Global Warming Coming to Mars!

It is all the SiO2 exhaled by the little green men (and woman).

I was about to blame globe warming on the fire below us but I believe Mars is not so hot inside. Another rethink!!!

Who or what can I blame now?

Prevailing winds carrying greenhouse gases from earth. Man is the cause of Earth's global warming why not Mars too?

I like the prevailing solar winds theory! That has potential for a Nobel Prize!

Wrong direction!

You might get "Gore"d if you try for the prize.

In the set of books published in 1935 (The Standard University) They knew that space was filled with a calcium cloud.

Maybe they were right and heat contamination can be transported to Mars.

The link you provided offered this explanation:

"In a paper published in the journal Nature, she suggests that such winds can stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet's temperature.

Fenton's team unearthed heat maps of the Martian surface from Nasa's Viking mission in the 1970s and compared them with maps gathered more than two decades later by Mars Global Surveyor. They found there had been widespread changes, with some areas becoming darker.

When a surface darkens it absorbs more heat, eventually radiating that heat back to warm the thin Martian atmosphere: lighter surfaces have the opposite effect. The temperature differences between the two are thought to be stirring up more winds, and dust, creating a cycle that is warming the planet."

Here is a link to the paper mentioned in the excerpt above.

That reminded me of the giant dust storm from 2007 that shut down the two rovers on Mars for a little bit. It was impressive because it encompassed the entire planet. I would have thought that increased dust levels in the atmosphere would reduce the global planet temperature, not raise it, but if you read the Fenton paper the idea is that dust settles on the lighter areas of the planet reducing overall albedo. Darker means less reflected sunlight resulting in increases in temperature.

But warming on Mars, could not possibly be related to warming on Earth... No that is not even worth considering.... Just a coincidence I suppose.

Sure it can be related if in fact the source (increase solar activity) is causing Earth's warming why not all the other planets.

Absolutely true, but I am not aware if there is any supporting data that our solar output has increased. Anyone?

Studies show increasing output during sun spot cycles since the 1600. No one is ready to say that is causing global warming. As there is nothing to support it.

During the 1600 there was little to no sun spot activity recorded. Since then as sun spots magnitude increased temperature has increased here on earth. Coincidence ?

Such heresy Ozzb.... everyone knows that global climate change is due to human activity.

We just need to figure out how our activity here has effected Mars. Probably all those probes and rovers and what not are putting CO2 in the Martian atmosphere...

That was my thought also

Could that be the statistical correlation with a log-normal distribution that Roger Pink is presently having trouble with?

Cool! I think we should create a plan for exporting our greenhouse gases to Mars with the intent to warm it up to begin growing plants to generate an oxygen atmosphere with an eye to migrating there once we've exhausted this rock. Or at least a high end resort / mining colony.

I agree, but perhaps we should just make it a resort for those who believe in GW.

It is no riddle to me, in recent years the sun has been putting out a lot more energy than is usual. This is also one of the reasons that global warming here on Earth is so high!

Spencer.

One way or the other I'm sure Al Gore will release a movie blaming somebody or something.

Where is DEL when you need the answer? OK the Mars atmosphere is 95% co2. and OURS is less than .4%. So I am guessing it is that darned ole' star in the middle is to blame, looking for common factors. I think we should investigate the suns cycles a bit more. But as it has been said , we'll have to go at night.

The Sun has been monitored for the last 50 years at least. Can you produce any scientific papers that support your theory regarding Sun output increasing. Any sort of paper at all?

yes sir, "Further satellite observations may eventually show the trend to be short-term. But if the change has indeed persisted at the present rate through the 20^th Century, "it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said."

This is one of many, that was funded by NASA .

Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 02:30 pm ET
20 March 2003

Let me be absolutely clear about this. I'm not asking for a periodical, I'm asking for a scientific paper. Something that has been peer reviewed. There is a big, big difference. Now I'm quite certain they are out there, I would be shocked if they weren't. Anyone who can, please provide a peer reviewed scientific paper regarding an increase in sun output.

If you post it, I promise to read it, if it is a peer reviewed paper.

Actual Link to Article

Here is the link to the Scientific Peer Reviewed Paper the article you provided is trying to summarize. It's an interesting read, mostly a discussion of the statistical models used to compile the data.

http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Secular%20total%20solar%20irradiance%20trend%20during%20solar%20cycles%2021%E2%80%9323.pdf

If you read the paper, please notice that some of what they did directly contradict there results, but they threw that data out. Here is the conclusion from the paper, I've bolded the part where they throw out the data that disagreed with their conclusion:

The philosophies of the ACRIM and PMOD TSI composite constructions are very different. The ACRIM composite uses results originally published by the science teams of contributory experiments and the NIMBUS7/ERB comparisons to relate ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. This approach is based on our belief that in most cases the science teams had unique knowledge of each experiment that could produce results that most accurately represent their instrumentation's performances. [23] The PMOD approach modifies published contributory TSI results. Their modifications have the effect of conforming the ACRIM1/ACRIM2 ratio to ERBS during the ACRIM gap and matching composite TSI to the lower values predicted by solar-proxy models during the activity maximum of solar cycle 21. [24] Construction of TSI composite databases will not be without its controversies for the foreseeable future. However we believe the ACRIM composite and trend represents the best interpretation of the information presently available for solar cycles 21–23. [25] The �0.05%/decade minimum-to-minimum trend appears to be significant. If so it has profound implications for both solar physics and climatology. For solar physics it means that TSI variability can be caused by unknown mechanisms other than the solar magnetic activity cycle. Much longer time scales for TSI variations are therefore a possibility, which has obvious implications for solar forcing of climate. [26] The absence of a minima-to-minima trend in the PMOD composite is an artifact of uncorrected ERBS degradation. ERBS degradation during the gap equals the trend difference and the PMOD offsets (within computational uncertainty).

The paper is an interesting read. I ask that if you believe that the Sun has been growing warmer to give it a read. I did and I can honestly say that nothing in it is convincing. One statistical method they used says it is, another says it isn't and they threw out the data from the one that disagreed with their conclusion by suggesting possible sensor degradation, even though they had no access to the sensor, they merely surmised it.

Agreed... just as the the gullible warming clan has used and tossed data also. I call stalemate until we can stop discrediting the scientist that do not conform to what the politicians and environmentalist want them to say and a true unbiased conclusion can be drawn. I am sure that will be when we achieve the unity power that another thread is trying to achieve. That is a good laugh too.

That would be reasonable if there weren't mountains of papers that support man-caused global warming and only a handful of papers that support other causes, such as the Sun heating up. The problem is people don't read the scientific literature, they read synopsis of the scientific literature so one paper out of the mainstream with questionable results is picked up by 100's of writers with agendas which creates the illusion of a scientific debate where there isn't one, unless you want to call 50 scientists versus 50,000 scientists a debate.

Anyway I didn't intend to get into another Global Warming debate and I gone and done it, so I'll stop now. I respectfully defer the last words in the debate on this thread to logix101 or whomever else wishes to present the other side of this argument. Regardless of our differences regarding this subject I wish you guys the best and will see you around CR4.

If the evidence was so compelling there wouldn't be a debate!

I can do this all day!

Confounding efforts to determine the Sun's role is the fact that its energy output waxes and wanes every 11 years. This solar cycle, as it is called, reached maximum in the middle of 2000 and achieved a second peak in 2002. It is now ramping down toward a solar minimum that will arrive in about three years.

Due to cycles of the sun?

Yep just run of the mill sun spots and CME's.(coronal mass ejections) Where is Del?

In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination.
- Mark Twain`

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
- Arthur Schopenhauer

Thanks for your support!!! I am sure that the scientific community is ... "warming" up to the idea that we as the human race are not making much of a blip on the scale on this great big earth. But we must be polite to everyone , they just might fire up the Prius and take the most efficient route at 5 miles mph under the speed limit to our houses, and toss eco friendly material (that can be recycled) into our yards to teach us a lesson. Which of course I will thank them for as I can't get grass to grow on the south side of my lawn.

I do appreciate all the support of the gUrU's on theses matters!!

Although many of us are skeptical about man made-global warming there are still many good reasons why we must grab our Prius.

First, burning anything produces particulates and pollution. So it is a good idea to develop alternatives to burning things to make power.

Second, I will be out of a job – I work with solar.

Third, because of alarmists and fear mongering radical "environmentalists" (I hate how they have stolen the idea of conservation and twisted it so that those of us who do not subscribe to their extremism are tagged "anti environment" or worse) we have not been "able" to develop our own natural resources.

For a host of silly reasons are not allowed to drill for oil; we are not allowed to burn coal; we are not allowed to develop nuclear. We are not allowed to build refineries. We are not allowed. . . We are not allowed. . . It seems as if we are deliberately being placed in a vulnerable position. Our enemies are the ones left with the oil!

It appears that we cannot overcome the effects of extremist propaganda and therefore we have no choice but to conserve until the emergency falls upon us where we will be all stopped in our tracks. People do not realize what will happen if our suppliers decide we are unworthy and the spigot is turned off. Things will never be the same.

Alternatives are decades away. People are far too optimistic because they do not realize how difficult it is to produce power without the internal combustion engine or the Grid. And it must be revealed and confronted that we do not see many breakthroughs in the effective storage of energy for when "the sun don't shine" or to level consumption that is not highly corrosive. It is why the Volt has been delayed until 2010.

All the conventional storage devices, including chemical, thermal and kinetic have proven lethargic, polluting in themselves and inadequate so far for the electric car or local production of energy. Utility size providers are coming on far too slowly than our needs. Everyone is in denial.

Well if I must remove my mask I will. I am also into energy conservation...but not for the SAVE THE PLANET! idea it is because, well... I am cheap. I have switched to CF L's and I am using dimmers on all incandescent bulbs.(80% peak out put) I have energy star appliances. The new attic insulation goes well with the about to be installed solar water heater. Now don't get me wrong, I keep my V8's tuned up and my Saturn SL1 is my travel car. I agree with you, there are nuts out there on both sides of the issue. I think we should go nuclear, and tap the oil reserves where ever they maybe. I do not like food for fuel, why take our food and turn it into not food, I think everyone is paying for that now. I am a big fan of the hydrogen, I think everything should be run on it. I will save my hydrocarbon rant for a Monday to get every one stirred up. I think the red tape is holding us back in the name of safety and environment. You being in solar I am sure you know that, I can only hope for the day we can get a grid tie system for around the $1/watt range and you will see everybody becoming a power producer. I have 30 acers at your disposal!

Forget about 30 acres! It has been said that five times the energy use of the occupants falls on the average roof. Why not capture that energy with CSP? Run a turbine, steam engine or Stirling.