Re: so once again, why is Mars warming?

TimV wrote:
"Jeffrey Davis" <jd_home@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:206e3$4638bcf4$80a32844$15985@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
TimV wrote:
"Jeffrey Davis" <jd_home@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:54cd6$4638b331$80a32844$7253@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 08:13:48 -0400, Jeffrey Davis <jd_home@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

James Schrumpf wrote:
Quiet, Jeffrey Davis <jd_home@xxxxxxxxxx> -- I'm transmitting rage.
Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
On May 1, 10:37 am, lein <boomer_the_...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
??
It appears you're never going to get an answer.
I posted a discussion from RealClimate regarding this just today.

If lein doesn't want to read it, peachy.

Basically, it's human-caused on Earth but many natural processes have caused it on Mars, none of which can happen here.

Move along, nothing to see here.
In short, yes. Why you act as if the discussion on RealClimate explains nothing is stunning. It's the equivalent of a sneer.

We don't have Martian atmosphere or topography or orbital eccentricity. We have oceans. They don't. We have gigatons of Carbon pouring into the atmosphere. They don't. They have vast dust storms. We don't. A person dying from a bullet is dead in a different way that a person dying from cancer isn't.
And, yet, Pluto is warming - despite the fact that it is heading away
from perihelion...

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Pluto_Is_Undergoing_Global_Warming.html

...and Triton...

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1998/23

...and maybe Neptune itself...

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml

...and maybe King Jupiter...

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA

http://tinyurl.com/k26vf
Even if true, why would any of that be relevant to Earth?

There are millions of deaths each day. A death by a car crash is different than a death by a bullet than a death by drowning or pneumonia or a piano falling on one's head. If there were an increase in insolation, you'd have a stronger point. There hasn't been.

What's interesting to me is the willingness here to accept things like the assertion that Pluto is warming. Pluto is tough to scope and hasn't been scoped for long, and yet, deniers are willing to use isolated studies of irrelevant issues as evidence. Why? Why ignore mountains of evidence that GW is due to human activity and accept the equivalent of GLEE! at face value?

Have you read the evidence that Pluto is warming? What possible relevance could it have for earth? What possible relevance would Triton or Neptune have? etc Their only link to earth would be through a possible increase in solar and there hasn't been. It's been steady since around 1950.
I'm thinking you don't really understand this whole science thingy. First of all, no credible scientist would claim there is mountains of evidence that GW is due to human activity. There are mountains of evidence that GW is occuring and mountains of evidence that CO2 is increasing. The very best hypothesis we have at the moment is that there is causality and not simply correlation between these two events.
Horsepucky.

Further, we can say with some certainty that much of the excess CO2 is due to human activity, although some CO2 could be caused by the warming itself.
I'm sure it is.

However, this hypothesis is one that is not easily testible.
"Testable"

Awesome, spelling flame.

Carbon dating can check for the relative age of the gas.
In cases like this, the best way to strengthen you hypothesis is to develop alternative hypotheses that could explain global warming and to determine if these hypotheses fit the evidence better than our first. Since solar output is highly correlated to past temperature fluctuations on Earth, then it is reasonable to assume that temperature fluctuations on other planets may also occur in the same way. If we examine data from other planets, and they simultaneously are rising with those on our planet, then we have an alternative hypothesis to explain what is occuring on Earth.

Since, contrary to your statement, solar output has trended higher in the past few decades,
http://www.realclimate.org/cicerone0203_fig3.jpg

Dude, that's cosmic rays. There are other factors, even beside the fact that the trendline of that graph is developed using the midpoint in one increasing peak and the base of another. Here's one for you using proxies. Looks a lot like the temperature increases. Yet, that graph does no more to prove the point than your graph.

Solar output goes up and down. It's diminishing now and temps are going up. We don't have similar peaks and valleys in the temperature record. Also, we've got all this increase in heat-trapping CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. There's a calculable amount of energy that this stuff produces. Where has that gone? That escaped without heating the atmosphere? You're a scientist. All of a sudden your hot to do away with conservation of matter and energy?


Solar physicists, using satellite data that has only been available since the 1970's, have shown that solar output has increased 0.05% per decade since then.

So, that's a data trend of ... 2 decades ... when other measures show flat.

If one extrapolated that same increase back to the turn of the century, it could account for the entirety of our temperature change.

And if wishes were horses ...

It is a credible theory, not one to be simply pooh-poohed.

Obviously it's "credible" since some people believe it.

That doesn't mean that
it is any more correct than the anthrogenic theories.

When there's all that CO2 in the atmosphere why are people so desperate to fix the blame elsewhere. If this and maybe that. Well, all the ifs and maybes doesn't displace the several gigaton elephant that is CO2.

It also doesn't mean
we shouldn't do all we can do to reduce CO2 emissions in the event that the CO2 hypothesis is actually correct.

temperature increases on other planets might help explain our problem. This being true would not, by itself, disprove anthrogenic causes of warming, but would reduce it to a contributory factor.

Being closed-minded is no more attractive in you than it is in the GW skeptics.
Uh huh.

That science thing can be difficult to deal with, I know. Those with high natural tendencies for confirmation bias really have trouble with it. I'm not arguing one way or another, just injecting a real scientist's natural skepticism. Personally, I think both of you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about and you both are absolutely incapable of rational discourse on the subject because you both are true believers.



Well, there's this evidence ....
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Al Gores Private Jet
    ... One is the evidence ... the medieval warming period). ... which have dealt with enormous quantities of CO2 ... CO2 and temperature, with the latter trailing the former. ...
    (rec.aviation.piloting)
  • Re: so once again, why is Mars warming?
    ... why would any of that be relevant to Earth? ... although some CO2 could be caused by the warming ... Since solar output is highly correlated to past temperature ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: OT: A few innocent questions about global warming
    ... FROM THE COMMON MAN ... The earth is cooler now than at any time since the middle ... Temperature has settled down again.http://www.factsandarts.com/articles/no-significant-global-warming-si ... ... It is true that CO2 is ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: OT: A few innocent questions about global warming
    ... FROM THE COMMON MAN ... The earth is cooler now than at any time since the middle ... Temperature has settled down again.http://www.factsandarts.com/articles/no-significant-global-warming-si ... ... It is true that CO2 is ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: Global Warming and CO2 levels
    ... Interesting documentry on channel 4 tonight about global warming. ... seems that there is very strong evidence that although CO2 levels ... historically have been high when the earth warms up, the level of CO2 ... LAGS the temperature rise so isn't the cause, ...
    (uk.rec.models.engineering)