements ended in 1977.
That's a relatively short period of time on a planetary time frame. A rate of warming that rapid would have the moon surface incandescent well before we were began squabbling over who got to live in the best caves.

Various theories were put forth, but in the end people pretty much agreed it must be our fault.

In typical NASA fashion, the data was archived on tape, filed in the tape vault, and promptly forgotten, lost, moved, etc. Decades later, someone went looking for it. Some 440 tapes were found, (less than 10%) badly degraded over time. Some were recovered, Logs (written ones on that old unreliable medium: Paper) were found and when combined these sources recovered significant portions of the long lost data.

After 8 years of analysis, the data showed that the warming continued, all the way through until the end of observations in 1977. It also showed that, closer to the surface, the warming was more pronounced; and the warmth reached the shallower depths sooner, suggesting that the warming was occurring from the surface down, rather than radiating out from the Moon's interior.

So were the astronauts doing that? The researchers believe that their movements were disturbing the dirt on the lunar surface.

"Recently acquired images of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera over the two landing sites show that the regolith on the paths of the astronauts turned darker, lowering the albedo," they wrote in their paper.

"We suggest that, as a result of the astronauts' activities, solar heat intake by the regolith increased slightly on average, and that resulted in the observed warming."

In other words, when they stomped about and drove lunar rovers all over the landing sites, the Apollo astronauts overturned the topsoil, exposing darker regolith underneath. Darker surfaces don't reflect as much light; instead, they absorb it.

So this darker lunar surface at the Apollo sites absorbed more of the Sun's heat, raising the Moon's surface temperature by a few degrees.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Monday June 11, @04:58PM

    by suburbanitemediocrity (6844) on Monday June 11, @04:58PM (#691472)

    feature

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, @05:02PM (42 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, @05:02PM (#691476)

    The Global Warming Hoax is #FakeNews planted in the media by Crooked Hiliary.

    MAGA!

    • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday June 11, @05:07PM (41 children)

      by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 11, @05:07PM (#691480)
      Better hope not. At least if it's man-made we can do something about it. Some of those natural warming cycles have been pretty nasty in the past.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by choose another one on Monday June 11, @05:20PM

        by choose another one (515) on Monday June 11, @05:20PM (#691488)

        The natural cooling cycles were pretty nasty too - just sayin...

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday June 11, @05:44PM (35 children)

        by Thexalon (636) on Monday June 11, @05:44PM (#691503) Homepage

        Even if it's not man-made, we could still do something about it.

        Let's say, for instance, that the Earth was warming up due to a change in solar emissions. We can't change what the sun is doing with our currently available technology. But we can take concrete steps to reduce how much of that solar radiation gets stuck in Earth's atmosphere by reducing the concentrations of CO2, because we can demonstrate that more CO2 in air causes it to warm up in fairly simple lab experiments [acs.org]. Which means we do some of the stuff those environmentalist types have been pushing us to do to reduce CO2 emissions and plant a bunch of trees, and that cuts down the the CO2 concentrations, which at least sorta counteracts what the sun is doing. And if for some reason the Earth started getting too cold, we'd be easily able to fix that by setting those newly planted forests on fire or burning coal and oil and putting CO2 back in the atmosphere.

        And of course none of this has jack squat to do with the Moon heating up, since the Moon has very little by way of atmosphere. As best as I can tell, the claim is "NASA conveniently forgot measurements from the 1970's that the Moon was heating up, so therefor there's some sort of massive conspiracy involving NASA misreporting the numbers on Earth's temperature, so therefor the Earth isn't heating up." Which of course ignores all the other measurements done by lots of other organizations that support the claim that the Earth is heating up. And even if all those agencies were in some kind of grand conspiracy, you could also, y'know, take temperature measurements yourself using a simple outdoor thermometer, put them to a spreadsheet, and do the math yourself to see what was going on in your local climate, and share that information amongst others interested in the issue, but none of these opponents to the concept that climate change actually seem to be doing any of that.

        --
        A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of bad gravy.
        • (Score: 5, Funny) by maxwell demon on Monday June 11, @05:56PM (14 children)

          by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 11, @05:56PM (#691511) Journal

          As best as I can tell, the claim is "NASA conveniently forgot measurements from the 1970's that the Moon was heating up, so therefor there's some sort of massive conspiracy involving NASA misreporting the numbers on Earth's temperature, so therefor the Earth isn't heating up."

          Ah, but now we have a conspiracy theory clash: How could NASA hide inconvenient data collected by instruments installed by astronauts on the moon if we never have landed on the moon? ;-)

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
          • (Score: 3, Funny) by suburbanitemediocrity on Monday June 11, @05:57PM (3 children)

            by suburbanitemediocrity (6844) on Monday June 11, @05:57PM (#691512)

            Because the moon is flat too.

            That's how.

            • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday June 12, @03:40AM (2 children)

              by cubancigar11 (330) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 12, @03:40AM (#691763) Homepage Journal

              Many people forget that we are not denying the rocket launches by NASA. We all saw it, just like our uncritical peers. The rocket went up, and landed on the moon just like the dart in my hand goes ahead and lands on the board, right at the center - bullseye we call it - just like our theory.

              It is obvious that a rocket landing like that will leave no survivors? So is NASA that/em? stupid? They would like us to believe that, but no. Even USSR wasn't that stupid and government knew it! So the "astro"-nauts were shipped instead to Area 51 and an elaborate moon landing forgery was committed.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @06:46PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @06:46PM (#692049)

                I hope you're trolling...

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, @06:08PM (9 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, @06:08PM (#691516)

            Its not that they didn't land stuff on the moon, its that there are a bunch of oddities surrounding the human moon landing videos and pics shared with the public. Almost like they did run a parallel "fake moon landing" project and then commingled the results with real moon landing stuff for whatever marketing or PR purposes.

            Even this story notes how awful nasa was about saving the data from that time, almost as if they want it to go away. This has to be some of the most expensive and precious data on the planet? How can they treat it like this to the point it is "typical"?

            In typical NASA fashion, the data was archived on tape, filed in the tape vault, and promptly forgotten, lost, moved, etc.

            • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday June 11, @09:38PM (6 children)

              by mhajicek (51) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 11, @09:38PM (#691628)

              Even some Doctor Who and Star Trek episohave been lost forever. Maybe nerds are just bad at long term storage.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, @10:30PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, @10:30PM (#691645)

                Did those episodes cost 107 billion (2016-adjusted) dollars?

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program [wikipedia.org]

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @01:51PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @01:51PM (#691888)

                  People weren't interested in the same things back then that they are today. That includes the preservation of history, it just wasn't something that crossed people's minds. Not only that, it was more expensive and took up a lot more of people's time to do.

              • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday June 11, @10:50PM (2 children)

                by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 11, @10:50PM (#691652) Homepage

                Long-term data storage is difficult.

                • (Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Tuesday June 12, @01:42AM (1 child)

                  by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 12, @01:42AM (#691732) Journal

                  Long-term data storage is difficult.

                  No, it isn't.
                  Its just not a ONCE and DONE thing.

                  These tapes needed to be copied onto fresh tapes (or more permanent media) every 5 years or so.

                  Everybody knew this at the time. Recopying tapes to new media was one of my first tasks in my first job in a large data center.
                  New tapes were never put directly into production. They went into archive preservation, and the existing archival tapes (written once)
                  were copied to the new tapes, and then the existing tapes were rotated into production.

                  As a consequence we never had archival tape failures. We always got to them first with the preservation process.

                  --
                  No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
                  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @08:34AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @08:34AM (#691829)

                    These tapes needed to be copied onto fresh tapes (or more permanent media) every 5 years or so.

                    That works great for digital media, because the copy will be without noise (as long as the noise is small enough that it won't change any bits (after error correction, if any).

                    Now try the same with analogue. I suggest you find a couple of old VHS decks. Copying every five years since late 1960'es / early 1970'es is about ten generations. Let us know how much of the original video remains.

              • (Score: 4, Funny) by maxwell demon on Tuesday June 12, @04:49AM

                by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 12, @04:49AM (#691779) Journal

                Even some Doctor Who and Star Trek episohave been lost forever.

                And even some letters of your comment, it seems. ;-)

                --
                The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
            • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday June 11, @11:45PM (1 child)

              by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 11, @11:45PM (#691665)

              I'm pretty sure the 1960 Census happened, but when the agency I worked for tried to get copies of the original data around 1985 (to compare against the most recent data)...well, we'd lost our copies (800 BPI even parity...too many read errors to recover) so we tried to get copies from the Census Bureau...and they'd lost them too. I forget exactly which survey we were after, I think it might have been the blockface long-form, since the 1980 census tracts didn't match the 1960 census tracts due to shifts in population. I think we went from something like 1005 tracts to 1200. Those are extremely rough number, though, because I haven't looked at the records for about 30 years.

              But losing archival records isn't as rare as one would hope it would be.

              --
              Put not your faith in princes.
        • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday June 11, @06:07PM (9 children)

          a few years ago I came up with the idea of plotting the quantity and severity of wildfires vs. the date. I thought of this because that was a particularly bad year for fires in the west.

          I asked an actual Fire Chief about this and he told me that someone is already doing it.

          Sorry, didn't think to ask who it was.

          --
          My United States Social Security Number Is 518-92-8663
          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Sulla on Monday June 11, @06:13PM (4 children)

            by Sulla (5173) on Monday June 11, @06:13PM (#691519) Journal

            Wildfires are a tricky thing to use as evidence because of differences in how forests were managed over the decades. Wildfires were necessary to have on a small scale to clear the deadwood to keep massive fires from occuring, by cracking down and eliminating as many small fires as necessary it leaves our forests full of ready-to-burn fuel ready to go.

            --
            "I'd rather take a political risk for peace rather than risk peace in pursuit of politics" - President Donald J. Trump
            • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday June 11, @06:16PM (3 children)

              I Am Absolutely Serious:

              Increased rainfall during the winter and spring led to increased undergrowth in Washington's and Oregon's forests a few years ago. When summer came much of that undergrowth dried out, resulting in lots of tasty fuel for hungry arsonists.

              --
              My United States Social Security Number Is 518-92-8663
              • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday June 11, @11:47PM (2 children)

                by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 11, @11:47PM (#691667)

                You left out the pine beetles.

                --
                Put not your faith in princes.
                • (Score: 1) by Muad'Dave on Tuesday June 12, @11:41AM (1 child)

                  by Muad'Dave (1413) on Tuesday June 12, @11:41AM (#691858)

                  Pine beetles don't burn particularly well. :-)

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15, @09:49AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15, @09:49AM (#693410)

                    Pine pitch in dead pines sure does, though.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday June 11, @08:34PM (3 children)

            by Thexalon (636) on Monday June 11, @08:34PM (#691590) Homepage

            The fact that somebody else is doing that plotting doesn't automatically mean you shouldn't also do it on your own, especially if you doubted the results coming from the somebody else.

            My point was that the people who are denying that the Earth is getting warmer almost definitely have all the equipment they would need to take their own measurements that would either confirm or contradict that claim. They aren't doing so, which means they either know they're wrong but are pretending they don't, are choosing to be ignorant of whether they're wrong, or too lazy to do the work to find out.

            --
            A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of bad gravy.
            • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday June 11, @09:06PM

              by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 11, @09:06PM (#691608) Homepage Journal

              I'll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. You can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind. Maybe there's global warming and maybe there isn't. If there isn't, we won't do anything about it. And if there is we won't do anything about it.

              --
              #FreeDonaldTrump [twitter.com]
            • (Score: 2) by arslan on Tuesday June 12, @03:57AM (1 child)

              by arslan (3462) on Tuesday June 12, @03:57AM (#691769)

              Eh? I thought the debate was whether it is man-made global warming instead of whether there is warming. The former is a lot harder to prove.

              Regardless of either we _should_ do something about it - but the debate then becomes how much resource do we want to spend on this, which then becomes problematic depending on where one finds themselves in with regards to their place in the modern world, so it is next to impossible to get any sort of agreement as everyone has different things to lose. Add on the typical opportunistic vultures that will do anything to squeeze an iota of profit out of any endeavor on both sides of the divide, the problem space pretty much goes from improbable to impossible.

              • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @08:39AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @08:39AM (#691832)

                Eh? I thought the debate was whether it is man-made global warming instead of whether there is warming. The former is a lot harder to prove.

                That's one of the reason why it is so hard to convince global warming skeptics.

                Skeptic: The sun is getting warmer, Mars is getting warmer, can you prove that the Earth getting warmer is caused by humans and not the sun?
                AGW proponent: Look, the data shows the Earth is getting warmer, [these are not the droid you are looking for], ergo, man-made global warming.
                Skeptic: I find your evidence lacking.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, @06:15PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, @06:15PM (#691520)

          we can demonstrate that more CO2 in air causes it to warm up in fairly simple lab experiments [acs.org].

          The link (https://www.acs.org/content/dam/AACT/middle-school/gases/.../lab-greenhousegas.pdf) doesn't work:

          We're Sorry :(

          We aren’t able to complete your request.

          Anyway we can guess what was there, I bet it measured the temperature of something in an enclosed insulated container. I would not extrapolate from that to a gravitating gas that can expand (eg troposphere height varies a lot between the poles and equator) and is in equilibrium with a high heat capacity liquid.

          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday June 11, @08:36PM (3 children)

            by Thexalon (636) on Monday June 11, @08:36PM (#691592) Homepage

            Sorry about that: correct link [acs.org]. This targets middle-schoolers.

            --
            A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of bad gravy.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, @09:35PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, @09:35PM (#691626)

              Ok, the experiment is filling two 2 liters halfway with water stoppering the top and shining a heat lamp on them. Then you drop 3 alka-seltzer tablets into one, restopper it, and measure the temperature of the air in the upper half of both. Then at the end you use your chromebook to explain "How have humans contributed to an increase in carbon dioxide levels in the past 100 years?"

              So what are we looking at here? Overall: NaHCO3(aq) + H20 -> NaOH(aq) + H2C03 -> NaOH(aq) + H20 + CO2(g)

              The sodium bicarbonate is going to dissolve in the water and produce carbon dioxide gas which is net endothermic. This gas then effervesces into the air pocket in the upper half of the two liter and increases the pressure. So the water temperature will decrease due to a chemical reaction while the air temperature increases due to increased pressure. What does this have to do with the proposed "greenhouse effect"?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @12:12AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @12:12AM (#691675)

                What does this have to do with the proposed "greenhouse effect"?

                If you can't work out a solution by yourself, you have no standing in criticizing the experiment.
                (just in case you can't: just wait a bit before shining the light again for the temperature to become equal in the two recipients).

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @01:35AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @01:35AM (#691729)

                  Where is "wait a bit before shining the light again" in the procedure? It just has them "turn on the light" (step 6) and then leave it on for 40 minutes.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 11, @09:39PM

          by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 11, @09:39PM (#691629) Journal

          We can't change what the sun is doing with our currently available technology. But we can take concrete steps to reduce how much of that solar radiation gets stuck in Earth's atmosphere

          Wait, wasn't there a story here on SN about a new paint/material that re-radiated solar Insolation directly to space bypassing the atmosphere?

          https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116040-future-air-conditioning-could-work-by-beaming-heat-into-space/ [newscientist.com]

          Earth’s atmosphere allows thermal radiation of wavelengths between 8 and 13 micrometres to pass through it into outer space – but most objects release heat at different wavelengths. The Stanford emitter, however, was specifically designed so that most of the heat it emits falls within that range, meaning that on a clear day it will pass straight out into space without being bounced back by the atmosphere

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday June 11, @10:14PM (3 children)

          by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 11, @10:14PM (#691641)
          We could of course remove our added contribution but considering the extent and dramatic increases in temp in some of the past hot periods, it would be a drop in the bucket over the long term. I just really find it funny when deniers bring up "it's just a natural increase!" BS. That doesn't make the situation any better, it's fucking worse!

          As for the moon, it should be obvious I was replying to the coward's global warming statement.
          • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday June 11, @11:58PM (2 children)

            by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 11, @11:58PM (#691670)

            IIRC, we're supposed to be in an inter-glacial period right now...and probably supposed to be just leaving it. So *some* global warming is desirable...but the amount is strictly limited.

            And my guess is that in the hot periods you are talking about the continental plates were in a very different configuration. Pangaea type configurations tend to have extreme hot interiors. There are a few other hot periods, of course, but those are the really notable ones.

            Also, yes, the sun is getting hotter, It's on its way to becoming a Red Giant. It's nearly half way there. But, IIUC, this is happening on a very long time period on the human scale. For shorter periods, the sun goes though an approximately 12 year cycle tied in with sunspots where the temperature also rises and declines. This is a somewhat irregular period, with notable variations. See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html [gsu.edu] or check Google.

            --
            Put not your faith in princes.
            • (Score: 3, Informative) by EvilSS on Tuesday June 12, @12:39AM (1 child)

              by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 12, @12:39AM (#691691)

              And my guess is that in the hot periods you are talking about the continental plates were in a very different configuration.

              Bad guess on your part then. Eocene epoch, for example, saw the continents in the same general areas as they are today, particularity Antarctica where the weather was more like southern California than, well, Antarctica. If anything they had more coast lines and separation than they do today.

              • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday June 12, @05:48AM

                by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 12, @05:48AM (#691793)

                OK. When I looked that up most of the references talked about sea temperature, which is reasonable. In the Pangaeas it was the interior that got really hot.

                --
                Put not your faith in princes.
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by looorg on Monday June 11, @05:54PM (3 children)

        by looorg (578) on Monday June 11, @05:54PM (#691510)

        Considering how few people that have actually been to the moon that would be scarey then wouldn't it. There is only something like 12 humans that have ever actually been ON the moon, I could have missed some people. But if those 12 people can make the temperature increase by several degrees all by themselves. Then we are truly and well fucked on our planet with out 7.6 Billion people on it. There just isn't anything we can do then.

        • (Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Monday June 11, @07:00PM

          by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 11, @07:00PM (#691547) Homepage Journal

          The astronauts walked on the moon. And their footprints warmed the moon. If you believe the story.

          Singapore, huge crowds, so many people walking, walking. To see me. And it's warm, it's in the 80s. Possibly there's something to the story. And we can cool our cities, our planet, by walking less. Driving more. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't. But it'll save our precious body energy. I'm already doing it and I feel great!!!

          --
          #FreeDonaldTrump [twitter.com]
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by tfried on Monday June 11, @07:40PM

          by tfried (5534) on Monday June 11, @07:40PM (#691561)

          The difference is that these values are not global (lunar) measures at all, but just a few local probes at locations where - by definition - the astronaut had been active. Moon does not have an atmosphere to transfer heat over any significant range. Thermal transfer through the rock/dust itself will effectively be limited to a smallish range around the probe.

        • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday June 11, @10:08PM

          by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 11, @10:08PM (#691638)
          Context is your friend
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Sulla on Monday June 11, @05:19PM (5 children)

    by Sulla (5173) on Monday June 11, @05:19PM (#691487) Journal

    Getting real tired of these big oil CROOKS drilling on the moon for PROFIT and destroying the beautiful lunar atmosphere.

    It seems pretty widely accepted that things are getting warmer and all the arguing comes down to the cause. What I always had a problem with was not that there is man caused warming, but that there is this utter rejection of the possibility that the sun could be playing a part as well. The refusal to consider other ideas seemed so much to me like they are trying to push an agenda about banning fossil fuels and not about preventing warming.

    --
    "I'd rather take a political risk for peace rather than risk peace in pursuit of politics" - President Donald J. Trump
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, @05:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, @05:44PM (#691502)

      That warming is because of the SUV that was sent in the 70s. Built with old norms not following the current low emission trend.

    • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday June 11, @06:10PM

      The sun really could be getting warmer if it has a very slow oscillation in its diameter.

      Cepheid variables do that, with their peak brightness being related to their period. They were the first "Standard Candle" that enabled us to measure the distances to other galaxies.

      --
      My United States Social Security Number Is 518-92-8663
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Sulla on Monday June 11, @08:27PM (2 children)

      by Sulla (5173) on Monday June 11, @08:27PM (#691583) Journal

      Again, calling someone a Troll for saying "hey maybe we should also consider the Sun's impact to better understand what is causing this" is what makes people flat out reject the movement to stop climate change. As we work to try and reduce and correct our excess emissions we will eventually get to the point of climate modification to deal with heat, if we do this without understanding what portions are caused by man and what are caused by Sun we will over-correct.

      --
      "I'd rather take a political risk for peace rather than risk peace in pursuit of politics" - President Donald J. Trump
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @07:49AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @07:49AM (#691820)

        It's like getting upset when Microsoft Office support asks you if you've tried turning the computer on.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @01:33PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @01:33PM (#691877)

          Nah, it's more like getting upset when someone says Allah doesn't exist.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Sulla on Monday June 11, @05:22PM

    by Sulla (5173) on Monday June 11, @05:22PM (#691490) Journal

    Astronauts with Apollo 15 and 17 drilled holes into the lunar surface, up to depths of 2.3 metres, and probes measured the temperature at several depths in the holes.

    These were long-term experiments, left in place after the astronauts departed, and transmitting data back to Earth.

    Did they account for the urban heat affect? Well known that urban and suburban areas are warmer than rural areas, did they account for the changes that would happen if the probes in rural areas are now in urban areas? #fakenews

    --
    "I'd rather take a political risk for peace rather than risk peace in pursuit of politics" - President Donald J. Trump
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by requerdanos on Monday June 11, @05:39PM (9 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 11, @05:39PM (#691499) Journal

    Observe the following two quotes, both describing the same set of measurements:

    So this darker lunar surface...absorbed more of the Sun's heat, raising the Moon's surface temperature by a few degrees.

    warming that rapid would have the moon surface incandescent

    This is very similar to what we see in "global warming climate change" arguments by dogmatic cataclysm proponents.

    They take something like "The warming trend is 1.5 degrees" which is bad enough, and turn it into silly things like "The oceans will rise and overtake all land from all the ice melting, and at the same time it will all boil away from the heat! Everyone will die! It's your own fault! You must believe me! I am Al Gore!"

    Now, there's a warming trend, and the overwhelmingly likely cause is negative human activity, but I live at the beach, and as of a few days ago, it wasn't boiling; it was actually quite pleasant as is usual for this time of year.

    But that position, recognizing established and known facts, is very, very unpopular.

    The alarmist cataclysm nutjobs are not satisified with it, and insist that the very rocks of the earth will all melt away or other such nonsense, and the change-denier nutjobs quite rightly point out that the alarmist cataclysm nutjobs are full ot it, but then erroneously conclude that there must be no warming, because somebody as nutty as the catastrophe people can't possibly be right about *anything*. (Bzzt. Guys: You'd be surprised.)

    I am not saying that it's irresponsible to joke about the moon becoming incandescent, just pointing out the parallels.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday June 11, @05:51PM (1 child)

      by Thexalon (636) on Monday June 11, @05:51PM (#691507) Homepage

      Al Gore hasn't had much to do with climate change arguments since around 2007 or so. He's a great straw man, of course, but the big names promoting the idea that climate change is happening around right now are Bill Nye, Michael Shermer, and Neil deGrasse Tyson. The smaller names promoting the idea that climate change is happening are simply the overwhelming majority of people who have any kind of scientific education and have studied the issue.

      Damn those dogmatists, using data and reasoning and experiments to try to prove their point!

      --
      A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of bad gravy.
      • (Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Monday June 11, @06:42PM

        by Oakenshield (4900) on Monday June 11, @06:42PM (#691533)

        Al Gore hasn't had much to do with climate change arguments since around 2007 or so.

        I heard he was spending his time chasing down something called a Manbearpig or such.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday June 11, @06:12PM (5 children)

      that's already a problem in the low-lying islands just off the coast of Louisiana.

      Also some of the Pacific atolls.

      --
      My United States Social Security Number Is 518-92-8663
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by requerdanos on Monday June 11, @08:34PM (4 children)

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 11, @08:34PM (#691591) Journal

        [sea rise is] already a problem in the low-lying islands just off the coast of Louisiana.

        There is something of a problem here in Southeast North Carolina too; we've lost a couple houses off the North end of one of the sea islands in Brunswick County (Ocean Isle Beach) to sea erosion (or sea level rise, take your pick).

        As opposed to the alarmist cataclysmic prediction quoted by Gore himself ten years ago that the seas would have risen 20 feet [scienceline.org] by now, obliterating the entirety of the sea islands and a good chunk of the mainland.

        But Four peer-reviewed studies found no observable sea level effect from man-made global warming [cnsnews.com] a few years ago, and coastline just isn't disappearing all over the world as predicted.

        The difference between warming + which is bad + small problems in reality, and the fantasyland of warming + zomg!end of the world! global catastrophe, is marked and striking.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, @08:47PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, @08:47PM (#691597)

          When I was in grade school, we used to get these 'papers' called Weekly Reader (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_Reader). I think it was supposed to teach us something.

          Anyway, I remember one story was about coastal erosion and how South Carolina was going to be gone by sometime in the 80's. I remember it vividly because it always worried me and I thought about it whenever I visited the beach in CA. This was before global warming when we were worried about the next ice age (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_861us8D9M).

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday June 12, @01:49AM

            by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 12, @01:49AM (#691735) Journal

            Then you grew up and realized that the beach in CA was not in South Carolina, so problem solved.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @08:11AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @08:11AM (#691825)

          I'm sure glad I can read for myself.. and I'm disappointed in you.

          Your link says the Al Gore's 20' statement had no timeline... and others were speaking in centuries... yet you say "by now"

          Your sea-level link is deceptive too.
          They quote:
          “We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” study co-author Fedor Baart told the BBC.

          and yet going to the BBC story shows the effects of warming and human terraforming:

          "The researchers said Dubai's coast had been significantly extended, with the creation of new islands to house luxury resorts.

          "China has also reconstructed their whole coast from the Yellow Sea all the way down to Hong Kong," sid Dr Baart. "

          "The largest increase in water has been on the Tibetan Plateau, while the Aral Sea has been the biggest conversion of water to land."

          "The team found that vast areas that were once land are now submerged beneath water, with the largest change occurring in the Tibetan Plateau, where melting glaciers are creating huge new lakes."

          "An increase in the number of dams was also boosting water cover, and using the satellite data, the team was able to detect previously unreported constructions."

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @09:08AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, @09:08AM (#691838)

            Your link says the Al Gore's 20' statement had no timeline... and others were speaking in centuries... yet you say "by now"

            When I was a kid, they said "by 2010". But I think that was only six feet, not 20.

            Now they all pick dates at least a hundred years out, bringing climate science into the "not falsifiable in our lifetime" category.

    • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday June 11, @07:14PM

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 11, @07:14PM (#691555) Homepage Journal

      So true, there is a cooling, and there's a heating. I mean look, it used to not be climate change, it used to be global warming. That wasn't working too well because it was getting too cold all over the place. The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now, but now they're setting records. They're at a record level.

      Jim Bridenstine, my NASA guy, said a very smart thing, "scientists absolutely contribute to global warming." And it's so true!

      --
      #FreeDonaldTrump [twitter.com]
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by richtopia on Monday June 11, @06:30PM (1 child)

    by richtopia (3160) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 11, @06:30PM (#691531) Homepage Journal

    I'm unsure of the realities of IR temperature measurements, but I'm curious if telescopes can measure the temperature of the lunar surface. This would help with my two questions:

    1. Is the warming localized to the astronauts locations?
    2. Does the temperature stabilize at a warmer temperature after the astronaut departure?

    The article states the warming permeates from the surface so surface readings should suffice for these observations. Are there any astronomers who can provide insight to optical temperature sensing?

(1)