Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Radar Map of Buried Mars Layers Confirms Climate Cycles

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the dust-and-sand-need-seasons-too dept.

Mars 114

Matt_dk writes "A radar instrument on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has essentially looked below the surface of the Red Planet's north-polar ice cap, and found data to confirm theoretical models of Martian climate swings during the past few million years. The new, three-dimensional map using 358 radar observations provides a cross-sectional view of the north-polar layered deposits. 'The radar has been giving us spectacular results,' said Jeffrey Plaut of JPL, a member of the science team for the Shallow Radar instrument. 'We have mapped continuous underground layers in three dimensions across a vast area.'"

cancel ×

114 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Old news (2, Funny)

b0ttle (1332811) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517787)

Douglas Quaid knew it already.

Unacceptable--this threatens Gore's bottom line (-1, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#29521117)

This is evidence that climate change is a natural phenomena of a planet regardless of industrial revolutions or hockey stick models. Is there any way we can censor this news so that Al Gore can keep making money from his carbon credit company? You know, the one he just so happened to start right before making his climate change movie? The same company he paid when it was pointed out that his mansion has a huge carbon footprint (i.e., he paid himself)?

Re:Unacceptable--this threatens Gore's bottom line (3, Insightful)

hamburger lady (218108) | more than 4 years ago | (#29522297)

actually, this is evidence that climatologists' theoretical models work.

I'm not interested unlesss it confirms my views (3, Insightful)

j-turkey (187775) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517823)

Yes, but does it coincide with the industrial revolution? Does it fit the hockey stick model?

Re:I'm not interested unlesss it confirms my views (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29519023)

Of course not! Scientists on earth are only interested in data that supports their insane ideas about evolution and global warming. Anyone doing any science that disagrees with those notions is immediately attacked. Watch how quickly we are downmoderated.

Global Warming (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29517863)

Cue the global warming deniers in 3, 2, 1...

Re:Global Warming (1, Funny)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517989)

The newspeak term for that now is "global climate change".
A re-education officer will be along shortly to your location.

Re:Global Warming (5, Informative)

ajs (35943) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518087)

The newspeak term for that now is "global climate change".
A re-education officer will be along shortly to your location.

Actually, that term was widely held in contempt by the scientific community until it was noted that the term "global warming" actually confuses the issue because climate change doesn't evenly modify the temperature of our climate. In fact, some areas of the globe have cooled of late, but that has little bearing on the global mean temperatures, nor on the localized warming in key areas such as the Arctic. So, much as you may not like the political origins of the term, there's a reason that the media AND the scientific community is using it so widely, now.

Re:Global Warming (1, Troll)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519447)

"global warming" actually confuses the issue because climate change doesn't evenly modify the temperature of our climate. In fact, some areas of the globe have cooled of late

That's a stupid thing to say. Globally the temperature effectively rises, that's the main trait of the change being talked about. But a number of cretins out there can't see that "global" doesn't imply "uniform". That it gets colder in some places is irrelevant.

By the way, in France it was always called "climate warming" (le rechauffement climatique [wikipedia.org] ), even back in the 1990s, when only scientific literature would talk about it. It was never very politicised there anyway, since no one there was enough of a dumbass to consider debating a scientific consensus.

Re:Global Warming (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29522977)

Back when I was at school those who pointed out how closely the shapes of the continents match either side of the Atlantic were considered dumbasses, because obviously big things like continents couldn't possibly move. That was the scientific concensus, until some of the results started coming in from the International Geophysical Year. (1957...I'm dating myself here aren't I)

Anthropomorphic Global Warming/Global Climate Change may or may not be happening but concensus does not mean shit in science. Evidence is the only thing that actually counts.

Re:Global Warming (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29523211)

The reason why consensus forms in the first place is usually because of evidence. It doesn't always end up being right, but for every consensus overturned by a daring rebel, there are probably 100 that boringly end up being correct after all. Because scientists didn't come to a consensus for the hell of it, they came to one because the evidence was persuasive to most of the people working on the problem.

(And the objection wasn't simply "obviously big things can't move". It was because nobody, including the inventor of the continental drift theory, could work out a mechanism for less-dense continents to move through more-dense oceanic crust. Also, the new seafloor evidence for drift came in 1947 and then throughout the 1950s, not just starting in 1957.)

P.S. It's "anthropogenic", not "anthropomorphic".

Re:Global Warming (2, Insightful)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 4 years ago | (#29526121)

Translation : Sometimes people are wrong. Therefore let's dismiss anything we don't like as potentially wrong.

Re:Global Warming (1)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 4 years ago | (#29526359)

So you are the new Wegener, and your radical theory is "It wasn't man made after all, it just happens" and your evidence is "climate always has changed"

Re:Global Warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29519507)

Actually, that term was widely held in contempt by the scientific community until it was noted that the term "global warming" actually confuses the issue because climate change doesn't evenly modify the temperature of our climate.

Interestingly, the U.S. Republican party also promoted the use of the term "climate change", on the grounds that it sounded less scary than "global warming" (here [wikipedia.org] ).

With scientists behind the term (for scientific accuracy) and with conservatives also behind the term (for rhetorical purposes), there is no wonder it has been widely adopted.

Re:Global Warming (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29519599)

Here's the thing:

No matter WHAT we do, the climate is going to change. That's what it's done for the last few billion years, and it's what it will continue do until our sun burns out. The fact that this current change is influenced, perhaps accelerated, by man's activities bears ABSOLUTELY NO WAY on the fact that, with or without the added CO2, the climate is GOING TO CHANGE ANYWAY.

Re:Global Warming (1)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 4 years ago | (#29526383)

Here's the thing:
No matter WHAT we do, people are going to die...
You cut and paste the rest.

Re:Global Warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29519755)

LOL...because no one believed Global Warming.

Re:Global Warming (1)

radtea (464814) | more than 4 years ago | (#29521063)

global mean temperatures

I wish someone would tell me how you compute the mean temperature of a composite substance like the atmosphere.

Global atmospheric heat content is meaningful. Global mean temperature is not. Unless someone would care to explain how you actually compute it in a physically meaningful way?

Re:Global Warming (1)

khayman80 (824400) | more than 4 years ago | (#29522147)

I wish someone would tell me how you compute the mean temperature of a composite substance like the atmosphere. Global atmospheric heat content is meaningful. Global mean temperature is not. Unless someone would care to explain how you actually compute it in a physically meaningful way?

This sounds similar to the arguments presented in a 2007 paper [uoguelph.ca] that's widely [realclimate.org] considered to be some kind of joke [blogspot.com] .

Perhaps you mean that different substances have different heat capacities. That's only a problem if you want to determine the equilibrium temperature, and even that's just a weighted average. But even an unweighted average improves the signal-to-noise ratio of temperature measurements, which is why climatologists routinely speak of global mean temperatures.

And to be really pedantic, "heat content" isn't physically meaningful either. Heat is a type of energy transfer across a thermodynamic system boundary. Systems don't store heat, they store internal energy, which is also measured in Joules but can be transferred as heat or work. (Yes, this distinction is irrelevant. That's my point.)

Incidentally, whenever I get some free time I plan to copy one of your older comments [slashdot.org] to the climate change article on my homepage and answer it. That's because compared to most other people arguing against abrupt climate change, you seem significantly more scientifically literate. I'd email you when this happens, but I don't know how to get in touch with you other than comments like this one.

Re:Global Warming (1)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | more than 4 years ago | (#29524585)

I don't like or dislike the term. I dislike the use of scientific research to strong arm a political agenda for either party in this system. Let the scientists do their job, then make rational informed decisions on the outcome. That, evidently, is a hard thing to do these days.

Re:Global Warming (2, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518081)

Strangely, the outcry from Martian global warming deniers has been muted at best. Perhaps they haven't gotten the news yet.

Re:Global Warming (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29518545)

Right. I'm not at all worried about Martians keeping quiet about global warming. Instead, the problem is when Earth's global warming deniers look upon climate change on Mars as evidence that anthropogenic global warming on Earth is false.

Re:Global Warming (0, Flamebait)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519411)

Global climate change on Mars certainly helps corroborate the idea that our own climate changes might be natural. The mysogenistic anthropomophists haven't had the last say.

BTW - if you're worried about man's impact on the environment, get off your buttocks, and plant some trees. Trap some carbon. Think of the children.

Re:Global Warming (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520127)

Or trap some children. Think of the carbon.

Re:Global Warming (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29522747)

no it doesnt you stupid fag. does someone need to tag the story correlationisnotcausation for you to get it you fucking jingo retard? go wank on your ugly flag - i bet all the white stars are leftovers of your sperm from that last time you did it, aren't they? i dont care about your fucking football. gay men sweating all over each other on primetime tv wtf is up with that. and you can take your fucking baseball and shove it up your smelly arse where it came from. go fuck youself fag.

Re:Global Warming (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520289)

Oh the outcry is there, alright, it's just that most Martians can't hear it over the stereos in their SUVs!

Re:Global Warming (0, Troll)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518337)

Hmm, the deniers did not actually have anything intelligent to write, so they just modded you down instead.

Re:Global Warming (1)

Amiga Trombone (592952) | more than 4 years ago | (#29522035)

Cue the global warming deniers in 3, 2, 1...

It looks like the Warmists have beat them to the punch.

Swinging back our way (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 4 years ago | (#29517873)

I can't wait until Mars warms up and gets some moisture. I'm already flipping through astronomy stores for telescopes that will let me watch the penguins from here.

Re:Swinging back our way (3, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519691)

Mars is as warm as it's going to get. There are no pirates there, so it can't get any warmer by losing pirates.

Useful... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29517897)

Can we use this technology to map the layers of untold mystery buried in Rosie O'Donnell's fat thighs? Not that I WANT to, but who knows what we could find...Atlantis?

Gratuitous Global Warming Comment (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29517929)

I better post this as anonymous, before the true believers mod me into oblivion. But if we see evidence of climate change on a planet that barely even has an atmosphere to speak of, maybe we're not giving the power our own sun enough scrutiny in the global warming debate.

Re:Gratuitous Global Warming Comment (5, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518603)

No true believers are required.

Unlike the Earth (which has a big Moon to anchor things), Mars has huge variations [imcce.fr] in insolation due to its obliquity and eccentricity cycles. These oscillations drive large variations in climate, which causes the cool layering [arizona.edu] in the Martian Polar Caps - the so called North Polar Layered Deposits [arizona.edu] . There are lots [arizona.edu] of cool pictures [arizona.edu] of these layers.

While it is true that both the Earth and Mars would exhibit climate changes if the solar luminosity changed, so far I have not heard of any evidence requiring this from Mars. Mars's internal and orbital dynamics are quite enough to keep the climate modelers busy.

Re:Gratuitous Global Warming Comment (1, Insightful)

Jhon (241832) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518945)

And does that explain the warming noticed on Jupiter, Titan, Pluto and various asteroids to name a few?

Not saying there is no anthropogenic impact on climate -- I'm just saying it's total impact may be over stated and contributing to an already occurring phenomenon.

I certainly HOPE we have the ability to effect climate as much as claim. Living in a hot, jungle world or a cold ice world have little appeal to me. And since those climates have occurred in our past, we can assume they will most likely recur at some time in the future. Be nice to warm up the earth before an ice age or cool it down when it gets too hot.

Re:Gratuitous Global Warming Comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29519683)

And does that explain the warming noticed on Jupiter, Titan, Pluto and various asteroids to name a few?

Beware glib answers to complex phenomena. Planetary and lunar climates are all extremely different; some of them have atmospheres, others don't; some have oceans, others don't. When their climates change, it's generally for different reasons. The only factor they have in common anyway is the Sun, but (modulo the periodic 11-year cycle) the underlying solar irradiance hasn't changed in 60 years, so doesn't explain climate changes on any planet over that time period.

Short-term Martian climate changes are driven largely by global dust storms. Over long terms, there are the aforementioned orbital variations. Jupiter is not warming globally; the equator is warming and the poles are cooling, due to changes in its atmospheric circulation patterns. Pluto has warmed recently because it at the perihelion of a highly eccentric orbit.

I haven't heard of any warming on any asteroids. I haven't heard of any warming on Titan either. You may be thinking of Triton, which did warm recently, thought to be due to changes in its surface reflectivity.

Re:Gratuitous Global Warming Comment (1)

Jhon (241832) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520701)

Beware glib answers to complex phenomena

And?

What I'm hearing you say is that there are non-solar theories to explain these warming trends on these planets, et al.

Triton (weird mix up) is not thought to be warming due to "changes in it's surface reflectivity", but possibly due to it's rotation cycle (it's "summer" there).

Mars, as stated, is theorized to be, at least in part, due to it's rotational anomalies. We also have slight variations in earths obliquity -- and precession. What are the effects of summers when the northern hemisphere is closer to the sun (less ocean surface area getting warmed -- as it is now) as to when the southern hemisphere is closer (more ocean, less land)?

We also have increased solar activity.

It would be silly to use such arguments to attempt to refute anthropogenic global warming as a "hoax". It would in my opinion, likewise be silly to insist it is solely anthropogenic because there are non-solar theories to explain the above warming trends off earth. I believe a better argument would be to focus on the effect.

Re:Gratuitous Global Warming Comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29522023)

And?

And so it's not very useful to attribute the cause of a climate change on one planet to the cause of climate change on other planets, whether those changes are due to orbital variations, solar activity, or whatever.

What I'm hearing you say is that there are non-solar theories to explain these warming trends on these planets, et al.

Yes.

Triton (weird mix up) is not thought to be warming due to "changes in it's surface reflectivity", but possibly due to it's rotation cycle (it's "summer" there).

It's meaningless to say that "it's summer there". It's summer in one hemisphere, and winter in another. But changing which hemisphere is in summer can spatially redistribute where icy patches are located, and through their surface reflectivity can modulate the average temperature.

Mars, as stated, is theorized to be, at least in part, due to it's rotational anomalies.

Depends on the time scale. If you're talking about the glacial cycles on Mars being discussed here, yes. But those likely aren't big contributors over the last few decades, since they change slowly. More important on shorter time scales are dust storms.

We also have slight variations in earths obliquity -- and precession. What are the effects of summers when the northern hemisphere is closer to the sun (less ocean surface area getting warmed -- as it is now) as to when the southern hemisphere is closer (more ocean, less land)?

Look up "Milankovitch theory".

We also have increased solar activity.

Not over the last few decades.

It would be silly to use such arguments to attempt to refute anthropogenic global warming as a "hoax". It would in my opinion, likewise be silly to insist it is solely anthropogenic because there are non-solar theories to explain the above warming trends off earth.

I haven't said that non-solar planetary warming proves anything about anthropogenic warming on Earth. Non-solar warming on other planets says nothing about the cause of warming on Earth. Extraterrestrial climates are just a red herring as far as terrestrial climate attribution is concerned.

Re:Gratuitous Global Warming Comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29524601)

I read that as "Beware, glib answers to complex phenomena" and i thought, yeah, thought not so much now, thank god they finally fixed some of the crazy bugs in libtool from the glib/gtk-1.2 build-from-source-on-distributions-with-prereqs-in-nonstandard-areas era.

Then, I realized that I didn't occur to me that would be offtopic and realized i've been fighting with m4 and automake too much lately... :P

Re:Gratuitous Global Warming Comment (0, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29521489)

Or you can, you know, do math.

Apply the inverse sqr law to the rise in temperature and how it would impact the temperature change on ifferent planets.

Also not if it was the sun it would be happening to ALL bodies in the solar system, and it is not.

Next.

Yes, we are experience and increased global changed due to the millions of tons of CO2 we spew into the air every day.

Re:Gratuitous Global Warming Comment (1)

Jhon (241832) | more than 4 years ago | (#29522369)

Lets assume you are correct. Who's to say a warmer earth is bad? It wasn't long ago we were told we were heading in to a new ice age. Climate cycles actually suggest we are (were) heading down that path. Wouldn't we WANT to warm the earth?

Ice age aside, wouldn't an increased crop growth durations help battle famine? Who's to say the effects will have a negative impact? Lets study the impact rather than demand we do stuff that will destroy not just the developed worlds economy, but potentially starve millions when the industrial world can no longer afford to produce food and medicine on the current scale.

Just sayin...

Re:Gratuitous Global Warming Comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29522589)

Lets assume you are correct. Who's to say a warmer earth is bad?

On the whole, a warmer earth may be better for humans than an earth colder by an equivalent amount. However, the problem is that global temperatures have been relatively stable for the last 10,000 years, and human civilization has adapted to that temperature range. Move too far out of it in either direction, too quickly, and there will be costs. People can't just easily shift their agricultural production or settlement patterns into neighboring countries.

It wasn't long ago we were told we were heading in to a new ice age.

Not really [allenpress.com] .

Climate cycles actually suggest we are (were) heading down that path. Wouldn't we WANT to warm the earth?

Over tens of thousands of years, we might head into another ice age. If you're so concerned about that, you should argue that we should save our fossil fuels for later, when we'll need them, instead of using them all up now, when we don't.

Ice age aside, wouldn't an increased crop growth durations help battle famine?

Depends on where you are. In the mid-latitudes, you tend to get small benefits for 1-2 degrees C warming. The tropics suffer. For more than 3 C of warming, everybody tends to suffer. On top of that, you have to account for the fact that precipitation patterns change, and many agricultural regions may suffer drought.

Lets study the impact

Uh, yeah, people have studied impacts [www.ipcc.ch] .

rather than demand we do stuff that will destroy not just the developed worlds economy, but potentially starve millions when the industrial world can no longer afford to produce food and medicine on the current scale.

Nobody is interested in "destroying the economy". That's the conservative alarmist version of "the planet will burn up". Just ask economists [thebigmoney.com] , e.g. here [yale.edu] .

Re:Gratuitous Global Warming Comment (4, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#29521597)

First, you are aware that the solar output (Solar Constant) has been measured since the 1970's ? There is no need to look at distant worlds to see if it is changing - it varies around at about the 0.1 % level [nasa.gov] .

Second, I would not put any weight on observations of any body we have not observed for more than one orbit - and that includes Pluto and (for climate) Titan. These are not simple bodies.

The general cause of Pluto's warming is well known - a highly elliptical orbit, and it's near (just past) perigee, where it outgases Methane into the atmosphere. That's one of the motivations behind Pluto Express (to get there while there is still a bigger atmosphere). It is staying warm past perigee, but we have no idea if that is normal or not. Similarly, Titan is passing through the equinox (just as we are here on Earth), and that is causing seasonal change. We know that's happening; we have no idea if what we are seeing is normal or not.

Jupiter is so different from the Earth or Mars that I wouldn't use it as an analogy for anything terrestrial, good or bad. (For example, it generates more heat internally than it gets from the Sun.) Having said that, I had not heard of any warming reported there, so a link would be welcomed.

Re:Gratuitous Global Warming Comment (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#29524319)

...and it's near (just past) perigee ...

Minor quibble: if you're talking about orbital distance from the sun, I think you may actually mean perihelion [google.com] or periapsis [google.com] .

Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (3, Insightful)

MarkPNeyer (729607) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518165)

The existence of natural climate change on Mars does not rule out anthropogenic climate change on Earth. The shifts in temperature on Mars happened over periods of hundreds of thousands of years. The climate change we're observing on earth has happened in less than 100 years. There's a huge difference between the two phenomena.

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (-1, Flamebait)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518355)

The existence of natural climate change on Mars does not rule out anthropogenic climate change on Earth. The shifts in temperature on Mars happened over periods of hundreds of thousands of years. The climate change we're observing on earth has happened in less than 100 years. There's a huge difference between the two phenomena.

Citation needed.

The climate changes we human beings have observed have happened over a minimum of 10,000 years. "Accurate" instrumentation for obtaining and recording of data being invented within the last 50 years tends to skew the results. Talk to me again in 9,950 years and tell me we broke the sky.

You liars claiming that the burning of some coal and petroleum products broke the sky since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution makes me want to vomit. The Earth had a global warming period, marked with violent volcanic out-gassing of "greenhouse" gasses, called the Precambrian Era. FYI It ended approximately 540 million years ago.

Queue the violent hippies claiming I don't believe humans have impacted our Earthly environment in 3..2..1..

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29518425)

Citation needed

Sure. [www.ipcc.ch]

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (2, Informative)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518791)

Citation needed

Sure. [www.ipcc.ch]

Interesting. That's not a citation, merely a pointer to an organisation whose mandate it is to report on climate change. From your link:

The preparation of the AR5 pursues the overall mandate of the Panel, the main activity of which is to prepare at regular intervals of five to seven years comprehensive assessment reports about climate change.

If this were mandate by Bush & Co., /.ers would be all over it, pointing out, and rightfully so, that an organisation whose mandate it is to report on something necessarily has a vested interest in it, because if the underlying item being reported on went away or proved fraudulent, then the organisation would also go away.

That said, the URL you point to doesn't actually have evidence itself, though another link on the same site might. As far as a citation for the above claim is concerned, this does not qualify. Please try again, though.

got to love the ignorant crowd at /. (-1, Troll)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518967)

who is so parroted into believing climate change that they will use an organization whose only reason to exist is to promote that agenda against you.

In other words, they are the Christians proving their stand by using the Bible. However since these people refuse to see beyond their own narrow view you are the new form of heretic.

Look, past facts don't matter, they have a document which claims that we are causing it. They can totally ignore the cooling trend over the last ten years, the major shift in sunspot activity which neatly explains other such periods, all because they have passed the point of reason and now it is a purely emotional issue.

That is how I know you know you did well on /. Getting modded flamebait or troll is an example you crossed the PC thresh hold. The amount of arrogance and ignorance is exhibited well by the moderation system or post bullshit moderation by the site owners who will take +5 insightful to troll/flamebait without record. The only place to hit a thicker wall of supposed know it alls is Wikipedia.

karma to burn, because I do know how to score it.

Re:got to love the ignorant crowd at /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29519429)

Look, past facts don't matter, they have a document which claims that we are causing it.

Which is based on, you know, facts.

They can totally ignore the cooling trend over the last ten years,

There isn't a cooling trend over the last 10 years. The only way you get a cooling trend is if you pick the trend start time precisely at the time of the 1998 super-El Nino.

In fact, if you continue the pre-1998 trend line through to today, there are more months which are warmer than the extrapolated trend than there are cooler (see here [yaleclimat...aforum.org] ).

At best you can say that the recent warming has been modest, yet well within the range of natural variability and within the range of the variability predicted by the AOGCM models.

the major shift in sunspot activity which neatly explains other such periods,

There isn't a major shift in sunspot activity which neatly explains "other such periods". The solar irradiance trend has been nearly flat since 1950 (e.g., here [climate4you.com] ), and so fails to explain the subsequent warming.

all because they have passed the point of reason and now it is a purely emotional issue.

Given statements like "In other words, they are the Christians proving their stand by using the Bible. However since these people refuse to see beyond their own narrow view you are the new form of heretic.", you're the one here who is being emotional. And your supposed "reason" is in direct contradiction with actual facts.

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519619)

Interesting. That's not a citation, merely a pointer to an organisation whose mandate it is to report on climate change.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090903-arctic-warming-ice-age.html [nationalgeographic.com]
On the graph, can you see the slow decline in temperatures until about 1900, when temperatures suddenly switched to rising rapidly?

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520775)

A citation at least. One that can be debated as to its correctness or applicability. Being a single location, especially at one end of the planet, it's hard to correlate it to the rest of the planet.

More global citations may include here [longrangeweather.com] or here [wikipedia.org] , both of which throw some concern on taking your citation as the ultimate word.

Basically, for a theory to hold as correct and significant, it must surpass the noise in its environment. Here, anthropogenic sources of global climate change need to surpass the noise in history that predates those sources. They don't. This means that if they exist, they are not significant. That doesn't mean, however, that they are not significant for the arctic.

Oh, and as far as its correctness, I do have to wonder about this quote from page 2 (yes, I'm reading the citations):

"The big issue is, when you melt ice, the sea level rises -- that's a global issue, and that has major impacts."

Um, this is the arctic. When you melt that ice, the sea level will remain unchanged. Perhaps if they don't know the basics of volume-mass correlations of floating bodies, which I re-learned in my first year of university, the rest of their science might be a bit suspect, too. Just saying. Now, if they were talking about the Antarctic, well, that's another story, since much of that ice isn't floating, it's held on top of actual landmass. Ok, so if they're referring to ice being lost from Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Greenland, etc., there'd be some rise. But, again, we need to talk about significance. Crying wolf over small things is not endearing. And won't help the movement over the long term as people get upset about being called to rallies over those small things, and will assume that should a big thing occur (like melting of the antarctic) it'll just be another cry of wolf and be ignored.

wrong (2, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29521757)

Um, this is the arctic. When you melt that ice, the sea level will remain unchanged.

false. There is a density difference between salt water and 'regular' frozen water. The fact that you don't even know this basic 101 level science really disqualifies you from having any real interpretation of the facts.

Get some sea wter, put it o a glace add some ice cubes and mark the line. See where it is after it melts.

"But, again, we need to talk about significance."
as well as every glacier on the planet.

It doesn't take much of a rise to be significant.

And you link is suspicious. It has a graph that ONLY indicate volcanoes that happen before a cooling, but ignores every other major eruption.

You do understand they climatologist know about the normal cycles?

Re:wrong (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 4 years ago | (#29522695)

There is a density difference between salt water and 'regular' frozen water.

Fair enough.

Get some sea wter [sic], put it o [sic] a glace add some ice cubes and mark the line. See where it is after it melts.

Seeing as pure water has a density of 1.000 g/mL while the salt water has a density of approximately 1.025 g/mL (according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] - Stephen Colbert may have put in wrong info there, I don't know), if you have 50mL (51.25g) of salt water, add 1mL (1g) of non-salted ice, it'll displace its weight, 1g, in salt water (0.976mL) until melted at which point it's now 1mL of water, or a gain of ~2.4% vs the ice (no, that's not entirely accurate, but is close enough). I'd have to see much bigger numbers to see how significant that really is: how much volume of ice we're talking about vs the area (not volume) of the oceans' surface. And how that would affect salinity (which would also change the percentages). And, honestly, when we're talking about the floating island that is the arctic, how salty it already is. The top is probably pure(ish) from precipitation (I'm guessing largely snow). The bottom is going to be as saline as the ocean was when it froze (which may be more or less saline than the oceans are now). But it's still going to be more dense than pure water, as you point out, which means it's already heavier, displacing more water than the above percentages would imply, which means the coasts are already risen somewhat. So now we're talking somewhere around 1-1.5% growth, even less significant.

Again, I'd be more worried about the antarctic where nearly all the ice is already above sealevel, which means a much larger percentage is going to be affecting sea levels.

Re:wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29523067)

[sea level rise from sea ice]

Yes, it's a small effect [wiley.com] .

Again, I'd be more worried about the antarctic where nearly all the ice is already above sealevel, which means a much larger percentage is going to be affecting sea levels.

People are most worried about Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets, somewhat more worried about Greenland as it probably has a lower "tipping point" (warming necessary to melt the whole ice sheet).

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (2, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 4 years ago | (#29522313)

More global citations may include here [longrangeweather.com] or here [wikipedia.org], both of which throw some concern on taking your citation as the ultimate word.

That first graph utterly contradicts all other sources I've seen. I highly doubt its accuracy.

As to the second graph, the scale is so compressed that it's very difficult to see that the current warming trend over the past several decades is an order of magnitude faster than past warming. A warming of a few degrees Celsius over 200 years would appear as a vertical line (literally one pixel wide on that bit-mapped graph!), as opposed to the lines with obvious, albeit steep, slopes.

The bottom line is that the warming we've seen in the past several decades is unprecedented in its rate of change. It's also in line with the warming that was predicted by Arrhenius [wikipedia.org] over 100 years ago and by the Jason committee [timesonline.co.uk] in 1979.

Um, this is the arctic. When you melt that ice, the sea level will remain unchanged.

When sea ice melts, it does not change the sea level. Obviously, Miller was referring to ice that is on land. There's lots of ice in the Arctic that is on land, for example, in Greenland, Canada, Russia, and Alaska. The sea level has been rising due to melting ice sheets and the thermal expansion of the ocean. Within the next century, rising sea level is predicted to inundate a number of urban areas.

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (1)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 4 years ago | (#29526747)

and tell me, does every year a lot of ice/snow melt from mountains/flat plains, near rivers and ski fields and melts and flows to the rivers?

even the size of the ice shelf changes by X size each winter/summer periods, do we see water levels increasing each summer?

and no north hemi water doesnt flow fast to the south hemi.

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29522341)

Your first link is not a valid source. It's unpublished, not based on any real data, and doesn't correspond to any published temperature reconstruction. It was created by an anti-global warming skeptic and a Christian nutjob who thinks that the Bible predicts the weather.

Your second link is valid but irrelevant to attribution. The glacial-interglacial cycle has little to do with the causes of centennial-scale climate variability.

Here, anthropogenic sources of global climate change need to surpass the noise in history that predates those sources. They don't.

If you're claiming "modern warming can't be attributed to humans because it's not as large as the glacial-interglacial warming", you're wrong. The glacial cycle is irrelevant on these time scales.

The attribution of modern warming to humans isn't based on claiming that recent changes are bigger than past changes. There are times in the past which have been warmer than today. The reason why the modern changes are attributed to humans is because the natural climate forcings which normally control the climate don't agree with the climate changes observed, unlike in the past. For example, solar variations have often influenced past climate, but solar output has not varied recently in a way which can explain the recent warming.

This means that if they exist, they are not significant.

The fact that modern warming isn't as large as the glacial-interglacial cycle doesn't mean that it hasn't been significant, in either a statistical or a practical sense.

Um, this is the arctic. When you melt that ice, the sea level will remain unchanged.

They're almost certainly talking about land ice (mostly Greenland), although the journalist juxtaposed the quote in an awkward place. However, melting sea ice does contribute a little to sea level rise, mostly through thermal expansion from decreased sea surface albedo. There is also a small effect from fresh/sea water density differences.

But, again, we need to talk about significance.

The IPCC projects 18-38 cm of sea level rise by 2100 in a low emissions scenario, or 26-59 cm in a high emissions scenario. This compares to about 20 cm of sea level rise in the 20th century. However, these projections explicitly neglect rapid ice dynamics such as basal lubrication which have been observed to, in cases, greatly accelerate marginal ice sheet disintegration. Papers published since the last IPCC report have found higher projections, in the 50-100 cm range for high emissions scenarios.

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (1)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 4 years ago | (#29526473)

More global citations may include here [longrangeweather.com]

They draw a graph (from the gut it seems), with volcanic events all over, often when the graph crosses the Zero line in either direction, and they conclude that volcanoes (together with "decresed solar radiation" for which they have no data) are responsible for long-time cooling?

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29521613)

Of course the IPCC counts. It's a compilation of all the scientific data. It's a good report that has been signed off on by all the major countries, including countries whose best interest is in there not being abrupt climate change due to mans CO2 releases.

I suspect if I link the study you wouldn't except that becasue it doesn't actually ahve the evidence, just a bunch of measurements.

Quite frankly, you you are still dening it, your mind will never change until after you ahve taken your last breath of breathable air.

So if you can't be bother to do a simple google search, you are already lost.

Too many humans, too many farms. (1)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 4 years ago | (#29526777)

Things arent that dire fool.

The planet has been in 100x worse conditions in the past and rebounded.

You know the real problem ? yes its man made, but its NOT climate change.

Its OVER FARMING, using too much water from water ground tables and from rivers leaving just a trickle. Massive amounts of water is wasted growing rice in dry areas, and growing STUPID cotton where canabis is 100x better - (stupid twit govts)

So dude, what happens when you over use water, less evaporates and less turns to clouds where less falls as rain because STUPID poor FL!CKS clear land and burn down forrests causing MORE dry arid regions.

Wake up call, less rain = less humidity = LESS ice on mountains = shrinking glaciers even if its COLDER than normal, coldness by itself doesnt replenish glaciers.

  Whats the sollution? a man made virus to 'reduce populations' ? h1n1 perhaps?

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29519035)

The climate changes we human beings have observed have happened over a minimum of 10,000 years. "Accurate" instrumentation for obtaining and recording of data being invented within the last 50 years tends to skew the results. Talk to me again in 9,950 years and tell me we broke the sky.

Accurate thermometers have existed since the mid 1700's. Recording of temperatures has been widespread enough since the mid 1800's to be able to make some reasonable statements about worldwide temperatures. It probably won't be more than 20 years before it's obvious to everyone that mother nature is slapping us in the face saying "What were you thinking?"

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (0, Troll)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519631)

"It probably won't be more than 20 years before it's obvious to everyone"

That sums up most of the climataphobes case. Some conjecture based on short term observations. Go build another model, alright?

NOTE: I built a lot of models as a kid, but that doesn't qualify me as a marine engineer, an automotive engineer, or even an aviation engineer. Building climate models doesn't qualify anyone to do anything more than to build models.

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (1)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520319)

Most people look right past the difficulty of modeling the earth climate. The Earth is, I guess arguably, the most difficult system in the known universe to model accurately. We can't predict the weather tomorrow but people will very stridently assure you that we know what will happen in 20 years.

AGW is the best argument that could have ever happened to corporations that want the public to forget about things like mercury, MTBE, VOCs, PCBs, etc. It also helped the government ignore things like fecal coliform levels in drinking water across the entire US (and at dangerous levels in many lakes and streams). Almost no one alive can remember a time when you could safely drink water from a river or stream.

Any consideration of all that is on hold while we endlessly bicker about AGW. Not only can we argue with our fellow citizens but we can make it transnational! "You lower your CO2." "NO YOU!!"

Anyone want to bet that the very expensive carbon capture systems for coal plants will do nothing to capture mercury? We already have fish that come with a mercury warning. Maybe once we can use fish as thermometers we'll finally pay attention to their mercury content.

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29522919)

FYI most of the fish with Mercury warnings are Ocean going top level predators (Tuna, Swordfish, Whale etc).

The vast majority of Mercury in the Ocean comes from underwater volcanoes.

In other words Tuna and Whale has always had a fair amount of Mercury in it.

There are local areas with Mercury issues, but those fish aren't sold commercially.

And I'm guessing you are wrong about CO2 sequestration not catching the Mercury.

Anything that catches more then a tiny fraction of CO2 will need to cool the exhaust gas enough to also trap just about all the other pollutants.

Then again the most practical idea I've heard amounts to a giant smokestack bong with algae or similar living in the water. That would make the water too toxic if it did capture all the SO2, SO, Mercury etc. Then again it won't capture much of the CO2 ether.

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (1)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 4 years ago | (#29526801)

Is that what that metalic smell taste is? I hate that from fresh market fish.

Well its probably more amonia bleechy smell, its hard to narrow down, but its not
yummy.

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519741)

Define "accurate". Also note if there is any change in accuracy over those 250+ years. Also note if there is any change in scope in the same time period (how many locations recording temperatures, which continents, how often temperatures are recorded). Also note in your definition whether any recording stations have substantial environment changes, such as moving from one side of a city to another (especially from up-wind to down-wind), or such as encroaching civilisation resulting in massive amounts of heat-absorbing substances (such as asphalt roads) being nearby that weren't there earlier on (say in the mid 1700s).

Maintaining other variables constant is a key requirement when attempting to measure change due to some theory, regardless of which area in science it is. Trying to claim changes, even if they exist, when your ability to measure changes over time is misleading at best, or more likely incompetence or, at worst, fraudulent. You need to control your control variables, and your measuring stick is one of those. A temperature reading from a location that was a field 30km from civilisation in 1930, but the middle of an international airport in 1980 is simply not directly comparable. Comparing "average" readings done hourly with a thermometer accurate to 0.01C vs readings from the same location from 100 years ago that were done, at best, daily, sometimes in the morning and sometimes in the afternoon, to the nearest full degree C, is not directly comparable (and adjusting them to make them comparable may be impossible).

In 20 years, assuming we can globally keep our weather stations in the same environment situations as they are now, maybe we'll have some data. Right now, I'm not convinced. Ice core samples over longer term where they're all measured with modern tools are much better ways to compare long-term temperatures because we're at least holding the measuring stick as constant. It just doesn't do well at low granularities, such as decade-by-decade, nevermind day-by-day.

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (2, Informative)

khayman80 (824400) | more than 4 years ago | (#29522259)

You're proposing that the "Urban Heat Island" effect is responsible for increasing temperatures. I've discussed this at length on the climate change article on my homepage. Multiple studies have shown that the UHI isn't responsible for recent temperature increases. Abrupt climate change is responsible, which is caused by our increasing the CO2 level ~30% above the value it's had for the last ~650,000 years. (These numbers taken from the EPICA ice core analysis, again already discussed at length.)

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (1)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 4 years ago | (#29526831)

30% yeah ? and this pidly tiny increase in temp which could be caused by massive deforrestation or even the sun ?

Bring it on, we can double the c02 again, who cares....

Tell me why Goldman Sachs is the big pusher for c02 trading, they dont care, but they will make billions in profits. in in their interest, in billions to make sure the false pretence is alive.

After all, its their DUTY to share holder to make sure they keep making billions.

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (1)

Il128 (467312) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519637)

Well, 10,000 years ago New York city was under a glacier. We just finished an ice age ten thousand years ago. Global warming even if man is causing it may not be a bad thing. Since the Pacific and Atlantic oceans were separated the earth has been cooling. Cooling is far worse than warming. There really does need to be a debate about this. We should try and control the climate. The issue is should we try and make it colder or would we try and make it warmer. I'm voting for warmer. We need to rejoin the worlds Oceans with a 100 mile wide mile deep trench over Panama.

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (0, Troll)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520793)

I guess it's easier to hit the "I disagree but have no facts with which to rebut" flamebait mod button than it is to actually make a clear rebuttal. Apparently my trailing comment wasn't enough to ward you off. Lolz

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (1)

onemorechip (816444) | more than 4 years ago | (#29521585)

Technically we're considered to be in an ice age now [wikipedia.org] . Ice ages [wikipedia.org] consist of glacial and interglacial periods (marked by advance and retreat of ice sheets and glaciers). What ended 10000 years ago was the most recent glacial period. We may well be seeing the end of the current ice age (so this "interglacial" might more properly be called a "postglacial" period?).

Yes, I realize that in colloquial usage, "ice age" refers to the glacial periods only.

Natural Climate Change on *Earth* ... (1)

weston (16146) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520815)

... doesn't even particularly speak to whether or not there can also be anthropogenic climate change on Earth. Natural mechanisms don't preclude human influence.

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#29521005)

Climate changes have been happening on Earth for far longer than 100 years...

Re:Doesn't Speak to Climate Change Here on Earth (0, Flamebait)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 4 years ago | (#29525271)

The climate change we're observing on earth has happened in less than 100 years.

You're full of shit.

This was confirmed in 2002 (5, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518217)

While these results are cool, the obliquity cycle was confirmed in 2002, in a paper in Nature, Orbital forcing of the martian polar layered deposits [nature.com] by Jacques Laskar et al., They used pictures of the layering at the edge of the polar caps, not radar, but its basically the same idea, and they showed good correlation with recent obliquity cycles.

Again, it's cool to see these layers throughout the caps, but I don't think that anyone has doubted the connection with the obliquity / insolation cycles for a while.

Re:This was confirmed in 2002 (1)

happy_place (632005) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518575)

well... now it's been confirmed again. :)

Re:This was confirmed in 2002 (2, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518783)

Well, I have not the slightest doubt that Nathaniel Putzig and company know all about these earlier results - but, once you get the PR people involved, they always want to say, first, confirmed, etc.

Re:This was confirmed in 2002 (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519291)

How dare you bring an actual scientific response to google! You should, instead, include some of the more responsable slashdot responses:
1. Did it locate the marsian death camps.
2. In soviet mars, the climate cycles you.
3. Imagine a beowulf cluster of these.
4. Profit

Re:This was confirmed in 2002 (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29521123)

you forgot:
-1(offtopic): first post!
0: But does it run linux?
and...
3.5: ???

Re:This was confirmed in 2002 (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29520471)

"Confirm" is perhaps the wrong word. Each new discovery adds to the strength or the likelihood of a hypothesis, which is never 100% in this business. It's not Boolean.

Re:This was confirmed in 2002 (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#29524413)

I agree - most of this is PR, which can be ignored.

To me, the interesting thing is that these layers is that they do not represent a very long history. From Laskar et al. (2002) [nature.com]

For the best fit between the radiance profile and the simulated insolation parameters, we obtain an average deposition rate of 0.05 cm yr-1 for the top 250 m of deposits on the ice cap of the north pole of Mars.

Now, 5 x 10^-4 meters / year means that the top 250 meters represents ~ 500,000 years, and the entire 2 km thick cap represents maybe 5 million years. This is very brief in geological time, and interestingly may be connected to the big change in obliquity [imcce.fr] thought to have occurred about 5 million years ago. (Note - our ability to predict this back before about 5 million years ago is very poor.)

So, it's likely that not that long ago Mars had no North polar cap, and presumably it comes and goes over geologic time. What happens to the water, and how much the atmosphere increases during these periods, is effectively unknown. While many of the geologists who study Mars think that nothing much has happened there for billions of years, I think that many of the dynamists would disagree.

News from the Council (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29518317)

The Council of Elders has declared tomorrow a day of commemoration. K'breel, Speaker for the Council, spake thus:

"By Gfa'rdmn, a little over half a year ago, our forces celebrated victory [slashdot.org] over the plumb-bob-waving monstrosity from the North, having slowly chilled it to death. The Invader from the Plains sits enmired [spaceflightnow.com] in our sandpit. The Twin by the Crater has begun to stir, but it stood paralyzed by fear for sixty days [marsdaily.com] by the mere sight of the spent husk of a Kinetic Bombardment Force component."

"So thorough has been our dominance of the blue planet's terror craft that they have not since dared to touch our red sands with their filthy metallic fingertips. Yes, their robotic spies continue to flail wildly around our great world - but despite dozens of passes over the pole, and countless radiofrequency emanations beamed down in an effort to re-establish communications with frozen hulk of the Invader from the North, their efforts have revealed nothing but ice! And they report these sightings of "nothing but ice" back to their puerile blue world as though this were somehow a great propaganda victory! The beings from the blue planet are impotent! Their efforts are futile! Rejoice!"

When a junior climatologist suggested that the overflights could perhaps have been part of an effort to use radar map the depth of our ice caps in order to better understand their own world's shrinking ice caps, K'Breel had the dissenter's gelsacs flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen, shattered with a hammer, and the resulting shards thawed in a microwave oven before subsequently roasting them on a spit.

Just one question (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518591)

How do Martians know whether it's the rainy season or dry season?

Re:Just one question (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518995)

Its the dry season. Rainy season ended a couple million years ago.

Re:Just one question (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 4 years ago | (#29523763)

Its the dry season. Rainy season ended a couple million years ago.
Depends on where you are. Most of the current climate models have the eastern part of North America getting wetter as the temperature rises, while the western part gets drier. The American South just got a week-long dose of that pattern, and there have been lots of news stories about the growing drought in most of the Southwest.

Yes, it has all happened before, and it'll happen again. OTOH, we are reaching a level of understanding that suggests that we could do something to stabilize things a bit, if only we could get our act together and do it.

Instead, the evidence is that we're pushing things to change faster than they would have naturally. So stick around and see what happens. It might not be a good time to move to California or New Mexico.

Re:Just one question (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29523845)

woosh?

I was referring to mars. The martians know its the dry season because it has not rained in a few million years.

Re:Just one question (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 4 years ago | (#29524759)

Yeah; all them Martians should move to California. They'd have more water than they've ever seen.

Hmmm ... Maybe they have. Maybe that's why we don't find them on Mars.

But I wonder how they survive the summer heat? It gets well above the melting point of ice in California in the summer.

Notes on Mars (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518863)

The polar ice cap is 1 million cubic kilometers of water ice. Martian surface gravity is .375 g. Escape velocity is just over 5 kilometers per second. Summer temps are up to 20C. At 1.5 A.U., solar power is about 1/2 that of Earth per square measure. Mars has two moons ripe for mining.

Nobody owns it yet.

Re:Notes on Mars (1)

G33kGuy (1152863) | more than 4 years ago | (#29518993)

It takes 9 months do get there and back, its wintertime temperature is around -100C, it has about 96% less atmosphere, there is absolutely no existent infrastructure, there is very little oxygen in the atmosphere, it has no magnetic field to shield from solar winds, and it sometimes has global dust storms. And nobody owns it yet.

Re:Notes on Mars (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519345)

Antarctica has wintertime temps below -89C, there is no existent infrastructure. But it doesn't have a location for a base with a planetary escape velocity of 186MPH starting from a base less than .4 G's.

Water is liquified oxygen, with a little hydrogen mixed in. Ice makes a nice airtight structure, and it's opaque to solar wind.

Mars is also right next to the asteroid belt. It's a natural base for the people who will build our interstellar ships.

The moon has water too apparently and getting free of it is easier, and it's closer. But the gravity is probably just too low for long term human habitation. And it doesn't have a Deimos to hollow out for an interplanetary transfer station.

HOT DAMN! (1)

WheelDweller (108946) | more than 4 years ago | (#29519561)

That summer trip next year is ON!

YUO fAIL IoT! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29521011)

the ofFicial GAY writing is on the partner. And if Endless conflict

What about other factors (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29521061)

Of all the ways we've managed to change the planet, are we sure that CO2 is the only factor? Take the Mars example, where wind may have darkened the surface just enough to raise the temperature. If this is true, what about the effect of roads and other man-made structures that do not reflect or otherwise absorb heat? Given the waste heat of most lighting systems, demonstrated by any picture of Earth at night, it's amazing how much heat we're injecting into the climate just because we want to read at night. Plant and animals have spent millions of years storing light and heat energy as biomatter, and eventually, fossil fuels. Now we're releasing all the energy all at once. Forget the CO2, we're pumping large amounts of IR and other heat into the environment through a variety of processes, and the focus is only on one molecule?

Heat causes Global Warming. Screw "Cap-and-Trade", we need a straight up BTU tax on anything and everything that has a temperature higher than ambient. This includes taxes on just being alive, too, although we should double it for politicians.

You mean (-1, Troll)

wpiman (739077) | more than 4 years ago | (#29522011)

There is climate change on mars? I didn't realize they had Hummers there.

Learn something new every day.

Re:You mean (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 4 years ago | (#29522343)

A change in climate can be natural or manmade. Earth's climate is changing now because of a manmade increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That does not mean that all climate change on all planets is manmade!

So that's where they come from (2, Funny)

Alarindris (1253418) | more than 4 years ago | (#29522953)

I read that as

Radar Map of Buried Mars Lawyers Confirms Climate Cycles

Climate Change on Mars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29525363)

I suppose the climate change found on Mars was also caused by human activity.

Cue the morons (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#29526063)

Jumping in and blithering about how this disproves global warming.

Guys, we have had climate cycles and ice ages here on Earth as well. They're normal. Global warming is not the same thing.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>