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."

Comments

Well Duh

[Walzmyn]

So you mean only source of heat and energy for the planet is responisble for it's weather and tempreture? Wow. I bet these guys went to post-graduate school to figure that one out.

Re:Well Duh

[omeomi]

So you mean only source of heat and energy for the planet is responisble for it's weather and tempreture? Wow. I bet these guys went to post-graduate school to figure that one out.

Well, that's clearly a gross oversimplification. For starters, the Earth has its own geothermal heat, and without greenhouse gases, the sun's heat would be reflected back out into space, leaving the planet quite cold. The presence of CO2 in the atmosphere clearly does warm the Earth. Nobody seriously debates that. The Earth has also been getting warmer in recent years. Nobody really debates that either. The only question still open for debate is whether humans are the primary cause of the increase in temperature.

Re:Well Duh

[Red Flayer]

The only question still open for debate is whether humans are the primary cause of the increase in temperature.

There are two questions still open for debate --

Are humans a significant cause of the increase in temperature?

Are steps to mitigate the human effect on temperature worth taking?

I believe the answers are yes and yes, but we don't have to be the primary cause to make it worthwhile to reduce our carbon emissions.

Re:Well Duh

[hobo sapiens]

You know that the many US lawmakers who are in bed with special interests are ready to jump all over this study. One more chance to "discredit" global warming.

As for your comment, I think you are right on point. I mean, even if there are uncontrollable external factors that are at least partly responsible for global warming, that does not absolve us of the responsibility to manage our planet properly.

Even if it were to be found that global warming is a complete unreality or is entirely out of our control and due to the sun or some other factor, we still face the same issues. What about the fact that we are facing extinction of staggering number of species, due to our mismanagement of the earth? What about the fact that 20% of the world population doesn't have access to clean water?
As pressing as global warming is, arguing that man must change his habits solely on the platform of global warming is a one-legged argument. We have many, compelling reasons to make changes. Of course, we won't think about it until it's too late.

Re:Well Duh

[danielk1982]

>You know that the many US lawmakers who are in bed with special interests are ready to jump all over this study. One more chance to "discredit" global warming.

Well.. If its not true than it deserves to be discredited.

Or are you saying this particular study does not actually discredit man-made global warming?

>What about the fact that we are facing extinction of staggering number of species, due to our mismanagement of the earth? What about the fact that 20% of the world population doesn't have access to clean water?

What does that have to do with (human or non-human) global warming?

Re:Well Duh

[drix]

Who cares if we're primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary? I simply don't understand all the hoopla about whether or not global warming is anthropogenic. We can all agree that 5 degrees celsius warmer in 100 years would be a catastrophe for every ecosystem on the planet, and for our own viability as a species, yes? And we certainly can agree that our spewing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution is having some sort of effect, yes? Then WTF? Shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to try to ward off this impending crisis? No matter how small the effect of our actions, to continue blindly on the same path we've been on for the past 200 years is signing our own death warrant. Doing nothing is completely unjustifiable in all cases. Am I missing something?

Re:Well Duh

[colinjay66]

The only question still open for debate is whether humans are the primary cause of the increase in temperature. I don't know what level uncertainty you consider "open for debate", but just in case you are living under a rock:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UPCC) has concluded that:

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations

http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Pan el_on_Climate_Change

It is time to stop pretending there isn't a scientific consensus on this issue. :-P

Re:Well Duh

[j-turkey]

Who cares if we're primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary?

I do.

I simply don't understand all the hoopla about whether or not global warming is anthropogenic. We can all agree that 5 degrees celsius warmer in 100 years would be a catastrophe for every ecosystem on the planet, and for our own viability as a species, yes?

Right, which is exactly why it's important to understand whether or not the global climate change is anthropogenic. We want to know why it's happening rather than jumping to conclusions or just doing something drastic for the sake of doing something. Furthermore, there is quite a bit of evidence that the global climate has varied within 5 degrees within the time period which humans have existed. I think that humans will survive this, but I don't think that's the point. It's not about human extinction, but it's OK if you want to believe that (or continue overstating your case to make others jump on the bandwagon).

And we certainly can agree that our spewing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution is having some sort of effect, yes? Then WTF? Shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to try to ward off this impending crisis?

Most current research tends to show that human Co2 has some affect on the climate, but nobody is really sure how. There may be a number of other factors at play. The problem is that nobody really knows, any many people aren't willing to make major sacrifices regarding something that we need more information about. I don't think that we should panic and make irrational changes which will have severe and immediate economic effects on a global scale. Perhaps it would be wiser to make an evolutionary shift in technology and lifestyles, which the global economy can afford...and maybe do it in a manner consistent with our understanding of the phenomena that we're just beginning to understand.

No matter how small the effect of our actions, to continue blindly on the same path we've been on for the past 200 years is signing our own death warrant. Doing nothing is completely unjustifiable in all cases. Am I missing something?

So you suggest a new blind path to avoid a death warrant that you can't prove exists? You're overstating your case, my friend (or really believe everything that you read). Doing something for the sake of doing something is equally unjustifiable, especially when all sides of the issue are confounded with politically charged BS.

I'm not saying that this is or isn't being caused by humans, but you're taking on a position that I consider irrational. If global climate change is based around cyclical patterns that we can't change, there is little point in making drastic, sweeping changes. In that case, we'd better start thinking of ways to deal with our dynamic and always changing world. Just because a few extremists are predicting the end of the world (remember, most scientists aren't writing about the end of the world, or even human existence) doesn't mean that I'm going to jump on the bandwagon. If you believe every prediction of doom that you hear, why not accept 90% of the religions in the world? They all predict your doom if you don't believe, and there's only one way to be safe...start praying.

Re:Well Duh

[hobo sapiens]

Well.. If its not true than it deserves to be discredited.

Agreed.

Or are you saying this particular study does not actually discredit man-made global warming?

Heck, don't ask me. It seems to, but then again I am no expert in the field. My personal feeling? Man's activities are at the very least somewhat responsible for climate change. What I do know is that this is one study flying in the face of others which support global warming. Figures lie and liars figure. Anybody can make up a study and have it prove whatever point they want.

What does that have to do with (human or non-human) global warming?

The things I mentioned are related to global warming in that they purportedly have the same root cause. Even if you were to discredit global warming, you still have other issues to deal with. Point I was trying to make is that we need to be more responsible, global warming or not.

Re:Well Duh

[walt-sjc]

Relative to GDP per capita, the US, being the world's shining example of capitalism at work, has the highest rate of homelessness and citizens living in poverty in the world

Way to misquote... In the wikipedia article you linked to:

"The poverty rate in the United States is one of the highest among the post-industrialized developed world. It is, however, important to note that America's poor most commonly have adequate food, clothing and shelter. For example, of those beneath the federal poverty line, 46% own their own home, with an average of three bedrooms."

In the US, many people are unhappy if they can't afford everything that Madison Avenue is trying to shove down their throats. They are unhappy because not everyone in the freakin world can afford a 60" flat panel HDTV and a BMW or Mercedes. There is nothing more frustrating than seeing people like my sister-in-law who has been working the system forever (she doesn't have a job because the government pays her more not to work), goes out and buys that 60" flat panel TV on taxpayer dollars so she can sit on her fat ass and watch TV all day while I work 70 hours a week and pay about $100K in taxes each year, supporting lazy fat slob's like her. Oh yeah, she and her entire family of 6 kids and worthless husband get WAY better medical care than I do, with no deductibles - totally free medical and dental. So don't whine around me how bad "people in poverty" have it in the US, cause it's BULLSHIT.

Re:Well Duh

[maraist]

You know that the many US lawmakers who are in bed with special interests are ready to jump all over this study. One more chance to "discredit" global warming.

Yes, the special interests are the 95% of Americans who like Air conditioning, cars that get less than 40mpg, people that have homes of greater than 1,000 square feet, americans that travel more than 1 mile to work (using any form of transportation, including walking), americans that use computers for more than 30 minutes a day, americans that don't wake and sleep in tandom with the sun rise/set.

Any deviation away from natural organic atmospheric processes is going to have an impact (either locally or globally). The question is, to what degree do we suppress the efficiencies that derive from consumptive energy. Any suppression of consumption necessarily correlates to a reduction in efficiency.

As a law maker, would you mandate that all cars sold today must be hibrids? This pretty much wipes out the US auto-industry, since they are several years behind. This would cause real-estate prices in the city to sky-rocket, because the added cost of a hybrid car makes living closer to work a necessity for many.

There are consequences to every action.. And more often than not, law makers do not properly guage the cost-benifit analysis. Thus it is USUSALLY best to not act - unless there is overwelming evidence that the known benifit of removing a known hazzard far outweighs the likely consequences (such as reducing smog emmisions in a large city).

The reason US lawmakers are hesitant to act on global warming is that law makers are being elected to INCREASE US jobs, to INCREASE corporate productivity, to REDUCE the trade deficite, to REDUCE the cost/price of commodities like fuel and food. All the anti-global-warming ledgislation has the exact opposite pressures on those topics. If you choose the environmental route, you're pretty much shunning every other demographic by necessity. So the question is, is it worth becoming yesterday's news as a nation for something which has the possibility of being not worth it. I say yesterday's news, because 1) We would have to give HUGE money gifts to 3'rd world countries to offset emmissions (kyoto protocol), further straining our trade-deficit / devaluing the US dollar 2) cost of US industry sky-rockets (retooling for emmision control), making 3'rd world country factories 2 to 5 times more profitable than they already are compared to the US - think labor outsourcing is bad today? 3) Cost of energy regionally sky-rockets as manditory rationing or environmental taxation (think tobacco) is requried to reduce regional pollution 4) cost of machinery sky-rockets as all energy burners require retooling and thus repurchasing and thus overt demand of the temporarily scare high-efficiency machinery.

Yes, you can phase all these things in, grandfather, etc.. But then we're talking 20 years (rember Bush proposes a 5 year mandate of 5% gas efficiency??).. By many counts, that's too late. To be "serious" requires radical change, and I have zero trust in our government to manage such a massive nation-wide shift.

In my opinion, the market needs to generate high-efficiency, low cost technology.. Benevolent Billionaires would better serve the world by investing in such technology instead of wasting it on politics. The right technology entices the invisible hand to adapt...
Then, when a rational upgrade policy is evident, congress can mandate it's effective use (meaning industry must at least achieve 90% of the effective efficiencies as the current state-of-the art, without explicitly mandating a particular product's use).

Hybrid cars are a joke to me. All they are is a recognition that humans like to accelerate. We push a big-battery high-current high-torque electric motor for acceleration boosts. But you still have to burn the same amount of energy to recharge that battery.. Where is the savings? The smaller engine? Doubtful, because it gets horrendous mileage on the open-r

Re:Well Duh

[Ambitwistor]

Most current research tends to show that human Co2 has some affect on the climate, but nobody is really sure how. Current research shows that human CO2 has had a large effect on the climate, compared to pre-industrial times, and we know how: the greenhouse effect.

We are less certain about the extent of future climate change, largely because we don't know by exactly how much feedback effects amplify the greenhouse effect, and we don't know what future CO2 emissions will be like: a lot will depend on what we choose to do and when we do it.

The problem is that nobody really knows, any many people aren't willing to make major sacrifices regarding something that we need more information about. [...] Perhaps it would be wiser to make an evolutionary shift in technology and lifestyles, which the global economy can afford...and maybe do it in a manner consistent with our understanding of the phenomena that we're just beginning to understand. Obviously, we are not going to take any action that we cannot afford to take. But it is far from clear that mitigating climate change would require "major sacrifices" (except perhaps to some people who seem to feel that any sacrifice is "major").

Even more uncertainty arises when it comes to predicting the costs of climate change, and the costs of mitigating it. We do know, however, that it's better to start mitigating early and prevent some of that CO2 from entering the atmosphere in the first place. It thus may be better to ramp up mitigation and taper it off if we find that the climate change is less than expected — the "better safe than sorry" approach.

Doing something for the sake of doing something is equally unjustifiable, especially when all sides of the issue are confounded with politically charged BS. That's true, but doing something is almost certainly better than doing nothing, given what we already know, even under the economic uncertainties that are present. It's very difficult to find reasonable combinations of climate change predictions and economic assumptions that lead to "doing nothing" as the best course of action. The question is "how much should we mitigate", not "whether".

If global climate change is based around cyclical patterns that we can't change, there is little point in making drastic, sweeping changes. Global warming is not due to cyclical patterns that we can't change. We know that much.

You are, however, correct in saying that global warming is not a threat to the survival of our species. Its effects will be mostly economic, although at least some deaths will probably result (be it from more extreme weather, droughts, crop failure, spread of disease vectors, etc.)

CO2 least of my worries

[Anonymous Coward]

I am more worried about carcinogenic crap in the ground, in the water and in the air than global warming.
Under the guise of "global warming isn't real" .. the global cancer rate is going to go up.

Thanks a lot.

We need clean nuclear power ASAP charging our electric cars, not driving around cancer fumers.

Re:CO2 least of my worries

[ergo98]

I am more worried about carcinogenic crap in the ground, in the water and in the air than global warming.
Under the guise of "global warming isn't real" .. the global cancer rate is going to go up.

You bring up a very good point, which is that a lot of people have completely taken their eye off of the ball of general pollution, focusing only on CO2. See the defense many Gore fanatics brought forth to defend his gluttony: Sure the coal plants in Tennessee are going overtime to power his mansion, but his investment group invested in some nebulous scheme that might possibly reduce CO2 somewhere.

We need clean nuclear power ASAP charging our electric cars, not driving around cancer fumers.

Cars seem to get a lot of the blame (a story yesterday claimed that they were the primary cause of CO2, when they, coupled with all other methods of transportation, are less than 1/4), yet modern cars are very clean burning. A couple of Volvos actually empirically leave the air cleaner than before.

Instead the major problems are industrial pollution, coal power plants (there's still a shitload of those), and even the pollutions and toxins that invade our food and water.

Re:CO2 least of my worries

[Wilson_6500]

Maybe the cancer rate is going up in part because people are living longer, and therefore are dying of cancer instead of tuberculosis or lead poisoning or whatever?

If cancers are on average going up across _all age groups,_ then you might have a more appropriate correlation.

CO2 still a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

CO2 dissociates in water to produce carbonic acid. The increased acidity can have major impacts on eg corals by dissolving their exoskeletons. Even if high levels of atmospheric C02 do not cause global warming, it is still a problem.

Re:Take that, Status Quo!

[GrapeSteinbeck]

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

Let's suppose that the orbit alteration is not the case. Wouldn't it still make sense to prepare for the worst? Why not stop CO2 emissions, we're better off slowing CO2 output and being wrong about global warming than we are heating up the planet with CO2 and being wrong about not having a human global climate impact.

global warming is a complex issue

[phantomfive]

Global warming is such a politicized issue from both sides, and a lot of money from both environmentalists and big oil is going into 'proving' it, that it's really quite difficult to know what is happening at all. This is in addition to the natural difficulties of the subject, who can say for sure what is happening in such a big place as the earth? Sure we have the satellites measuring temperature, but we know they had errors once, how do we know they are not in error still? Anyone who says they 'know' global warming is/isn't reality ought to be treated with suspicion.

That said, taking care of the environment in general is a good thing. So either way we ought to research renewable energy, keep recycling, etc.

Re:global warming is a complex issue

[Tablizer]

This is in addition to the natural difficulties of the subject, who can say for sure what is happening in such a big place as the earth?

Suppose for the sake of argument that it is natural. If it creates havoc for humans, such as bad weather, lost farmland, and lost coastlines, then perhaps we should still do something about it. Continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere is not helping the situation.

Re:global warming is a complex issue

[susano_otter]

Suppose for the sake of argument that it is natural. If it creates havoc for humans, such as bad weather, lost farmland, and lost coastlines, then perhaps we should still do something about it. Continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere is not helping the situation.

How much CO2 is human activity producing? What is that, as a percentage of total CO2 being produced from all natural and artificial sources? Of all the greenhouse gases being produced, what percentage is CO2?

What if our best bet is to continue producing CO2 at our current rate, on account of it being a very small part of the overall picture, while at the same time being a side effect of exactly the kind of technological advancement we will need to adapt to global climate changes that are actually beyond our control?

Re:global warming is a complex issue

[Dragonslicer]

If carbon dioxide has a large impact, one good way to pull it out of the atmosphere is to stop whacking every forest within reach. You can pump quite large amounts of carbon dioxide into an environment if you give the trees the chance to eat all of it.

Yes, the Sun goes through cycles

[dl107227]

It is common knowledge that the sun goes through cycles in which its output is increased thereby increasing the the solar radiation that strikes its planets. However we are still putting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere which act to trap the solar radiation on the Earth. No reputable scientist will claim that every fraction of a degree in temperature increase is due to human influence on our atmosphere but they do know that the methane and carbon dioxide that we put continually pump into the atmosphere acts as a solar trap and can't help but raise the overall temperature of the planet.

Re:How long do we have to argue about the why...

[johnlcallaway]

If you don't know why, you can't fix it. Duh.....

Who sponsored this study...

[cpm80]

LUKOIL and Exxon?

Re:ya but..

[i_should_be_working]

Ya but what changes? Can we measure said changes?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are solar physicists around the world observing every measurable characteristic of the sun (that we can measure from here) all the time. Seems a bit silly to infer what's going on with the sun by looking at Mars instead of the sun itself. Unless some solar observations back this up, this'll probably be the last we hear of it.

Re:Take that, Status Quo!

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly doubt that you are qualified to present papers on the subject, or that you have any involvement in science.

Solar forcing is already taken into account in today's models of climate change, and estimates range from no substantial effect to around 5% or so of warming being caused by the sun - the rest is nearly all anthropogenic.

Furthermore, if you read the article, the person proposing this as the SOLE means of heating really doesn't understand the greenhouse effect, or the role of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Please stop trolling - you are wrong, the person pushing this is wrong, and the evidence is out there on this already if you would but look.

Re:How long do we have to argue about the why...

[techno-vampire]

Seriously. I don't care WHY you think the Earth is warming, all I care about is people trying to DO something about it.

Because if we try to change what's going on without understanding the situation we might easily decide on a cure that's totally ineffective. If C02 emissions aren't a major factor (And I'm not saying they aren't.) then lowering them won't help much, if at all. It's better to spend a little money learning what's really going on before we spend a huge amount of money on possibly useless countermeasures.

Re:RTFA

[argoff]

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars. But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

The #1 greenhouse gas is not CO2, but methane - which reflects back far more heat and exists in far greater amounts, and the #1 emmitter of methane is not humans, but plants by an order of magnitude. The fact that scientists didn't even know that most plants emit methane a mere two years ago makes the case even stronger that the "global warming" movement is filled with idiots that don't even know what the hell they are talking about. In fact, all the recent over-hype about "global warming" is precicely because compelling evidence is starting to show that it is not mostly man made, meaning that those whom had insincere motives for promoting the "global warming" agenda are in a real rush to push their regulations.

One more thing. If a polluting inefficient electric generating coal plant that cost a billion dollars to build faces competition from a cheap clean efficient high-tech competitor - how do they stop them? You guessed it, buy up all the CO2 credits and lock the competitor out.

Without a "why" you don't even know what to fix

[JudgeFurious]

Without knowing why it's happening you don't know what to fix or if you even can fix it. Say for instance it's the sun and it's only the sun causing global warming. What in the hell are you going to do about the sun? I'll tell you what you're going to do about the sun. You're going to sit there and put on your sunblock and shut the fuck up. The sun owns our ass like George Takei owns.... somebodies ass. What if it is "Intelligent Warming because God is chilly"? What are we going to do about it?

  The part where we try and figure out the cause is the most important part there is. Otherwise we stand a good chance of wasting resources we don't have or screwing something up that isn't broken to begin with.

Re:Without a "why" you don't even know what to fix

[Ken_g6]

The first thing doctors try to do for an ER patient is stabilize him/her. (Let's go with "him" so this doesn't get silly.) If his blood pressure is low, they give him IV saline or a blood transfusion. If he's running an extremely high fever, they give him an ice bath. If he's puffing away on a cigarette, they take away the cigarette.

The point is, even if a doctor doesn't know what's wrong, if there's one symptom (like overheating) that's an immediate danger, and there's a quick fix for it, the doctor will use the quick fix first and then figure out what caused it. If the earth is warming now (and it is), and decreasing CO2 will cool it (and it should), we should go ahead with it even while we confirm the cause.

You've Obviously Never Been in an ER

[wdr1]

Are you crazy? You can't just ASSUME what wrong with the guy & begin to treat him for your guess. More than likely you'll KILL him. So much for "do no harm."

If you've actually ever been in an ER, you know they don't do anything until they know the cause. Know the cause, know the treatment. Anything else, you're seeing a witch doctor or something.

Bring it back to the article, you're missing the central point. If carbon emissions really aren't causing global warming, reducing them will have absolutely no effect. The earth will still get hotter, we're still be in square one, only with less time & money.

-Bill

Re:I can't wait for the sequel!!

[sumdumass]

Absolutely correct. Liberals control the world. Sucks to be a poor, oppressed, powerless right winger these days.

I know how silly that looks. But the liberals do seem to control this issue. Global wamring is somewhat of a pet for them. Most all the political solutions (kyoto) have included their policies that were once rejected. And yes, most of hollywoods considers itself liberal. They do control a good part of the distribution proces.

It's just a suggestion, but you might want to hold off on the victory dance until these results are verified and studied a little more thoroughly.

This is the reasons I replied to you. I have little concern about your snide remarks on the liberal control. Even though I disagree with them in more ways then I just stated.

You see, There most likley won't be any verified or serious studying of this theory. This isn't the first time this has been noted and there wasn't any serious studies contradicting them. To date. almost every "sun is the cause" theory has been dismissed by the pros without citing were it is wrong or why the common view is better. You will see words like junkscience thrown out as it's dismissal. You will see that it doesn't fit the current models (when the current models are structured incorectly to show any association with the sun). You will see things like Exxon is behind this. You will see things like psudoscience being thrown out. You will see statments like we didn't understand exactly what the studdy is saying. You will see all kinds of stuff discrediting this view except for facts.

And yes, I agree with waiting to celebrate. Someone could have made a mistake. But when every thing is out there and all the objections and discrediting revolves around blasphemy because the religion says otherwise, I will celibrate that this study was corect. And yes, I did just liken the global wamring science to a religion. It has become one for some people. I'm not saying you, but some people.

Re:Woo!

[sumdumass]

One of the problems with the sun being a cause for global warming is that It will take the role water vapor has and switch it from a feedback in the human caused possition to a forcing in the solar caused position. And if we run the models with the watervapor as a forcing, the human causes are so neglegable it is scary.

Water vapor is one of the most prevailent green house gasses and currently has the most impact of any greenhouse gas. And the problem with usiong water vapor as a forcing is that the atmosphere can only hold so much reletive to the temperature. This is called reletive humidity. Also, because of reletive humidity, we have a natural correction. It will eventualy creat clouds and block the sun which will limit the amount of heat effects the sun will have. You have probably heard of this effect when it is called global dimming.

You see, If it is the sun, there is no reason to panic, if it is humans, there is cause. Human caused global warming has more benifits for more people then Solar caused global warming. And human caused global warming has more problems if we are wrong about the sun.

Re:ya but..

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Unfortunately, I just lost my mod points by replying to a previous comment in this thread. But this is not a troll; there are plenty of scientists observing the sun directly, whereas we know bugger all about the weather patterns on mars. If there were significant changes happening to the sun, we would already know about it. Anyway, does the source of global warming actually matter much?

The bottom line is the correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature is well known (you can reproduce it in a simple lab experiment), so does it actually matter, in the end, what the source of warming is, if we aleady know how to prevent it? That is, even if the recent increases in temperature are due to some other cause, 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...).

Re:How long do we have to argue about the why...

[rossdee]

"Why do we have to waste time arguing about the cause? If a guy comes into an ER, and passes out, they don't stand around arguing about why he passed out before they help the guy."

You've never watched "House" have you...

Geting back on topic, moving to more efficient vehicles has other advantages than just reduced CO2 emmissions, oil will eventually run out.

Re:Woo!

[Hoi Polloi]

Great! If we can blame the sun and not human activity then we don't have to do anything about it! Sort of like if a flood is caused by a storm and not by a dam breaking then we don't have to try to swim. Ummm, wait a minute...

Re:Take that, Status Quo!

[sumdumass]

It doesn't even go that far. Err it does exactly as your saying.

See how those sentences sound totaly different but convey the meaning I want to have? I will let you in on this secrete of mine in case your wondering what the hell I'm doing.

Like you said, The IPCC when making this statment about humans likley to be causing global warming, were looking for a rock and found a rock. They didn't pay attention to the dirt, the bugs or worms in the soil, they were lookin for a rock and found a rock. And now they are saying that area over there is full of rocks. But when you look at it, You see rich farm land teaming with life and nutrience and a couple of rocks. The IPCC didn't go on a quest to find out what was causing the earth to warm, the went on a quest to find if it was warming and if humans could be the cause. And they found that. Yes, humans could be causing the earth to be warming. But they statment shouldn't be taken as more then that.

I have also looked at all these reports that the vast majority of the science comunity belives humans are causing global warming. And all these reports revolve around a few peer review articles were a sample of scientist were asked it the papers were flawed and to make sure tey used good science. The people who said they didn't see any flaws or that good science was used were counted as people supporting the outcome of the papers. The minor few who had an objection with them for some reason, were counted as disagreeing with them. The endresult was the vast majority of scientist agree with global warming and that humans are the cause. But the questioning had nothing to do with this. It is a play with words and misinterpretations of wording used for a specific purpose.

The relevence here is that it is possible to create a model, perform experiments, be completly and scientificly acurate and still get it wrong. This is the nature of science and why people check others work. And this is why science finds new discoveries that change the way we think about things.

So you are right. Their job was to find evidence of global warming and that humans were the cause. They did exactly this. But the GP is very wrong in making the asertion that this rules other explainations out. It doesn't touch the validity of other explainations. What he doesn't seem to know is that the truth doesn't change with popular opinion. The truth always is and we change how we understand it. This change in understanding changes popular opinion. He has stopped trying to understand the truth and just wants to regurgitate popular opinion. Even when it is wrong.

Now the line about truth not changing came from someone else. I wish I could quote him on it but I forget his name and what context it was said in.

Cleaning up CO2 cleans up other pollutants

[Goonie]

While CO2 is the biggest single pollution problem that we face (and the asshats on this thread who think they know better than thousands of scientists who devote themselves to studying the problem would be comical if they weren't so dangerous), other pollutants have indeed been sadly neglected. One of my favourite statistics (it's useful on arguments about the merits or otherwise of nuclear power) is that the deaths from air pollution, by many estimates, exceed the number of deaths from traffic accidents.

However, the same things that will reduce CO2 emissions (taking fossil-fuel powered cars and coal-fired power stations out of service) will also tackle some of the biggest sources of these other pollutants. In fact, it's my guess that the savings in health costs would, on their own, go a long way to offsetting (if you'll pardon the pun) the costs of tackling CO2 emissions.

Re:ya but..

[totally bogus dude]

Probably just that correlation doesn't imply causation. There's a strong (negative) correlation between the number of pirates plying the seas and global warming, too, but that doesn't mean the solution to global warming is to increase piracy on the high seas.

While I mostly agree with you...

[evanbd]

Yes, in an ideal world, we should know the cause before we act. However, there is such a thing as paralysis through analysis. If we spend too much time studying the problem without doing things, we are likely to end up with a harder problem to solve once we know what the cause is. We need to strike a balance, by continuing to study the problem and learn more about the causes and best solutions, while at the same time enacting partial solutions based on our best knowledge of what is going on. We have to balance the risk that our initial countermeasures are useless (unlikely IMHO, but they might or might not be as helpful as we hope; they might even be harmful, I suppose) against the risk that if we wait to get started the problem becomes harder and more expensive to solve. My intuition is that the result of that analysis is that we shouldn't yet panic, we should keep researching the problem, and most importantly we should start trying for the low hanging fruit in terms of greenhouse gas reduction.

Re:Take that, Status Quo!

[jadavis]

we're better off slowing CO2 output and being wrong about global warming than we are heating up the planet with CO2 and being wrong about not having a human global climate impact.

How is this insightful? This kind of thinking shows everything that's wrong with the environmental movement: a complete disregard for cost/benefit analysis. You're saying that it's somehow "better" to impose arbitrary restrictions on the economy of a completely unknown cost, in the hope that whatever you did creates some kind of unspecified benefit.

This is no better than a medieval doctor removing a few pints of blood because it's better to remove your blood and be wrong than to leave you with a cold and do nothing.

If you want to help the environment, present your solutions in the way every other idea needs to be presented: here are the expected benefits, here are the expected costs, and here is how we're going to be accountable for these benefits and these costs.

Re:not really that complex

[misanthrope101]

It wouldn't be the first time the scientific community has been wrong

So you're faulting science because scientists can learn, and tend to revise their theories in light of new facts? Interesting. Should we pull all medicine from the shelves, stop air travel, turn off the electricity, and wander into the jungle, all because scientists are fallible? Isn't that a basic human trait? No one said "scientists are never and have never been wrong." What they said was, "this is what climatologists are saying about climate change."

The obvious example here is when everyone was worried about the ice ages returning a few decades back.

Everyone wasn't. A few people were, but the scientific community was not in consensus because the data was, at that time, inconclusive. The thing about scientists is that they collect more data, do more studies, and form better models. That process improved the scientific understanding of climatology, and moved the entire climatological community to the consensus that anthropocentric global warming is real and compelling.

That global warming has been politicized doesn't invalidate the science, any more than me being upset over the germ theory would invalidate that. I defer to physicists on physics, mathematicians on mathematics, and climatologists on climatology. Are you suggesting I should reject what climatologists say about climatology, just because of a political controversy? That seems a bit silly, especially considering the stakes involved. The "politicization" is unfortunate, but it's not my fault that the left wing noticed environmentalism first and the conservatives feel duty bound to oppose everything liberals do, even when the science is clear on the subject.

Re:All I have to say is...

[Stephan Schulz]

...read page two of that article. Abdussamatov is a nutcase, and neither recent overall warming of Mars nor any attribution to increased solar output are serious scientifc propositions.

Re:All I have to say is...

[jcr]

Abdussamatov is a nutcase,

Why do you say that? Does he hurl vitriolic condemnations at people who disagree with him? Does he try to shout them down, or demand that their funding be cut off?

BTW, you fulfilled my expectation that there would be an ad-hominem directed at the researcher in question within the first ten replies.

-jcr

Re:I can't wait for the sequel!!

[Talinom]

Most all the political solutions (kyoto) have included their policies that were once rejected. And yes, most of hollywoods considers itself liberal. They do control a good part of the distribution proces.

Instant Kyoto compliance to help offset Al Gores inconvenient electric bill.

But when every thing is out there and all the objections and discrediting revolves around blasphemy because the religion says otherwise, I will celibrate that this study was corect. And yes, I did just liken the global wamring science to a religion. It has become one for some people. I'm not saying you, but some people.

You mean like this or this?

Re:Mass != risk

[ceejayoz]

The IPCC has released radiative forcing data for the various greenhouse components, and CO2 is by far the largest component.

You're making the mistake of conflating ozone depletion with global warming, too.

The Mars data is often misunderstood.

"The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere. Colaprete et al in Nature 2005 (subscription required) showed, using the Mars GCM, that the south polar climate is unstable due to the peculiar topography near the pole, and the current configuration is on the instability border; we therefore expect to see rapid changes in ice cover as the regional climate transits between the unstable states.

Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted."

Funny how three years is good enough to prove Martian global warming to the same people who tell us 150 years of data (and 720,000 from ice cores) just isn't enough to base a conclusion off.

Re:ya but..

[walt-sjc]

Yes, the enlightened people all know that it's really vegetarians that cause global warming. It works like this: Vegetarians eat more plants. Plants are good as they scrub CO2. Cows, on the other hand, emit 500 liters of methane per day, each, which is a HUGE factor in global warming. Put two and two together and you see that in order to save the earth, we need out outlaw vegetarians and start force feeding them raw meat.

Where's Al Gore? We need him to fix his documentary. Oh yeah - he's in his mansion that uses 15 times more energy than the average home... I bet he is a vegetarian too...

Re:All I have to say is...

[CorSci81]

I'd be surprised if Pluto weren't warming, given it is just past perihelion and it has some quirky orbital parameters. Funny how when things get closer to the sun they warm up a bit. I'd also point out neither article mentions anything to do with the sun getting hotter, and both have quite plausible explanations for the observed trends on both bodies. These articles in no way supports your "OMG it's a conspiracy!" distortion field, unless you believe the astronomers are in on it with the climatologists and geologists.

Also, if you bother to check your history, James Hansen didn't pull this out of his ass and a bunch of climatologists suddenly said "Brilliant! We can finally crush ExxonMobile/Shell/BP/Chevron!!!". There was quite a bit of review and discussion early on, it's just that the theory that best explained the observations survived, which is how good science works.

PS: I did climate modeling in grad school. If you think it's so bloody simple and we're all just idiots, let's see you build a model than predicts anything useful.

Re:All I have to say is...

[Stephan Schulz]

Abdussamatov is a nutcase,

Why do you say that? Does he hurl vitriolic condemnations at people who disagree with him? Does he try to shout them down, or demand that their funding be cut off?

No (well, to my knowledge), but he denies not just the anthropogenic cause of global warming, but apparently also that humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 (as certain as anything in science, both from simple carbon mass flow analysis and from looking at isotopic ratios), and that there is a greenhouse effect at all (something accepted by even the most contrarian "normal" scientists), using a completely bogus argument that displays no understanding of atmospheric science at all. See this National Post article. Now the National Post has been very wrong about scientists opinion before, but the National Geographic article we discuss seems, to a large part, substantiate it in this case.

Re:TFA is a troll.

[TapeCutter]

I fail to see how mars can have much of a "greenhouse effect" when it doesn't have much of an atmosphere. Perhaps Mars is getting warmer I really don't know, 3yrs of data is too insignificant to say much at all but I certainly don't want to stop people looking at Mars.

However, claiming that the sun is responsible for Earth's current warming and "proving" it by looking at Mars is pure bullshit designed to confuse people. Zonk is always posting this type of crap, I wouldn't have a problem with it if he didn't insist on labeling it "science".

It's interesting to note that a National Geographic article is also the source of the "in the 70's scientists predicted global cooling" myth that psuedo-skeptics drag up all the time. As I said, if you are interested in solid research about the attribution of forcings in Earth's recent warming then look at figure SPM-2 in the IPCC report (LOSU = Level Of Scientific Understanding).

People forget there's different definitions

[Sycraft-fu]

In the US, poverty is defined by the government as falling below a certain income level. If you are single and not someone's dependant (as in a child or a university student where your parents are paying your way) poverty is defined as making less than $10,210, for a family of four less than $20,650. Now compare that to an African nation, Congo in this case, where the per capita GDP, not income, is $700. Clearly the two countries have a different definition of poverty. Over in Congo, making $10,000 would put you in the top earners, perhaps even the top percent whereas in the US it is considered to be poverty.

You have to be real careful when you see estimates across countries of many things because often they don't use the same metric. There's not a global poverty metric and really, there can't be. The US is richer and thus it makes sense to consider poverty to be at a higher level than a severely impoverished country. That doesn't mean their plight is the same.

Re:ya but..

[WrongDecision]

The Law of Unintended Consequences, colloquially expressed as DON'T FUCK WITH MOTHER NATURE, needs to be applied here. If the Earth is warming up from natural causes and we try to stop that, it could be a real disaster (as opposed to "sky is falling" fake disasters).

Re:ya but..

[dosquatch]

Climate does not equal weather.

Climate is the average of the weather in an area over a long period of time. Climate, therefore, does not equal weather, but is directly defined by it.

Re:ya but..

[Ambitwistor]

Wow, another Slashdotter getting modded up for pointing out that correlation != causation.

You know, repating "correlation does not equal causation" is not an excuse to ignore any line of statistical evidence you choose. Correlation doesn't prove causation, but often it is damn suggestive. Most of the evidence linking lung cancer to smoking is "merely" correlation too.

Beside that, experiments do not show merely a "correlation" between CO2 and warming. It is known and very obvious adsorption physics that greater absorption in the IR spectrum than in the visible causes greenhouse warming, when the gas is subjected to visible light and coupled to a heat sink ("the Earth"). The heat sink re-radiates in infrared, and a gas which absorbs more re-radiated heat than incoming visible radiation will inevitably lead to overall warming. As noted by the grandparent, this is easily demonstrated by laboratory experiment.

This is, in fact, the reason why the entire planet is not a frozen iceball: if you leave the greenhouse effect out of the energy balance equations (incoming radiation = outgoing radiation), you'll find that the the temperature of the Earth should be much lower than it actually is. Something is trapping heat, we know for sure. The greenhouse effect is a proven mechanism, and lo, the amount of warming you should get from it is equal to the missing component of the energy balance.

People still debate about global warming, but I can't believe that people are still skeptical of the very existence of the greenhouse effect.

Re:All I have to say is...

[jav1231]

So in short, he doesn't support your position...disagrees with those you agree with...and generally is "contrarian" to your position...therefore the man's obviously crazy.
This isn't the first time I've heard that other planets are warming too. Additionally, the Sun being warmer is apparently quite accepted and I would think fairly easy to measure. The "fact" is, it is warmer. Yes, humans may be contributing to Global Warming but it was going to warm up anyway and human contribution is an almost insignificant percentage. Its enough of a percentage, however, to capitalize on now isn't it!

Re:All I have to say is...

[Goaway]

Christ, man. This is not POLITICS or ETHICS or anything where OPINIONS is all that counts. This is SCIENCE.

I'll call a man crazy if he disagrees that the Earth orbits the sun, and it is not just because he disagrees with my "opinion".

Re:All I have to say is...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's religion when you question alternate, science-based theories. It's religion when you brand your opponent's as "deniers" and question their scientific credentials. It's religion when you look to it to solve your future worries and give you guidance how to live your life today, and most importantly, it's religion when it allows you to tell other people how to act.

It's religion. Calling it "science" doesn't make it science anymore than my calling myself a duck enables me to fly.

A better way

[The_Quinn]

we know for sure we could reduce the effect by reducing human output of greenhouse gases

If human beings were simply wiped off the face of the Earth, there would be quite a reduction in 'greenhouse gases'. I think there is not an insignificant percentage of those to whom human existence or well-being in irrelevant to their environmentalist beliefs. 'Nature Good, Humans Bad' is an attitude I hear a lot - as if humans are not a part of nature, and as if 'good' exists outside of human life.

Re:Stand and deliver!

[Lars T.]

The Fscking problem is: How you do it? Even freezing CO2 levels at the present values, will probably cause a global recession that will put hundreds of millions starving in the Third World. Even First World countries like French which are already doomed by unemployment and social tensions are going to see their situation explode with a global recession. Yeah, "probably". Got any prove for that? Like the hundreds of millions that starved because of the introduction of the catalytic convertor, the reduction of industrial soot, the banning of CFCs - which were all supposed to all cause a huge recession.

All that is missing is a post from you calling the non-GW-deniers "alarmists".

Re:All I have to say is...

[JebusIsLord]

I agree with you! And the cautious, humble approach right now would be to assume we ARE affecting the environment. If we're wrong, we waste a few trillion dollars. If we're right, we saved many times that (and some things that are priceless).

HERETIC

[budgenator]

heretics like him should be burned at the stake, the world would be much better of without the vile contrarian rants of the likes of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton!

Re:ya but..

[Coryoth]

Climate is the average of the weather in an area over a long period of time. Climate, therefore, does not equal weather, but is directly defined by it. Sure, and the tide height is average of wave height over a period of time. Tides, therefore, do not equal waves, but are directly defined by it. Despite this we can effectively predict tide heights despite the fact that we would have a very difficult time predicting the height of the next wave to wash ashore.

Re:All I have to say is...

[TheRaven64]

Then you would be wrong. The Earth doesn't orbit the Sun, it goes around the Sun Earth barycenter. Actually, the Earth orbits the centre of the galaxy, the sun just introduces perturbations into the orbit.

That's the thing about science; it's not about `truth', it's about progressively more accurate approximations of reality. For a lot of cases, a fairly coarse approximation is all that is required; Newtonian mechanics is valid for all of the situations 99% of people will find themselves in. If you are on the leading edge of science, however, then relying on superseded approximations is a mistake.

Re:All I have to say is...

[0111 1110]

The temperature increases that have been measured are much greater than the limits of thermometer precision.

Got any data to back that up? We are talking both accuracy and precision. I want to see the manufacturer specs on the actual equipment that has been used at the hundreds of temperature measurings stations around the world for the past 100 years or even 30 years. Go ahead and try to find that data. Or are you claiming that it is not relevant to the discussion? I want to see numbers. After all numbers, quantitative data, is what we are talking about here. If it is so obvious then show me. If you can't do that at least talk about the temperature measurement tech we are dealing with here. Do the temperature measurement stations use infrared tech? At least cite which type or types of thermometer have been used around the world to measure these obvious changes.

The simple fact is that temperature measuring technology that is actually used to measure the air within a useable temperature range is highly imprecise and highly inaccurate. Most will only be able to measure temperature to within +/- 2C! And that assumes calibration that needs to be performed on a periodic basis. And digitals generally fare even worse than analogs at least if you ignore miniscus parallax issues (which of course you should not). It is interesting to me that everyone (on both sides) seems to dance around the very issue of where the rubber meets the road, the nature of the very equipment that seems to be predicting the end of our species, not in the distant future, not 10,000 years from now, but in less than a century. That would seem serious enough to at least warrant a discussion of such issues.

Francis Bacon, the great philosopher of science, cautioned against letting a theory stray too far from the data. This theory is so far from it that hardly anyone even bothers to talk about the uncertainties in that data. As if our methods of measurement, not just in the US in 2007, but in the Soviet Union in 1943, were perfect and absolutely without error. And what about human error, errors in recording the data? We seem to be assuming no human error whatsoever in the the recording of the temperature readings. Did they have automated computer temperature logging in the 1920s in Indonesia or Siberia? Do they even have it today? Such questions should at least be occuring to you. The fact that they are not makes me wonder about whether you really care about the truth.

5-10 degrees F warmer is quite possible and is nothing to sneer at, even in non-equatorial regions.

I would sneer at the idea that it would mean the end of our species and openly laugh when you claim to have evidence that would prove it without the slightest doubt. So much so that any person to deny it is a crank. In fact, barring any unproven, unforeseen, effects, I would quite like an extra 5-10F increase at the lattitude where I currently live. Just means that there would be some migration away from equatorial regions. Some of us already regard them as inhospitable, especially at midday. Bad for some, good for others. On the whole, it sounds like a wash. Certainly not the end of all terrestrial life on our planet.

A great many of the world's population centers, and a number of entire nations, are close to sea level at the ocean front.

Actually all of them are. hehe. Okay. Sorry about that. Couldn't resist.

In fact, poor people will be disproportionately affected, as is usual.

But in a positive way. Show me someplace, anyplace in the world where property on the coast is worth less than inland (discounting the costs within cities)? The owners of such property tend to be (comparitively at least) wealthy. It is true even in Indonesia (one of the poorest countries in Asia).

You're also neglecting the damages and deaths from

Re:All I have to say is...

[Ambitwistor]

The simple fact is that temperature measuring technology that is actually used to measure the air within a useable temperature range is highly imprecise and highly inaccurate.

Got any data to back that up? I want to see the manufacturer specs on the actual equipment that has been used at the hundreds of temperature measurings stations around the world for the past 100 years or even 30 years. Go ahead and try to find that data.

If you want to assert that the accuracy and bias of temperature measurements is something other than what studies have shown it to be, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that — and even moreso, that these errors introduce a systematic upward bias into global temperature averages of a magnitude sufficient to render the observed global warming an artifact of measurement error.

Thermometer intercomparison studies do exist; I saw one cited in a similar Slashdot thread last month, which I've spent the last 20 minutes trying to find. As I said, if you want to dig around on Web of Science or Google Scholar long enough, you can find them too.

Most will only be able to measure temperature to within +/- 2C!

That is completely absurd. Even thermometers hundreds of years ago could accurately measure temperatures to better than 1 degree accuracy. Meteorological thermomenters in the 20th century are far more accurate.

And note again that the combined average of many thermometers are more accurate than any single thermometer.

I would love to know where you are getting these "facts".

This theory is so far from it that hardly anyone even bothers to talk about the uncertainties in that data.

Idiot. Read any paper on the instrumental temperature record and you will find discussion of the uncertainties in the data. Track the references back far enough and you will eventually find the calibration and bias estimation procedures used.

We seem to be assuming no human error whatsoever in the the recording of the temperature readings.

No, we do not. Human errors, both random and systematic, can be and are estimated. Search the literature for "bias correction", "cross validation", etc.

Such questions should at least be occuring to you. The fact that they are not makes me wonder about whether you really care about the truth.

I have not claimed that the instrumental temperature record has zero error. I merely claimed that the errors in the record are much smaller than the warming trend observed. The fact that you know nothing about how that record is calibrated and debiased tells me you certainly do not care about the truth.

I would sneer at the idea that it would mean the end of our species and openly laugh when you claim to have evidence that would prove it without the slightest doubt.

No one has claimed that global warming will "end our species". But the existence of global warming has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

I would quite like an extra 5-10F increase at the lattitude where I currently live.

I doubt that you would, as temperature increase is far from the only effect of global warming. And nice of you to care so much about people at other latitudes.

Just means that there would be some migration away from equatorial regions.

Oh, yeah, "some" migration. I'm sure you would like to support the costs of that relocation, too, along with the social and political unrest which accompanies it. (More likely, you would prefer your fellow taxpayers, or ideally other countries altogether, support it.) Not to mention your complete lack of ethics in supporting climate change which results in the relocation of other populations which conveniently don't include you.

Actually all of them are. hehe. Okay. Sorry about that. Couldn't resist.

Not all of the world's population centers are located close to sea level at the ocean front,

Cause, and solution to global warming.

[stfvon007]

Humans build robots on earth.
Earth starts to have global warming.
Humans send robots to mars.
Mars starts to have global warming.
Obviously robots are the cause of global warming.
The solution to global warming is:
DESTROY ALL ROBOTS!

Re:All I have to say is...

[chaboud]

It's a shame that this is posted AC, because I want to "friend" this poster.

Sure, CO2 is a cause of global climate change. I'll go with that, but it's just too early to start branding those who question the current theories as unscientific, crazy, or politicized. We did this to Galileo, Newton, Einstein...

We party on anthropogenic CO2 (a small faucet on a really big bathtub) because it's easy to fall into the trap of favoring the simplest solution to a problem (if reducing anthropogenic CO2 by 70% can be labeled "simplest"). Even after one of my friends warned me not to do it, I favored trying to pin my '85 Volvo's inability to start on the fuel-pump relay. I didn't do this because it was the most likely culprit. I did this because it was only $40, and it was easy to fix.

$300 later, the car runs, and it wasn't the fuel-pump relay that needed to be replaced.

Science is more about asking questions than knowing answers. If those who know the answers scoff at those who ask new questions, science isn't being done.