backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 36 comment(s) - last by Hoser McMoose.. on Mar 6 at 5:29 PM

Red Planet heating up in step with our own

In 1997, NASA's Mars Global Surveyor mission began transmitting data back from the Red Planet. Almost immediately, it was noted the planet was experiencing rapid warming, similar to what the Earth is currently undergoing.  In 2001, two separate research papers were published detailing the situation.  At the time, though, there was only a few years of observational data to work with, and the trend was hard to spot.

Fast-forward to today.  The warming on Mars has not only continued -- it has accelerated.  The Martian icecaps are melting at a perilous pace.  Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of  the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the simultaneous warming of Earth and Mars is no coincidence, and that both can be explained by changes in solar irradiance. National Geographic has a hit piece on the research, with a counter-claim by Colin Wilson that the warming is due to wobbles in the Martian orbit.

Abdussamatov's claims tie in nicely with recent research by Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish Space Center, which correlates Earth's warming not to greenhouse gases, but to changes in cloud formation due to solar activity increases.  His research is the focus of a new documentary, currently being carried on Channel 4 in the U.K.

To climate physicist Henrik Svensmark, this is nothing new.  In fact, he's recently written a book on the subject, which details his research team's findings that link solar activity to reduced cloud formation on Earth.  Less cloud cover lowers planetary albedo, and leads to a warmer Earth.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

irrespective of the cause...
By Rovemelt on 3/5/2007 1:41:45 PM , Rating: 3
dealing with the changes in global temperatures will require real actions such as moving massive numbers of people from coastal areas.

This finding does not mean that rising CO2 levels aren't causing a temperature change around the globe and, like the article says, Mars may be changing temperatures due to changes in its orbit.

Golly, it's nice to see the discussion shift from 'global warming isn't happening' to 'it's happening but not due to human activity.' This is all part of accepting the truth, which will probably tell us that humans are causing the warming here on the planet. It's not proven, and these other possibilities are interesting and need to be explored, but the link between human activity, CO2 levels and temperature rise are pretty solid.




RE: irrespective of the cause...
By TomZ on 3/5/2007 2:37:12 PM , Rating: 3
In my view, the fact of global warming has never been the subject of debate. The real debate is only around the following:

1. Are humans to blame for a significant part of global warming?

2. If humans are to blame, then is global warming really a problem that needs to be solved? I.e., do the negatives outweigh the positives economically?

3. If humans are to blame, and it is strongly negative, then can we realistically "reverse course" enough to make any meaningful impact?

These three questions remain unanswered, at least amongst those that insist that conclusions be backed with real data and real logic.

Bottom Line: The only thing we know is the Earth is getting warmer. (big deal)


RE: irrespective of the cause...
By Rovemelt on 3/5/2007 7:33:23 PM , Rating: 3
The climate change associated with global warming can have a big impact on our lives.

From the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/IPCC_Four...

"Based on a model that excludes ice sheet flow due to a lack of basis in published literature, it is estimated that sea level rise will be, in a low scenario, 18 to 38 cm (7 to 15 inches) and in a high scenario, 26 to 59 cm (10 to 23 inches). It is more than 90% certain that there will be frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall. It is more than 66% certain that there will be an increase in droughts, intensity of tropical cyclones (which include hurricanes and typhoons) and extreme high tides."

All kinds of shit.

And so what?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096594.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096084.stm

"A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%.

But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says. "

I don't have that much confidence in the report because the full extent of damage that will be caused by global warming is too difficult to predict. But this is one opinion for you, and it comes from a well respected economist.

I imagine that if we went with nuclear power over coal burning power plants that we could significantly reduce CO2 emissions. With the wealth of data out there supporting a link between human activity and CO2 emissions and global climate change, it's probably worth the effort.


By Hoser McMoose on 3/6/2007 5:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
The worst-case projection from that report suggests a sea level rise of 23 inches over the next hundred years. This does not require moving more then a handful of people around per decade, and it's not to evacuate the cities or anything retarded like that, but simply to build up retaining walls and dike systems.

Dealing with high sea levels is not overly complicated stuff. The Netherlands has many areas that are more then 23 inches bellow sea level today and they aren't getting flooded. Even in New Orleans, where the city got wrecked due to it's location bellow sea level, the potential for disaster and the solutions were known LONG before Katrina hit. However no one wanted to spend the couple hundred million to implement these solutions.

The droughts and heat waves are a bit more of a concern, but they will kill far fewer people than other problems that exist today. If we spent our efforts on reducing air pollution rather than greenhouses gases we would probably be MUCH better off both in terms of human health and environmental effects.

The tropical storms and hurricanes is probably the most controversial aspect of the IPCC report. even they claim only a 66% level of certainty and they don't seem to have much evidence to back it up (it's more of a "hurricanes are on the rise and we think increased sea temperatures has something to do with it, but none of the models match up").

Long story short, I do believe that global warming is happening, and yes, human activity is probably part of it. However it's consequences have been WAY overblown! Most of the problems it will cause will take a LONG time to really affect things and will allow for adaption. Cities will only get flooded if they don't react for decades. Crops will only fail if the crop strains are not changed over a period of two generations.

On the other there are very serious problems happening RIGHT NOW that can and should be dealt with. On the environmental front, air and water pollution are going to harm and kill WAY more people that global warming will over the next 100+ years, and solving that is a LOT easier. Just by transitioning away from the current (1960's and 1970's technology) coal power plants to cleaner coal plants (the term "clean coal" is a bit of a misnomer) and nuke plants would help hugely. This is especially true in the US and China, by far the two largest users of coal, neither of which use coal very effectively.


RE: irrespective of the cause...
By ttowntom on 3/5/2007 3:13:58 PM , Rating: 1
Interesting that you believe that "massive numbers" of people are going to need to move from coastal areas when even the IPCC itself is only predicting a 20 inch rise in sea level over the next 100 years. That's about a fifth of an inch a year. Not exactly a flash flood now is it?

Oh, and the "link between" human activity and temperature rise isn't "pretty solid". Termites still produce more greenhouse gases than does mankind, and they've been doing it for millions of years.


RE: irrespective of the cause...
By Ringold on 3/5/2007 4:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. The OP has swallowed the extremist party line hook, line and sinker.

Over the course of the time frame we have, even more "massive" migrations of people will occur, completely of peoples own volition. I've got the urbanization of China particularly in mind. Hundreds of millions of people will probably, over that same time span, move from their substitence farms in to the rising cities. So what if a few on the beach have to move back a couple hundred feet? That just means that people that had condominium's across the street from the beach now have beach-front property. :)

Besides, the ocean never proved too much a foe for the Netherlerlands, eh?

Give the lefties a decade, they'll come up with some new weapon to wield against free markets.


RE: irrespective of the cause...
By Rovemelt on 3/5/2007 7:24:05 PM , Rating: 3
The link between human activity and CO2 levels are pretty solid.

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

There are peer reviewed refs to support that finding.

Some more info:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1...

much of that data came from labs in the US.

The link between greenhouse gases and temperature of the planet:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

I'm willing to believe just about anything as long as there's data to support it. I don't want global warming to happen. Give me data that says otherwise and I'd happliy belive that humans aren't causing it.

Here is some info about the Mars article and why Mars is not a good comparison to earth for global climate change studies:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

And a flood map that you can adjust for the level of sea change (Florida keys, 1M water level change):

http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=43.3251,-101.6015&z=...

And finally, a 20inch sea level rise would be significant in parts of the earth. The coastal map would change with storm surge, much like when Katrina hit NOLA.

And here is a link to info from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report which supports everything I've said here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/IPCC_Four...

Would you like to add some information that supports your views? Primary sources, not what some idiot says in a blog.

I've never heard that termites are responsible for more greenhouse gases than human activities. Can you provide a link to information from a peer-reviewed journal to support that?


RE: irrespective of the cause...
By masher2 (blog) on 3/5/2007 8:46:33 PM , Rating: 3
> "The link between human activity and CO2 levels are pretty solid...[link snip]

Your link is to "Volcano World", a K-12 education site. It references a couple research papers, but the latest one dealing with CO2 emissions is over 15 years old. Science has moved on. Here's a link to a Harvard Science Review Article, which established that 95% of all GHG emisions are from natural sources.

Even that figure ignores the most important GHG by far...water vapor. Taking it into account, only 0.25% of all GHG emissions are due to mankind.

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/fall2005/bartlett....

All the rest of your links are "popular" references as well, not by actual researchers. Here's an article written by an actual scientist-- Richard Lindzen, the Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, and an past member of the UN IPCC committee:

quote:
Don't Believe the Hype...There's no "consensus" on global warming....
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

In one of my past blogs, I listed the names of nearly 100 climatologists and other scientists who disbelieve the anthropogenic theory of global warming. And even the IPCC itself, one of the shrillest voices in favor of the theory, admits to a 10% chance that mankind is not responsible for it at all (read their definition of the wiggle-language "most probably").

If you only read popular media sources, then your opinion of global warming is likely to be far different than the reality. You'll never be told that mankind's effect is so slight, or that the planet was actually warmer than it is today during the Medieval Warm Period, a scant 600 years ago. You're also not told that the planet was then-- despite the warming-- apparently more habitable than it is today, with longer growing seasons and more temperate weather.

You're not told that CO2 levels in the earth's past were at some points over ten times higher than what they are today. You're not told that at one of those times of superhigh CO2 concentrations, the planet was in the middle of its worst ice age of the past 500 million years.

You're not told that climate models predicting temperature rises are totally unable to account for past changes in climate and temperature, a fact which calls their predictive abilities into serious question. And- most telling of all- you're never told of the hundreds of scientists that refuse to believe in anthropogenic global warming.


RE: irrespective of the cause...
By Rovemelt on 3/5/2007 8:52:49 PM , Rating: 3
From the PDF you give me:

"But if human activity is such a small contribution to atmospheric CO2, how
could it cause global warming? The
natural production of CO2 is balanced
by the sinks that absorb it, including
plants and sea water. However, the
human contribution is slightly greater
than the amount that those sinks can
absorb, leading to the gradual buildup
observed today (7).
Also, how do we know the CO2
build-up is due to humans? First, measurements
taken since the 1950s show
that CO2 levels – and global temperature
– have increased at a rate consistent
with projected human emissions
(9). Second, ice cores containing
bubbles of centuries-old air have CO2
levels at 25% of those observed during
the industrial era. Finally, the atmospheric
CO2 today has low levels of
radioisotopes compared to naturally
produced CO2, pointing to the burning
of fossil fuels, which have lost most
of their radioisotopes over the eons it
took them to form (4)."

Thanks for your help.


RE: irrespective of the cause...
By porkpie on 3/6/2007 8:28:09 AM , Rating: 1
Way to miss the forest for the trees. The link he gave you was to prove that nature produces 20 times the greenhouse gases we do. You ignore the fact and spit out the shaky conclusions drawn from it. Did you even read what you posted? The only "proof" that man is causing global warming is that temperatures have increased since we started taking measurements.


RE: irrespective of the cause...
By theshen on 3/6/2007 2:14:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Finally, the atmospheric CO2 today has low levels of
radioisotopes compared to naturally produced CO2
Its recently been discovered that ocean outgassing is one of the largest sources of CO2. That CO2 isn't produced from biologic sources, so it has a very low radioisotope count. So the premise that CO2 must be increasing due to burning coal and oil is flawed.


RE: irrespective of the cause...
By Rovemelt on 3/5/2007 9:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
The majority of the links I gave you have peer-reviewed journals to support the data. Moreover, I never said it was a law...I wrote in my post:

"It's not proven, and these other possibilities are interesting and need to be explored, but the link between human activity, CO2 levels and temperature rise are pretty solid."

I understand that there is uncertainty here. And the link to the Bartlett PDF I agree with totally.


By therealnickdanger on 3/5/2007 11:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
Don't confuse "global warming isn't happening" (in reference to anthropological warming) with "it's happening but not due to human activity" (in reference to the factually-based slight warming period we are experiencing among a lengthier cooling period).


If a French socialist can do it..
By Ringold on 3/5/2007 4:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
I was driving along the highway this morning, and I felt a disturbance in the Force. It was something familiar; could feel it quite strongly. Thousands of minds reading something, shaking their heads violently, and going to watch CNN.

I knew Masher was going to be making a global warming post when I heard Neal Boortz going over this:
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=2...

A French Socialist, extremely well respected scientist, raising the BS flag on catastrophic climate change after decades of whining on and on about it in typical French fashion. If 'Claude Allegre' can have the intellectual honesty to say "Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future", then why can't the rest of the fanatics do it? Thats not the only good quote, the whole thing there is a solid read.

Well, can bring a donkey to water..

No idea if Boortz and a Masher post have any connection, but yes, I felt a disturbance in the Force, and was glad to see it here when I got home.




By Ringold on 3/5/2007 4:51:26 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, and I think I like BBC more than even Fox from what I hear.

First a great show I got off bittorrent blowing the cover on the radical islamic nut jobs living right under your collective British noses, and now this:

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U...

CNN wouldn't dare show that here. :D Not unless a counter-documentary was run immediately after it that was twice as long and full of propaganda.


RE: If a French socialist can do it..
By masher2 (blog) on 3/5/2007 5:15:14 PM , Rating: 2
Allegre isn't the only scientist to change his mind about global warming in recent weeks, quite a few have actually. I'm mulling a story on the subject. If the trend continues, within a couple years, it'll be hard to find any researcher who buys into it.


RE: If a French socialist can do it..
By Ringold on 3/5/2007 5:51:55 PM , Rating: 2
I hadn't heard much of it. Of course, didn't hear it from CNN or Katie Couric, had to hear it from the old-school form of blogs, conservative talk radio. Not my preferred source of information, but... in this case, learned something.

You're right, though. Just like the anti-nuclear crowd has been reduced primarily to the hard-core tree-huggers, so too will this group.

Speaking of radicals, an issue of Economist a few weeks ago showed that socialists are getting in bed with islamic apologist groups (the primary hold-outs being the communists who regret jumping on the pro-Stalin bandwagon). I'd try to draw a parallel and say environmentalists tend to be in bed with socialists, and if socialists in Europe are in bed with radical islamic political groups, then therefore environmentalists are terrorists, but.. I wont. ;)


RE: If a French socialist can do it..
By porkpie on 3/5/2007 6:01:38 PM , Rating: 2
When CPN (The Communist Party of Netherlands) disbanded, the reason they gave was that they could more effectively work through the environmental movement. So they disbanded, and merged into the GreenLeft Party.


By Ringold on 3/5/2007 9:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
That's a revealing thing about the environmentalist movement, that is. Though not a