Mars is a very windy place--so windy, in fact, that bright, oxidized martian soil is being scoured away by martian winds and dust devils to reveal darker, sub-surface soil with the end result of making the whole planet warmer. Mars is experiencing its own brand of climate change. Is this related to planet earth's greenhouse gas driven climate change? No. Is understanding the process important for our understanding of how planets evolve and change over time? Absolutely.
The post from Greg at The Politic seems particularly dishonest, as the article he quotes from actually includes the same explanation of the Martian warming phenomenon as is given above. Or perhaps Greg has ADD and is incapable of reading a newspaper article to the very end.
Incidentally, when you hear these stories about Global Warming on Mars, or Titan, or Pluto being proof that the same phenomenon on Earth is due to "solar cycles", just remember, you don't have to look at Mars or Pluto to see what the Sun is up to. You can simply take direct measurements of the Sun itself, as these people have been doing for years. And guess what? Solar output has remained more or less constant during this time.
21 comments:
NASA is calling you a liar.
Why don't you sue them for insulting your scientific opinion ??
March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
sun at maximum cycle
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,"
The IPCC contradicts itself
http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2007/04/crunching-ipccs-numbers.html
The following analysis was sent to me by an astute reader, who is also a geophysicist, who says that he prepared this:
"only using data that the IPCC agrees with; in particular the long term global temperature and CO2 concentrations back to 1856 which have been published by them in support of their AGW premise. (The IPCC has never disagreed with the lower troposphere temperatures from satellites they only have commented on the differences between the satellite data and the land based data.)
"The kicker is that when their own data is held up to physical reality it shows their entire premise to be wrong."
The emphasis and tables have been added by me. Here are the results of number crunching of the IPCC accepted data:
THREE YEARS AND THREE DATA POINTS
The year 1990 was selected as the reference year for the Kyoto Accord.
In 1990 human emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels was 21,230 megatonnes.
In 1990 atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 354.16ppmv (year average from Mauna Loa observatory). In 1990 the global temperature was 14.075 degrees C (year average from MSU satellite data for the lower troposphere referenced to 14 degrees C for a relative absolute temperature)
In 2003 the global temperature from this satellite data dropped from 14.317 degrees C of the previous year to 14.272 degrees C. The temperature dropped again in 2004, went up in 2005, and dropped again in 2006 representing a net cooling of 0.044 degrees C over the last four years indicating that global warming is likely over.
In 2003 human emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels was 25,030 megatonnes.
In 2003 atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 375.79ppmv.
In 2003 the global temperature was 14.272 degrees C.
The year 2006 is the last complete year for these data.
In 2006 human emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels was 29,330 megatonnes.
In 2006 atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 381.89ppmv.
In 2006 the global temperature was 14.272 degrees C.
I've added this table to place the numbers side by side for comparison:
YEAR CO2 emissions
CO2 concentration
Global Temp
1990
21,230 Mtonnes
354.16 ppmv
14.075 C
2003
25,030 Mtonnes
375.79 ppmv
14.272 C
2006
29,330 Mtonnes
381.89 ppmv
14.272 C
Kyoto is based on the direct relationship between CO2 emissions and CO2 concentration.
From 1990 to 2003 emissions increased from 21,230 to 25,030 megatonnes or 292 megatonnes per year.
From 2003 to 2006 emissions increased from 25,030 to 29,330megatonnes or 1435 megatonnes per year.
This represents an increase in the rate of emissions of 491% (this alarming rate of increase was duly noted at the conference in Nairobi last year using 2001as the pivotal date and “over a four fold increase” stated.)
If there is a direct linear relationship between CO2 emissions and concentration then this same 491% increase should have taken place in the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase.
From 1990 to 2003 the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increased from 254.16ppmv to 375.79ppmv or 1.66ppmv per year.
From 2003 to 2006 the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increased from 375.79ppmv to 381.89ppmv or 2.03ppmv per year.
This represents an increase in the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration of only 22% yet the emissions rate increased by 491%.
Another table added:
PERIOD CO2 Emissions
rate increase
CO2 concentration
rate increase
1990-2003
292 Mtonnes
1.66 ppmv
2003-2006
1,435 Mtonnes
+491%
2.03 ppmv
+22%
If emissions are increasing at a rate over 20 times greater than the increase in concentration then it is clear that human emissions are not primarily responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and consequentially not primarily responsible for global warming for those who subscribe to the Greenhouse Gas hypothesis of global warming.
Since human emissions can be calculated in actual tonnage, simple algebra can show the relative contributions of CO2 to the atmospheric concentration from human and other sources.
In 2006 this equates to humans contributing 1435 megatonnes to the concentration increase and other sources presumably natural (such as out gassing of the oceans and volcanoes) contributing 4836 megatonnes.
This is a clear statement that human emissions are only contributing 29.7% of the atmospheric CO2 increase and therefore any statement that human emissions are the major cause of global warming is clearly false.
Another table added:
YEAR CO2 Emissions
from Humans
CO2 Emissions
from other
2006
1,435 Mtonnes 4836 Mtonnes
The sharp increase in human emissions took place in 2001 as was pointed out by the IPCC. If the same calculation is done using the 5 years before and after 2001 the human emissions contribution to the atmospheric concentration is reduced to 27%, and if the natural emissions are increasing as would be suggested by out gassing theory this number would be reduced even further.
All of the predictions for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2050 or 2100 are based on emissions not actual measured atmospheric CO2 concentration.
The 2006 concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 381.89ppmv and the increase from 2005 was 2.15ppmv with the rate increasing at 0.15ppmv/year each year.
In 2050, 44 years from now, the concentration will have increased by 101.2ppmv to 483.1ppmv which is far from a doubling of 760ppmv, and even in 2100 the concentration will only be 598.1ppmv.
Quite simply, the actual physical data indicates that even if we increase our emissions at our current alarming rates we will have met the concentration objectives of the Kyoto Accord by staying well under a doubling of atmospheric CO2 by 2100.
The global temperature change as a function of human emissions is a further indication that the premise for Kyoto is wrong.
The global temperature increased from 1990 to 2003 from 14.075 to 14.272 degrees C or about 0.015 degrees C per year.
The global temperature was exactly the same in 2003 and 2006 indicating zero increase between those years.
Remarkably the zero increase in global temperature took place when the emissions were increasing at over 20 times the rate for the period that the temperature was increasing at 0.015 degrees C per year. By any scientific standard this would negate any possible correlation of human CO2 emissions with global temperature change.
In fact the temperature data over the last 150 years compared to the CO2 concentration data as presented by the IPCC prove that CO2 concentration itself cannot be correlated with global temperature changes.
A close inspection of the temperature graph will show that instead of a continuous temperature rise since the turn of the century there are two almost linear trends of global temperature increase separated by the well documented minor cooling that took place from about 1943 to 1975. The trend from 1975 to 2006 has a slope of about 0.02 degrees C per year. The earlier trend from about 1911 to 1943 also has the near identical slope of 0.02 degrees C per year.
The change in atmospheric CO2 concentration as presented by the IPCC shows an increase of less than 0.3ppmv per year from 1911 to 1943 but that rate increases by over 6 times to just under 2ppmv per year from 1975 to 2006.
PERIOD Change in CO2
concentration per year
Change in
Temperature per year
1911-1943
0.3ppmv
0.02 C
1975-2006
~2.0ppmv
0.02 C
If two concentration rate increases, one six times the other, produce the same rate of temperature increase there are only two possible conclusions; either there is no relationship between CO2 concentration and global temperature; or there is such a rapidly decreasing exponential relationship that it would take several doublings of CO2 concentration to achieve the same amount of temperature increase that occurred from 1975 to 2006.
(While the first conclusion that there is no relationship between CO2 changes and global temperatures is more likely, the second possible conclusion points to the likelihood that the parts of the 4.2micron band and the 13.5micron band that are unique CO2 infrared radiation capture are nearly saturated and additional CO2 concentration has progressively less an less effect in a decreasing exponential fashion.)
In Summary the actual physical data used by the IPCC clearly demonstrates that:
1. Human emissions are not the primary source for increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and in fact represent less than 30% of the contribution.
2. Human emissions cannot be responsible for global temperature changes.
3. Changes in concentration of atmospheric CO2 have virtually no effect on global temperature.
This simple demonstration of basic science using IPCC data begs the question why was this not done by the IPCC scientists who are all top scientists more than capable of recognizing these simple shortcomings of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis?
The short answer is that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is not a scientific entity, but a political body. And it's politicians like Mr. Dion, Ms. May, Mr. Layton, Mr. Duceppe and now, sadly Mr. Baird who don't want to recognize these simple shortcomings of the global warming crusade
"Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
I agree BCL; all NASA scientists must get money from big oil.
“Solar output has remained more or less constant during this time.”
More or Less?
Which is it BCL? More? Or Less?
No where in the data you provided does it say that the increase in the earth temperature since the 1970’s is not within the sun’s constant output“more or less during this time.”
The fact is BCL is we simply today don’t understand the sun’s internal mechanics and how they effect our planet good enough to say for sure that the resent warming of planet earth and mars is cause by the sun or not. Since over 98% all the heat on this planet comes from the sun (the rest comes from the earth’s core) to say the sun is not the cause of global warming without first understanding it’s internal mechanics and how they effect our planet is bad science.
We do know that this planet has in it’s past been much warmer then it is today and it has also been much colder then it is today. Since humans have been burning fossil fuels on a planetary scale for only about 150 years and in that time frame we saw the average temperature on the planet both fall and rise, to not look at the sun as the cause first and discount it as the cause is again bad science.
One last thing, lets say that the earth will continue to warm over the next 1000 years or so and the polar ice caps melt to the point they no longer exists. Why is this necessarily a disaster waiting to happen? The history of this planet tells us otherwise. We know that for millions of years in the Earth past the temperature on this planet was much warmer then today. There were no polar ice caps on this planet during the Mesozoic era yet biodiversity and the amount of life on this planet was not much different then today. In other words, the plants and animals that lived in a time period when the planet earth was much warmer then today were thriving and the earth was a lush planet teaming with life.
Where is the disaster waiting to happen if the earth climate keeps on warming?
Deno
"Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
I agree BCL; all NASA scientists must get money from big oil.
“Solar output has remained more or less constant during this time.”
More or Less?
Which is it BCL? More? Or Less?
No where in the data you provided does it say that the increase in the earth temperature since the 1970’s is not within the sun’s constant output“more or less during this time.”
The fact is BCL is we simply today don’t understand the sun’s internal mechanics and how they effect our planet good enough to say for sure that the resent warming of planet earth and mars is cause by the sun or not. Since over 98% all the heat on this planet comes from the sun (the rest comes from the earth’s core) to say the sun is not the cause of global warming without first understanding it’s internal mechanics and how they effect our planet is bad science.
We do know that this planet has in it’s past been much warmer then it is today and it has also been much colder then it is today. Since humans have been burning fossil fuels on a planetary scale for only about 150 years and in that time frame we saw the average temperature on the planet both fall and rise, to not look at the sun as the cause first and discount it as the cause is again bad science.
One last thing, lets say that the earth will continue to warm over the next 1000 years or so and the polar ice caps melt to the point they no longer exists. Why is this necessarily a disaster waiting to happen? The history of this planet tells us otherwise. We know that for millions of years in the Earth past the temperature on this planet was much warmer then today. There were no polar ice caps on this planet during the Mesozoic era yet biodiversity and the amount of life on this planet was not much different then today. In other words, the plants and animals that lived in a time period when the planet earth was much warmer then today were thriving and the earth was a lush planet teaming with life.
Where is the disaster waiting to happen if the earth climate keeps on warming?
Deno
Wait a minute . . . you mean to tell me that SUNLIGHT is what is warming the earth? And that MORE sunlight warms the earth MORE?
That is absolutely ABSURD!!!
Next you'll try to tell have us believe that the continents 'move'.
I love how the "special ed" trolls who all failed grade 9 science descend on BCL's GW posts with a flurry of overlong cut 'n pastes no one will read and which they themselves don't understand.
I don't know why they bother. Doesn't eat into the time they could be spending masturbating to Hentai?
Although, BCL...they are right; every year at a particular time, I notice the Sun getting brighter and it getting warmer. Ergo, GW is called by increased solar energy.
That's just science!
anon 2:34,
That information is from 2003 and makes use of the data gathered by Acrimsat. The most recent material I could find,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html
discounts sunspot activity as a major cause of GW.
As for the long cut and paste jobs, I allow them here, but don't really tend to read them through. As ti-guy notes, they really only indicate that the "writer" in question has the ability to use a computer mouse, not that they are capable of higher brain functions.
The guys at RealClimate have debunked this so many times I have lost count...its even in their 'Faq'
http://www.realclimate.org/
That the Sun is the cause of GW, not you BCL...
"the same bit of nonsense about global warming on planet Earth being primarily sun-driven."
You gotta be kidding - "Nonsense"???
The sun is our ONLY SOURCE OF WARMING! Without it, we become a rock with ice on it, very quickly! Good God, man, you've drunk so much Kyoto Kool-Aid you've lost it entirely! CO2 doesn't 'create' warmth!
In case this little gem has escaped you, more solar energy hits the earth every day than all energies used by the entire planet in a year. Got that? Add up fossil, nuclear, oil, coal, hydro, etc. for the entire world for a year, and it doesn't equal the energy imparted to the globe from the sun in a single day.
But it still doesn't compare to the energy ti-guy expends on Hentai. He's always bringing it up in every thread, I wonder why?
Mike,
And yet the copy of American Spectator I was looking at yesterday ("Classy" U.S.Conservative Mag) was still pumping out the same stupidity. Its a war of attrition, I tell ya.
Who doesn't love hentai?
"The sun is our ONLY SOURCE OF WARMING!"
As long as you don't count that big ball of molten rock at the centre of the earth....
Go read the FAQ at RealClimate or even This Gem at The Grist Mill, written 4 months ago:
"This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.
There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. "
So again, anonomous idiot, this has been debunked. So stop trying to peddle this myth and shut up.
Gee, other facts say different.
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article3-fig1.html
Is that how Liberals learn to debate? "This is my point, so you shut up!" Then again, ti-guy seems to be a master debater ... of some sort.
Liberals can't debate. They scream their point repeatedly, without listening to the other side, the shout "I'M RIGHT! IT'S SETTLED" and get all bitchy when people blow holes in their arguments. Again, the inherent arrogance of their superior status and intellect means that once they get an opinion in their head, they will never ever change it, no matter how factual evidence or common sense or logic refutes it. It's all how they 'feel'. And if you don't 'feel' the same way they do, then you're a cold-hearted, earth-destroying, puppy-killing robot.
Hey mike, have you scrapped that two-wheeled elitist planet killer yet? Nobody needs a motorcycle.
anon 10:49,
That article is ten years old! Everything else I've talked about in this post has happened way since then.
How about ocean currents?
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21636036-5012769,00.html
First the sun, and when that doesn't pan out, currents. Hey anon, how about magic beans? Maybe that's whats causing it.
I wonder if the 1857-59 drought in the Palliser Triangle was blamed on global warming. But I certain that the next one will be.
Hey, excellent point about the warm magma core. Anybody have any information on geothermal warming rates across the planet over the last 100, and 100,000 years?
Shut up, anonymous. Save your oral fixation for the oil barons.
The only "hole" in the global warming logic that I've had presented to me is the idea that there are more crops growing on earth now, so we end up with more CO2 intake than before agriculture was industrialized. I haven't found the refutation yet (haven't looked hard) but it seems counter intuitive given the vast portions of forest that have been destroyed for city habitat. Unless grass and crops take in more gasses (which I doubt) it sounds like a flawed refutation to the simple equation of:
There's more CO2 being put into the atmosphere due to the oxidization of hydro-carbons from underground therefore there is MORE CO2 than naturally occurs in our atmosphere, which naturally warms our surface with a greenhouse effect.
Post a Comment