Sun May Be Warming Both Earth and Mars

MCraigW writes "Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes might have a natural — and not a human-induced — cause. Mars, it appears, has also been experiencing milder temperatures in recent years. In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide 'ice caps' near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun."

Misplaced faith in the conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Mars may be a good model for human inputs of CO2 since as the Martian polar dry ice caps evaporate it simulates the effects of human produced CO2. So, no, actually, this doesn't prove that the sun is the sole cause of planetary fluctuations in temperature.

Private message to bluephone

[NotQuiteReal]

God said; "Let it be warm". Now deal with it.

Or, in modern vernacular, "chill out, dude."

Seriously - you can't "do" something helpful, unless you have a clear reason why you are doing it.

After all, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"... which I personally think is a result of the Law of unintended consequences.

A new low

[shma]

It's sad when contributors pick and choose only the parts of an article that support their own viewpoint and hope that readers are unwilling to read the whole article. Anyone who has RTFA can see that fully half of the article is a repudiation of this man's hypothesis by most of the scientific community:

Choice quotes

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

To add to this, I'd like to point out that global warming deniers are quick to dismiss 650,000 years of data about earth's temperature as not being representative of the facts, but they jump on 3 years of data (and data confined to a local area and not the whole planet) as evidence against global warming, solely because they think it supports their opinion. If they were serious about science, they would apply the same rigour to the arguments they agree with as to the arguments they disagree with.

He's not a climatologist :/

[patrik]

Searching through for his previous works [google.com] he has never published anything on climatology. This would be make his speculations well outside his field of study. Now, being a physicist myself I know that knowing physics gives you better understanding many other things. But, his one article doesn't get precedence over the mounds and mounds of other published work by people in the fields of climatology, environmental sciences, atmospheric sciences, etc. who are considered experts and are well published. If anything he might just be mentioning global warming to get money, as some /.'ers assumed about the deep sea temperature oddities article a while ago. Both sides can do it you know :). Patrik

Re:I am much relieved

[grcumb]

Even better: If we don't cripple our economy trying to fix a problem we didn't cause and have no control over, we will be glad not only that we didn't bring suffering to millions of people for no good reason, but we may also have the technolgical advancements necessary to adapt to the problem and prevent further suffering to millions of people.

Indeed. Because the history of human advancement is one in which every innovation in resource consumption proved ruinously expensive and set humanity back a step, caused endless suffering and waste.

Take for example the move from wood burning to coal energy, which resulted in the reforestation of vast swathes of Europe. Oh, hang on, that was a good thing. Well, how about the rise in urban poverty? What, you're suggesting that conditions, especially with regard to food security and illness, were actually worse in the cities before that? Oh well, forget it then.

But the move to petroleum from coal has been an unmitigated disaster, hasn't it? Oh, okay, right.

Yeah, but the energy conservation measures and emission controls of the 1970s and 80s in California are the shape of things to come. Their disastrous impact on the state left it gutted and rudderless... except they didn't. Wait - what do you mean? Are you saying that every innovation in terms of motive power, energy sources and efficiency has had a net positive effect both economically and by just about every other metric? But we should avoid it at all costs this time, because we're not Cross My Heart and Hope to Die Capital ESS Sure about things?

Because if you are, then I can see why you'd want to avoid that like the plague. It sounds like work.

Re:This will not stand

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

It causes cancer, after all. But it is only 10-40% of recent temperature increases according to the people who spend their professional careers on such questions. Things can have more than one cause.

The good news is that this is one of the issues where you don't have to understand ocean circulation, feedback loops, or satellite calibration. Just look at what's warming up and what isn't. From CO2, you get heat retained at low altitude that would otherwise be radiated into space. Expected result: nights warming relative to days, troposphere warming, stratosphere cooling. From solar forcing, you expect days warming relative to nights, and stratospheric temperature constant or rising.

Anyone who has Google for a second brain can find out, in minutes, which hypothesis matches the data better.

Re:Well Duh

[Garrett Fox]

Sure, there are plenty of environmental problems that deserve our attention. I don't think anyone disputes that part. The big questions are 1) how to deal with those problems, 2) with respect to global warming, whether the threat is real, major, and manageable enough to justify drastic action, and 3) what form (if any) that action should take.

The tendency among activists convinced that the answer to (2) is "yes" is to demand substantially increased government control over our lives, to the point of seriously proposing forced rationing via "carbon credit cards" [bbc.co.uk]. See also here [physorg.com]. (Friends of the Earth reacted to the proposal by saying it wasn't drastic enough.) So, part of the motivation for "arguing against global warming" (on its reality or on the need for action) is that GW is apparently being used, by some, to push a socialist agenda.

Re:ya but..

[The Great Pretender]

"In probability theory and statistics, correlation, also called correlation coefficient, indicates the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two random variables. In general statistical usage, correlation or co-relation refers to the departure of two variables from independence, although correlation does not imply causation." Methinks the parent got it right. Green house gases go up and temperature goes up, that's a correlation. The causation argument is something that can be debated by all.

Re:ya but..

[sjs132]

we know for sure we could reduce the effect by reducing human output of greenhouse gases (exactly how much we can reduce it by, is another question...).

Your Right... I say you lead the way... Start by commiting suicide to consume less, thus producing less GH gases... If it makes a measureable impact on the planet, I promise I'll follow shortly after.

BTW, IF we could get it soooo hot that everything dies (On purpose!) Eventually MAN will then die too... So eventually the planet will recreate life (from all the bacteri & stuff way down below the surface) that may lead to a new dominient species... so we are REALLY just contributing to the normal course of (if you believe in it) evolution. Right? so WHO GIVES a WHOOP if the Human race wipes itself out?

So, I don't get what the whole problem is about anyways.. It's just another normal cycle... We are only a blink in the time line. You or I will not and can not make a difference in the overall cycles of the planet. I think there is a MUCH GREATER chance that the 1,313,973,713 people in china (1.3 BILLION) will make MORE of an impact than the 298,444,215 People in the US (300 MILLION with "undocumented" immigrants) BUT everyone seems to jump on our backs first...

"Unlike developed countries, China and other developing nations that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol on climate change are not required to reduce their emissions of six greenhouse gases to below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. " - http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=re adnews&itemid=1761&language=1 [scidev.net]

*China -- Population: 1,313,973,713 (July 2006 est.) According to https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/prin t/ch.html [cia.gov]

*United States -- Population: 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.) According to https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/prin t/us.html [cia.gov]

Stand and deliver!

[mdsolar]

He has a point. In this case, the lab work shows causation and not merely correlation. The correlations are between atmospheric CO2 and temperature. People hesitate to call the relationship there causation because there is inadequate time resolution. You don't know for sure that the increase in CO2 came before the increase in temperature or the other way around. However, we stand on the brink of a brave new world: I urge skeptics everywhere to take the experimental approch and reduce the CO2 concentration to the pre-industrial level.

This is the only sound science approach. If we're not sure about global warming, we need to check on this. Let's track temperature changes as we remove carbon from the air just as quickly as we've put it in. It is the only way to settle the debate.

Re:Well Duh

[jadavis]

Should we not take steps to normalize the temperature anyways to stabilize the environment we prefer?

We should take the steps, provided that we know what those steps are, and that the benefits are worth the costs.

Re:All I have to say is...

[DiamondGeezer]

Nope. The proposition that manmade greenhouse gases are causing "an enhanced greenhouse effect" is the proposition of a nutcase called James Hansen.

And you swallowed the lie whole with a side of bad climate modelling.

Funnily enough Triton is warming [scienceagogo.com] as is Pluto [space.com]

Of course the biggest lie you've swallowed is that all of this is somehow disinformation by Exxon. It takes a very wide gullet to manage that one but you've taken it in your stride.

Re:Ad who?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

What's wrong with ad hominems anyway? They're a perfectly decent form of argument, with solid backing from a simple application of Bayes' theorem.

Re:All I have to say is...

[Anonymous Coward]

all the planets are warming, even Pluto

Pluto's not a planet any more.
Why?
Because scientists say so.
It's just like global warming.
Global warming is happening because scientists say so.
Since you don't believe scientists when they say that Pluto isn't a planet, it's not surprising that you don't believe scientists when they say that humans are causing global warming.
You should be censored and your funds cut off.
That's the only way to deal with scientist-disbelievers.

At least, that's what the scientists say, and scientists are always right.
Right?

Re:All I have to say is...

[ccarson]

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html [space.com]). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d [wikipedia.org] ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j [space.com] r.html [space.com])
5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ [space.com] mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770 [dailymail.co.uk])


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html [fao.org])


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 [breitbart.com] 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html [cnn.com])

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it.

Re:TFA is a troll.

[TapeCutter]

"It was a long time ago. I am guessing, before you were born or at least old enough to read?"

Bzzzzt, I was ten years old when Armstrong walked on the moon and I do indeed remember the "coming ice age". However, Uri Geller's spoon bending, Eric Von Daniken's chariots of the gods, and oversized red platform shoes were much bigger "fads" in Australia. Most kids that I knew in the '60s & '70s were "breathlessly waiting" to be conscipted to Vietnam and "worried" about nuclear war.

The root source of the "coming ice age" story can be traced back to a National Geographic article, I know of no scientific paper concerning global cooling that was produced in the 70's (see the other posters links).

OTOH: You are talking to a guy who at one time thought he looked good in oversized red platform shoes.