Dust Blamed for Warming on Mars

Dust causing planetary warming what ever next, we all know that is those who care to know that the sun is getting hotter. When will these idiots get it through their thick skulls. Warming is driven by solar conditions.........Doh! Help me Homer.

Hi Brainwave, I've heard this theory, and it makes sense, but can you direct me to any data? I'd be very interested to read it, Thanks, Davo

You could start by looking up the Maunder Minimum in sunspots from 1645-1715

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum.

During this period few sunspots were observed around the world, auroras vertually disappeared for 100 years.

Compare it with the Little Ice Age (16th centruty through mid 19th century) which followed the Medieval warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age

Today the sunspot count is higher than in the 1600-1800 time period. Does this correlate with our global warming? Yes. But so does greenhouse gas emissions! Obviously there is much debate about the correlation. Without man's influence over the past 4 billion years of earth's existence, this planet has been warmer than today and colder than today. Is man influencing his environment? Yes. But, there are many factors which contribute to weather patterns and changes. The solar input is only one. Ocean currents are another.

and lets not forget the killing of plankton in the oceans.

They are a major source of this planet's ecosytem for regulation of CO2...

Are we poisoning our oceans sooo much that we have interrrupetd another natural regulation device...

..just like the lower equatoril forest destruction and river runoffs?

HMMMM..just HOW smart is this evolutionary thing we call man?

I don't buy it. There has always been dust on mars. This is an indication that global warming is not due to humans on earth, but to the sun. I've heard that other planets are getting warmer too. Where is their dust?

Hi StandardsGuy. I agree with you, the next politician or so-called expert that tells me that I am part of the problem with global warming I will set fire to them, then they can experience real warmth cause by us humans. I am totally fed up with these people, they say that they can prove it, NO, they can't! It is all a scam to extract more money from us! Spencer.

"Venus - overcast, with temperatures in the high 450s today, with outbreaks of acid rain this afternoon.

However, it's bright sunshine for the next few days on Mercury for all those tan-seekers..."

I am convinced that the global warming on Mars is caused by all the hot air expended here on Earth discussing global warming...

"Touché, Monsieur Puddy-Tat."

Unless Spirit and Opportunity have been doing wheelies, I don't think you can blame this one on humans.

Maybe the "scientist and experts" who are claiming that mankind is responsible for global warming, are really just scared to admit that they really do not know why we are in a warming phase now. Even if we had a thousand years of accurate and reliable data, we still could not say with any certainty that we are the root cause of this. We certainly have had no measurable impact on the "Red Planet". Is the sun getting hotter? Possibly, or are we getting closer to it and it just seems hotter. I don't know. Maybe I am entering into a "negative phase" when I hear a polititian open their mouth. They fail to inspire trust or confidence these days.

It is true that we have most likely contributed to the problem somewhat however marginally that may be. The only sure thing that we have done as a species is to inflict pollution, waste and suffering for others for a select groups gain. Progress? For who?

We have the ability to correct our ways so that we do as best we can with what we have been given and know. But most lack the desire to do this for unselfish reasons, myself included. Most economys are driven with the pretense of providing a better future for mankind. We just have become insulated from hearing or seeing those that suffer because of it.

Mankind is very insignificant in the grand scheme of things on earth. Many theory's are proliferated in the absence of facts. many will try to profit from these and other schemes. Yes, we can do much better. But will we unless we are forced. Time will tell.

There is overwhelming data that supports human contribution to Global Warming. Than why is it that some people find the human contribution to Global Warming so hard to accept? Why do many people refuse to believe an overwhelming number of scientists, well conducted experiments, studies and vetted climate models.

Doubters of the human contribution to Global Warming state that the available data do not support the significant human contribution to Global Warming. Yet they will accept, unquestioning any untested and unsupported alternative theories as a basis for saying there is no human contribution to Global Warming. Lets have some consistancy here folks.

Maybe because there is overwhelming data about the money being made off of Global Warming and your hero al-Gore will not take a pledge to cut back on his energy use. Also if Mars is cover or soaked in CO2 and dust is causing global warming then CO2 can not be the cause here. Also the sun is the biggest factor in our planets cycles then anything else. The US Military bases in the Arctic and Antarctic have both reveled that the temp are getting colder on both poles. Now for another question, what got this planet out of the first ice age.....Global Warming and man had absolutely nothing to do with it so do you think maybe this could happen again without man? On last thing every time al-Gore opens his mouth he emits the evil CO2 so maybe he just needs to shut up. My last two questions is this, if CO2 was really the problem should there be a lot of green leafy plants taking it out because there is more food for them and al-Gore even admitted in front of US Congress that dihydrate monoxide are the biggest contributor to global warming.

Charles

There are studies that support human contribution to global warming. But there are also studies that support the amount of human contribution is so small that the environment counters (repairs) almost the entire amount of human contribution to the problem.

I am not saying that the amount of pollution we create is not a problem, but as far as for global warming the environment repairs itself.

I am sorry to say there is NO overwhelming data to support human contribution to global warming. Yes a correlation exists between the rise in CO2 and the rise in Temperatures, however we know from evidence that the CO2 content of the atmosphere fluctuates naturally.

Furthermore, recent studies have shown that the atomosphereic temperatures on other planets and moons have risen over the same time (last 20 years) that the earth has exhibited a rise in temperatures suggesting strongly that what we see today is more attributable to increased radiation from the sun and not from higher atmosphereic CO2.

Finally the overwhelming number of scientists you quote just does not stand up to scrutiny. To belong to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change you either have to belong to the World Meteorlogial Organization or be appointed by the UN. Hence many scientific backgrounds have been ommited from the writing of the three reports undertaken by IPCC over the years - yet media reports have you thinking that all scientists had an opportunity to contribute to those reports. It just isn't so.

I personally am in disagreement with the level of human activity that has contributed to global warming. I believe that air borne CO2 emissions from aircraft have a much greater impact than the CO2 coming from the exhaust of my vehicle - simply because it is discharged directly into the upper atmosphere.

If you look into the level of volcanic activity btween 1950 and 1985 and compare it to 1985 to today, you will discover that the amount of volcanic activity in the latter period is 30 to 50% higher than the earlier period.

We also know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas and exists in amounts far greater than C)2 in the atomosphere. We also know that the major exhalent froma volcano is water vapor that is super heated and exhaled well into the upper atmosphere.

Yes, man has contributed CO2 into the atomsphere over time, but global temperatures have cycled over time to the exclusion of man.

The model used to predict global temperatures are just that - models. Every model has assumptions built in to it and as such are not sceintific enough to prove anything rather than make some sort of prediction. I can build an economic model that will be mathematically correct and that reflects what has happened in the past and use it to predict vast unemployment and high inflation into the future. Does that mean it will happen? The anser is an emphatic no!!

"There is overwhelming data that supports human contribution to Global Warming."

I am neither a believer nor a doubter of this thesis. I have been trying to obtain and study the original research reports on which it is based in order to make an informed decision. Unfortunately, although many people have said "...there is overwhelming data...", not one of them has been able to tell me where to view this data. I have found some of it myself, printed out reams of pages (literally) to study and saved much more to disk. Why is there not a web site where the research reports may be viewed? I understand copyright protection, but a summary could be made available. If there is such a site I wish someone would post the url(s).

Bill Morrow

My, my, don't we have an attitude about Al Gore.

It is true that Planet Earth has has periods of warming and cooling. Climate records show that these have taken place, and that they are related, in part, to solar influx that changes with the earth's axial wobble as well as orbital flattening. But these changes do not happen quickly. The problem is, if we are contributing, and the impacts are growing exponentially, as all natural systems do, then we should be taking steps to reduce the impact. IF the science is correct, we must take action. I would rather find out the science is wrong by reducing CO2 emissions and observing no effect whatsoever on warming, than ignore the possibility that we are a major cause, and suffer the consequences of inactions.

Do you remember Silent Spring? What crap that was, huh? What a nattering nabob of negativism Rachael Carlson was. DDT spreading throughout the ecosystem and reducing bird populations - no way. Oh, wait, DDT found at the north pole, decreasing bird populations, but then increasing after banning DDT. Mercury in our rivers - so what. Oh, wait, rising mercury levels in the Inuit. The loss of ecosystem so what - like millions of acres of rainforest - (you know, those CO2 absorbing veggies). Heck the world is huge. How could humans have so much impact?

"Heck the world is huge. How could humans have so much impact?"

Humans can have an impact because of the amount of materials and resources we consume. Figure in the very little amount that we give back to the environment and it could cause a large impact.

"The loss of ecosystem so what - like millions of acres of rainforest - (you know, those CO2 absorbing veggies)."

The rainforest is more or less a self sustaining ecosystem itself. Most of the O2 that is created by the plants in the rain forest is consumed by the inhabbitants in the rainforest. The amount of O2 that the rainforest creates for the global environment is very small. If everyone is worried about the amount of O2 being created, then they need to look into preserving life in the oceans. Most of the O2 is created from life in the ocean.

Ok Greener lets see if we can get this process down, you are to try to refute my points not ignore them or bring odd things into the discussion it. So lets take some of yours apart and show you the error of your thinking. First by you ignoring my point about the money that al-Gore is making off this little scam your saying it is of no significance? Next the earth's wobble is small effect as compared to the amount of energy of given off by the sun in one major sun spot. You say if science is correct then we should spend tons of money and possibly bankrupt a country on an IF? So if science says horse manure could be good for you are you going to run out and eat it just because it could be? CO2 in our atmosphere is the lowest it has ever been according to ice core samples so how could this be a problem then? Now lets say we all switch to CFL to cut down on CO2, hmmm well now CFL has mercury in them and with close to a Billion light fixtures in this country alone then we put a lot of mercury out there and the Inuits get even more mercury, nice going you need to think that through. Just like when you Greeners wanted the US to put ether in gasoline and then they (the EPA) found the by-products all over in the water, Greeners didn't think that through either did they. Why did you bring DDT in this discussion can you not stay on the subject! You also didn't talk about the evil dihydrate monoxide, this stuff is so bad that if you breath enough of it in you will die. Maybe you should think about banning dihydrate monoxide from the environment because it caused the greatest global warming of anything on this planet. What about Mars being soaked in CO2 if it is not causing the problem there then how could it cause the problem here? Green leafy plants on this planet are not all veggies, try palm trees, grass, evergreens, and deciduous trees and so on and there is more trees in the US now then there was when the pilgrims got here. One last point how can anyone predict what is going to happen with the earth's environment when they(the scientists) could not even get the number of hurricanes right last year? Now try to stay on subject and refute my points.

Charles

This Guest could easily be some sort of leafy vegetable, but apparently not a green leafy vegetable.

Texlex is this the best YOU can do? You talk as if you are omnipotent. Try to put some kind of thought into refuting my points or are you a Greener too? I was so sure you could answer better then this, you have greatly disappointed me.

Charles

It's very comforting to note that I have already generated a reputation sufficient to justify the expectations of others. Wow, I rock! Actually, how's this.

Using attacks on any profiteering by Al Gore or other promoters of better biome caretaking and planet resource management is an argument, but not a particularly valid one. In philosophy, that would be considered an argument ad hominem. An argument ad hominem is one where, instead of debating the precise issues, one attacks or undermines the reputations or bona fides of the persons associated with the contrary viewpoint--i.e., a smear campaign.

Are Al Gore and others like him profiteering? Almost certainly. If so, is their profiteering any worse than the profiteering of any and all of those who have profited from commerce that may contributes to environmental problems? If so, why? Profit is the God of capitalism. In the Green movement, the God Profit shares the Godhead with environmental and other concerns. Are his concerns baseless? Almost certainly not. Is the sky falling? That's way too difficult to currently determine--likely by multiple, if not many, orders of magnitude. However, we do see significant and, arguably, negative effects (some very negative) due to human activities.

The thing is, the current state of the environment, the vector and the magnitude of its many changing systems, and the volocity of each such change, given the number of variables and unknowns, are such that human ingenuity cannot yet accurately assess what many of the real concerns are, how concerned we should be, what remedies we might consider, and how proactively we should apply them. Perhaps, as some say and as some research suggests, there are sufficient, effective buffers, that limit the long-term environmental harms for many or most of the perceived harms. The really scary thing, however, is that, as some research suggests, there may be fairly sensitive trigger points that we are approaching or may have already passed; wherein, sensitive environmental thresholds may be or may have been exceeded and from which a painful future, in some respects, cannot be avoided.

Whether the Al Gores or or their detractors have the better grasp of the gravity and immediacy of the human situation is too complex to perfectly (or, even approximately) ascertain. However, what is the prudent stance? In my estimation, the prudent stance is to actively seek, research, experiment, study, and invest in areas of human endeavor that a) yield a better grasp of the facts, b) reduce or control known/perceived harms as those are brought to light, c) seek remedies and apply them to afflicted areas, and d) develop contingencies. Commerce may be inhibited, in some respects, but it will blossom in others. Some wealth, as wealth is prone to do, will shift hands. Those who find something to sell in the effort will end up with more of the shifted wealth. In nature, those who fail to adapt to changing circumstances will decline. The same is true for commerce. Circumstances are changing and the players must adapt to the greening of commerce or decline.

If the sky is not falling, we will have introduced new rules into the board game of life and stirred up the pot that generates outcomes for the palyers. If the sky is falling, we might thwart our early extinction.

I like this you actually did a very good at deflecting my points and not addressing any of them except defending al-Gore. Facts about al-Gore is NOT a smear campaign. Hummm lets see if I can get out of my so called smear campaign to say that al-Gore WILL NOT take an oath to use less energy just buy his way out of it with so called carbon credits. This lets al-Gore to live polluting as much as normal while the little guys have to walk and ride bicycles. Nice, real nice al-Gore thanks for the lesson on hypocrisy. Now for others profiteering on polluting have you heard of the EPA putting the pinch on people polluting. As anti-polluting technology becomes more feasible and affordable it is being installed as we type these letters just because they don't happen as fast as you or al-Gore would like doesn't mean we are all going to die. Why should we bankrupt anyone or any country just because al-Gore and his folks think the world is coming to an end. If you think we need to do this sign some checks to al-Gore to sponsor him I am sure he could use the help with his "the world is ending campaign". Now MIT professors are coming out against al-Gore and saying he is an alarmist and if I guess right I am sure they are smarter then you, al-Gore or me. Al-Gore needs to lead by example and not by just running his mouth and emitting the evil CO2. I also know that a lot of things have happened on this earth in a very quick time period without man ever being involved and it survived like when a meteor killed most of the dinosaurs on the planet if a very short time. Once we find and understand the real problem we might be able to find the answer. I know this the Greeners in the '70's said we are freezing and we need to spread black something on the poles to keep them from freezing all the water. How is it we went from freezing to burning up in a short 30 some years? If the Greeners got it wrong then could it be possible that they are wrong now? Besides over 99% of all life on this planet has become extinct without man's involvement why should we be different?

Now lets try to see if you can refute or at least answer my original points. How can CO2 be a problem here if Mars is over 95% CO2 in its atmosphere and its temp rise mirrors our own and dust is the cause of global warming on Mars. How is it that CO2 is at its lowest point in history according to ice core samples and is plant food yet it is the problem? I am sure that CO2 is naturally occurring that with more CO2 there would be more plant and there for more O2. Why is it that your buddy al-Gore did admit that dihydrate monoxide (water) is the biggest contributor to global warming in front of US Congress yet none of you pro al-Gore people will admit to that? Why is it that the sun has the biggest affect on our planet you will not address that? Even if the earth is ahead of Mars on the warming scale you think maybe it could be that we are closer to that great big burning ball of fire we circle? Now for one last question how is it that man is going to kill the Earth when it has survived for this long with some great horrible catastrophes without man ever being involved?

Al Gore is not my buddy, is a hypocrite, and he very well may be and, hopefully, is an alarmist. Nevertheless, your argument remains almost entirely of the ad hominem variety and not particularly relevant to the real issue of what level and what forms of response humankind should take toward imporved stewardship of its biome.

I didn't seek to endorse Al Gore or deflect your specific points (although, I think that your assertions were too muddled to be considered "points," and would more properly be described as splotchy, imprecisely delimited, areas), rather, I sought to put the general issue into a more rational context.

The survivability of the Earth is not the issue, the issue is the survivability of our species, our descendants, the creatures and qualities we (and they) care about and desire, and the preservation of same.

CO2 is not at its historical lowest point according anybody's study that I'm aware of. Perhaps you misread a report that current CO2 levels are lower than they were during previous hotter episodes?

You should have used "effect," rather than "affect."

I do not concede that people at MIT are smarter than I am. I went to Rice and people at MIT like to refer to their school as "the Rice of the North."

If you add my words, "we should actively undertake to," to your words, "find and understand the real problem," the result summarizes my thesis (and likely yours, as well).

Your comment "Besides over 99% of all life on this planet has become extinct without man's involvement why should we be different?" demonstrates why you should not be entrusted with anything as hazardous as a banana peel.

Assuming that there is a cycle of increased warming that might significantly disrupt human existence, we better figure out how to deal with it asap, whether it is due to human activities or not (i.e., increased or changed solar output).

Man every time you reply you get more child like now you want to put forth the issue "You should have used "effect," rather than "affect." Maybe I should go back and look at the doubled words and other mistakes you have made. I see now that you are educated well beyond you intelligence. By not addressing all of my points for a third time I see you are just a waist of my time. Have a nice life living in your ignorance.

Charles

If having a little fun at your expense is childlike then, thank you for that opportunity. Actually, despite a bit of fun, I've tried to keep it reasonable and rational. The major thrust of your rant continues to be that, because Al Gore is a boob, everything green is undermined. That's not a useful argument for debating the issues, although it may have some use as a rhetorical device for skewing or obscuring them. I take it that that is your agenda (N.B. that was an intentional double "that").

If you'd like responses to your legitimate "points," please list them separate from the chaff. I'd then be able to see them more readily and might address them.

I truly wouldn't know how to be a "wiast" of your time. Sorry, couldn't resist. No hard feelings.