Global Warming

The writer of the article you posted seems to be the one misunderstanding the date. He seems to think that the southern pole completely melting is limited only to the southern pole. All of Mars is experiencing changes, but it is most severe at the southern pole. The writer even tries to throw out the idea that dust storms are responsible for the climate change on the rest of Mars after he already said that the rest of Mars wasn't changing. He doesn't even seem to be willing to acknowledge the fact that the ice has already disipated in most of Mars's southern hemisphere. I'm just speculating here, but the tilt on Mars's axis seems to be the easy explanation here.

Rokerijdude, if we agree the sun is the main variable for why there has been a rise in global temperature, why do you keep pushing for reduction in cO2 emissions?

Here's another link explaining why cO2 production could not cause major temperature shifts.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=069cb5b2-7d81-4a8e-825d-56e0f112aeb5&k=0


There are always those, including reputable scientists, who will not agree with whatever the current paradigm is. That's a good thing, in that it keeps people thinking outside the box. However, that shouldn't blind anyone to the fact that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that human-produced CO2 is the culprit for the current and accelerating warming trend, as reflected in the IPCC, which put the probability of that at more than 90%. And that was signed up to by every national delegation present, including the USA.

It seems to me, that acting now, is a win/win situation. Not acting now, is a lose no matter how you look at it.
 
Werbung:
I assumed you included cO2 emissions in your broad description of pollution.

Direct question once again

Where in this thread anywhere Did I say I was Pushing for emmisions reductions?
Even in my description of "Pollution" Dave...where did i say we HAD to do anything?


Now if youd like to ask me how i felt about that,,, i may actually answer it... be being i have never addressed it...........quit making it seem as though i have.....


Do i think it would be good for mankind, as well as the earths health, to have a reduction in emissions..................................... YES

The same as i feel we shouldnt be polluting our rivers, and lakes, with chemicals and petroleum products.......
 
There are always those, including reputable scientists, who will not agree with whatever the current paradigm is. That's a good thing, in that it keeps people thinking outside the box. However, that shouldn't blind anyone to the fact that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that human-produced CO2 is the culprit for the current and accelerating warming trend, as reflected in the IPCC, which put the probability of that at more than 90%. And that was signed up to by every national delegation present, including the USA.

It seems to me, that acting now, is a win/win situation. Not acting now, is a lose no matter how you look at it.

Acting before all of the data is in could have a potentially devastating effect on industry. When corporations lose money, that leads to downsizing and recession. That's why we pulled out of the Kyoto treaty. Its not to be an ass to the rest of the world, its to protect American industry and promote economic growth. Even if America adhered to all of these restrictions, China would not. While it has a thriving industry, its manufacturing plants arent nearly as modern as those in America and would not even be able to begin to make pollution reforms. Placing these restrictions would put the American economy further behind China and other global markets, and due to it would not help the situation since other developing countries would not follow suit. So its not as simple as you make it out to be with your "win/win" comment.
 
Acting before all of the data is in could have a potentially devastating effect on industry. When corporations lose money, that leads to downsizing and recession. That's why we pulled out of the Kyoto treaty. Its not to be an ass to the rest of the world, its to protect American industry and promote economic growth. Even if America adhered to all of these restrictions, China would not. While it has a thriving industry, its manufacturing plants arent nearly as modern as those in America and would not even be able to begin to make pollution reforms. Placing these restrictions would put the American economy further behind China and other global markets, and due to it would not help the situation since other developing countries would not follow suit. So its not as simple as you make it out to be with your "win/win" comment.

PUUUUUUUlease

wow
 
I tell you what, why don't you find me every scientific paper that was written on the idea of this cooling conspiracy that you beileve in.

I did it two posts above yours. Occasionally it would be a good idea to read the other persons posts before blindly responding.
 
Acting before all of the data is in could have a potentially devastating effect on industry. When corporations lose money, that leads to downsizing and recession. That's why we pulled out of the Kyoto treaty. Its not to be an ass to the rest of the world, its to protect American industry and promote economic growth. Even if America adhered to all of these restrictions, China would not. While it has a thriving industry, its manufacturing plants arent nearly as modern as those in America and would not even be able to begin to make pollution reforms. Placing these restrictions would put the American economy further behind China and other global markets, and due to it would not help the situation since other developing countries would not follow suit. So its not as simple as you make it out to be with your "win/win" comment.

I don't accept the "we do not need to change our ways because China wouldn't do it either" argument. Northern Americans, including Canadians, use a disproportionate amount of energy. We need to accept that, instead of denying the aspirations of the rest of the world.

Furthermore, China is actually adhering to the Kyoto protocols. Of course they are still considered a developing nation so they aren't held to as high of a standard as the US would be. But once they reach a certain level of economic growth the standards will be increased, in keeping with the treaty.

I also completely disagree that drastically reducing CO2 would hurt us economically. Provided it is done intelligently (among other things, without growing corn for bio-diesel), there is money to be made in researching and deploying new technology for energy generation, usage and conservation. Conservation especially seems like a win-win without obvious losers except for GM and Ford. And Kyoto certainly hasn't been the death of the European economies.

In the end though, we only have one planet, so we really can't afford to get it too wrong, if we can afford to get it wrong at all.
 
You are somewhat correct, Fonz, but I believe you are underplaying how widespread the "coming ice age" scare was. Our whole point in bringing up the global cooling alarmism of the 70s is to use it as an example of why we should be skeptical.

Environmentalist "the world is gonna end unless we do something drastic" scenarios are nothing knew.

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age."

The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool."

Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age."

The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

-“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth.”

-”The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.”

Tell me this doesn't sound familiar?

But many scientists laugh at the panic.
Doomsday prophecies grabbed headlines but have proven to be completely false. Similar pronouncements today about catastrophes due to human-induced climate change sound all too familiar.
But the media can't get enough of doomsday.

-- Harvard Biologist George Wald: "civilization will end within 15 to 30 years," and environmental doomsayer Paul Ehrlich predicted that four billion people--including 65 million American--would perish from famine in the 1980s

It was a certainty that by the year 2000, the world would be starving and out of energy.

That prediction has gone the way of so many others. But environmentalists continue to warn us that we face environmental disaster if we don't accept the economic disaster called the Kyoto treaty. Lawyers from the Natural Resources Defense Council (another environmental group with more lawyers than scientists) explain: "Sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas." And Al Gore's new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," depicts a future in which cities are submerged by rising sea levels.

Meteorologists are a standing joke for getting predictions wrong even a few days ahead. The same jokers are being taken seriously when they use computer models to predict the weather 100 years hence my skepticism.


Strange, I don't see any scientific peer reviewed papers in here. Just articles from magazines and quotes from people I've never heard of.

As I said before, there was actually only one. Nothing compared to the amount of work and research done currently.
 
interesting, I found this at realclimate.org

cr.jpg


If the data used to make this graph is correct, then I think the correlation that Mr. Shaviv has drawn is wrong.
 
I did it two posts above yours. Occasionally it would be a good idea to read the other persons posts before blindly responding.

have you realized that you are wrong about the sun yet? if you really thought we would be cooling because you didn't realize the solar cycle, you don't belong in this discussion

do you know anything about solar-terrra heat relations?
 
Strange, I don't see any scientific peer reviewed papers in here. Just articles from magazines and quotes from people I've never heard of.

As I said before, there was actually only one. Nothing compared to the amount of work and research done currently.

this is a joke, if these doubterscannot provide anything newer than studies from the 70s, i'm not going to waste my time on them.
 
from:http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Global_Warming_Hits_Mars_Too_999.html

Global Warming Hits Mars Too

When the reddish dust of Mars is churned up by violent winds, the storm-ravaged surface loses its reflective qualities (albedo) and more of the Sun's heat is absorbed into the atmosphere, causing temperatures to rise.
by Marlowe Hood

Paris (AFP) Apr 06, 2007
Global warming could be heating Mars four times faster than Earth due to a mutually reinforcing interplay of wind-swept dust and changes in reflected heat from the Sun, according a study released Wednesday.
Scientists have long observed a correlation on Mars between its fluctuating temperatures -- which range from -87 C to - 5 C (-125 F to 23 F) depending on the season and the location -- and the darkening or lightening of swathes of the planet's surface.

The explanation is in the dirt.

Glistening Martian dust lying on the ground reflects the Sun's light -- and its heat -- back into space, a phenomenon called albedo.

But when this reddish dust is churned up by violent winds, the storm-ravaged surface loses its reflective qualities and more of the Sun's heat is absorbed into the atmosphere, causing temperatures to rise.

The study, published on Thursday by the British journal Nature, shows for the first time that these variations not only result from the storms but help cause them too.

It also suggests that short-term climate change is currently occurring on Mars and at a much faster rate than on Earth.

Its authors, led by Lori Fenton, a planetary scientist at NASA, describe the phenomenon as a "positive feedback" system -- in other words, a vicious circle, in which changes in albedo strengthen the winds which in turn kicks up more dust, in turn adding to the warming.

In the same way, if a snow-covered area on Earth warms and the snow melts, the reflected light decreases and more solar radiation is absorbed, causing local temperatures to increase. If new snow falls, a cooling cycle starts.

For Earth, global warming is mainly associated with human activities -- notably the burning of fossil fuels -- that release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, trapping more of the Sun's heat.

But changes in our planet's average temperature can also be driven up or down by natural phenomena such as shifts in orbit or axis rotation, and the release of naturally-occurring greenhouse gases by volcanoes and vegetation.

On Mars, there have been an unusual number of massive, planet-darkening storms over the last 30 years, and computer models indicate that surface air temperatures on the Red Planet increased by 0.65 C (1.17 F) during from the 1970s to the 1990s.

Residual ice on the Martian south pole, they note, has steadily retreated over the last four years.

By comparison, the average temperature of Earth increased by 0.75 C (1.33

F) over the last century.

To measure the change in patterns of reflected light, Fenton and her colleagues compared thermal spectrometer images of Mars taken by NASA's Viking mission in the late 1970s with similar images gathered more than 20 years later by the Global Surveyor.

They then analyzing the correlation between albedo variations, the presence of atmospheric dust and change in temperature.

Exactly what triggers the planet's so-called "global dust storms" remains a mystery.

But any future research must now consider albedo variations as one of the factors that drive Martian climate change, they conclude.

Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun, with a surface area of about 230 million square kilometers (90 million square miles). The Red Planet rotates on its axis every 24.62 hours, and its year lasts 686.93 Earth days. Its atmosphere is composed mostly of carbon dioxide.

The albedo of Earth, averaged across all its different surfaces, is about 30 times greater than that of Mars, which is far darker.


Source: Agence France-Presse



if you knew aything about solar radiation and albedo, you wouldn't have assumed that the warming of mars contradicts man made global warming
 
have you realized that you are wrong about the sun yet? if you really thought we would be cooling because you didn't realize the solar cycle, you don't belong in this discussion

do you know anything about solar-terrra heat relations?

So you are contesting that the solar variance is not the primary cause of temperature change on Earth? Interesting.

So what is?
 
Mars and earth are 2 completely different planets, they are not similar in size, water/land percentage, and distance from the sun.

So they cannot be used to deny anthropogenic effects on Earth.

actual scientists would have known that
 
Werbung:
this is a joke, if these doubterscannot provide anything newer than studies from the 70s, i'm not going to waste my time on them.

You're missing the entire point. Our whole reason for bringing up the global cooling alarmism of the 70s is to use it as an example of why we should be skeptical about doomsday prophesies.

Environmentalist "the world is gonna end unless we do something drastic" scenarios are nothing knew.

As I've said before, if you're a scientist trying to get funding from the government, you're better off telling the world how horrible things are. And once people are scared, they pay attention. They may even demand the government give you more money to solve the problem.

Usually the horrible disaster to end the world never happens. Chaos from Y2K. An epidemic of deaths from SARS or mad cow disease. Cancer from Three Mile Island. West Nile Virus. Bird Flu. We quickly forget. We move on to the next warnings.
 
Back
Top