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!

Global Warming Mostly Confirmed - On Mars

Hemos posted more than 12 years ago | from the balmy-times-by-the-mons dept.

Space 325

dinotrac writes "A just-completed 23 month study, carried out over the course of a Martian year, found that the Martian polar ice caps are rapidly eroding, sending large amounts of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the Martian atmosphere. If this pattern continues over time, Mars could go from a planet whose winters are cold enough for dry-ice snow to having a shirt sleeve atmosphere. Humans would still have to provide for oxygen, but plants could go naked. I wonder if this means tougher emission controls on the next Martian rover?"

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

Taco sux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2670267)

eat a cock taco

Re:Taco sux (-1)

CmderTaco (533794) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670343)

gladly...

Re:Taco sux (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2670376)


His sister is a Tuna Taco.

Martian Rover? (3, Funny)

onion2k (203094) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670277)

..tougher emission controls on the next Martian rover..

They have dogs there? So, emission controls like 'Don't crap of the Martian face' are needed?

Ah, yes. (0)

hotgrits (183266) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670294)

"Leave only rovertracks. Take only pictures."

Re:Martian Rover? (0)

robkore (251928) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670308)

They have dogs there? So, emission controls like 'Don't crap of the Martian face' are needed?

-1, Nice Try, Not Funny

Re:Martian Rover? (1)

dinotrac (18304) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670656)

I don't care what the other guy says.
I laughed out loud.

Not that it takes much.
;0)

Weather outlook on Mars (1)

digitalmuse (147154) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670282)

Well, considering that those of us in the Boston area just had record-breaking 70 degree temps in the first week of December, we should make plans to colonize Mars before the weather there gets any worse.
But hey, don't worry, global warming (be it a natural cycle in the global ecosystem, a condition caused by man's encroachment on the carbon sinks of the planet, depletion of the ozone layer, of just plain bad luck) isn't anything to worry about. Just think of it as an extra reason to work on your tan.

Quick, call GreenPeace! (3, Offtopic)

taliver (174409) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670284)

We must stop polluting the martian atmosphere! It's all man's fault! Damn those fossil fuels!

Oh wait, it's not man's fault.

Hmm. I wonder if we would pause to look at man's contribution to our own "global warming." Maybe we aren't as significant as we think.

Re:Quick, call GreenPeace! (4, Funny)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670367)

Everyone warned the President what would happen if the US didn't sign on to the Kyoto Protocols.

And it's happening as we speak.

On Mars.

Damn you Bush! Damn you!

Re:Quick, call GreenPeace! (3, Interesting)

Ubi_NL (313657) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670369)

<stupidity>
You're right, maybe we aren't!!!!
Let's quickly burn all fossile fuels and find out!!
</stupidity>

It can't hurt to cut down on CO2 emission, even if it's not the 100% cause of global warming.
But if it turns out that it was the influence of man, there won't be an 'undo' button!

Re:Quick, call GreenPeace! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2670649)

Please mod parent up as insightful.

Re:Quick, call GreenPeace! (5, Insightful)

roystgnr (4015) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670825)

It can't hurt to cut down on CO2 emission, even if it's not the 100% cause of global warming.

Yes it can. It can remove cheap energy and transportation sources for billions of people, maintaining or increasing rates of poverty and starvation around the globe.

But if it turns out that it was the influence of man, there won't be an 'undo' button!

Yes, there will. The "undo" button will be to reduce CO2 emissions after we've proven that they are a problem, and watch them fall back to equilibrium. We haven't passed some invisible "point of no return"; the Earth isn't currently the hottest it's been this millenium, much less the hottest ever.

Re:Quick, call GreenPeace! (1, Flamebait)

Tim C (15259) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670387)

Maybe we aren't as significant as we think.

Maybe not, but maybe the two planets are too different to meaningfully compare in this situation.

Or maybe the same thing has happened on Earth already, and we're causing it to happen again, with potentially disastrous effects.

Or maybe, the same thing is happening on Earth, and life as it currently exists is doomed with or without us, but we've cut the timeframe down from millenia to decades.

Whatever, in the case of Mars, it's actually pretty cool if it helps to get the planet terraformed.

Cheers,

Tim

Re:Quick, call GreenPeace! (3, Insightful)

sracer9 (126645) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670698)

Or maybe, we're experiencing the cyclical changes on temperature / weather that we know has occurred on earth since the beginning of time. I'm sure that if we were around during the beginning of an ice age, we would've freaked out then too. Probably would've been told by our global governments to go start fires etc... to try to warm things up since we must've obviously done something to cause this extreme cold to happen. Who knows? We've always had a need to explain *why* things happen, and more recently to try to affect change to keep them from happening. The difference as I see it, is that we now have sensitive equipment to monitor even small climatological changes. Makes it much easier for us to all suffer from "Chicken Little Syndrome". Or, maybe I'm just stoned :)

Re:Quick, call GreenPeace! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670475)

Yet, common sense in handling the environment
seems as much a best practice as common sense in software design.
The goal is to avoid the extremes of the Luddites and these SUV twits
who will not be satisfied until their chariot is the size of that Sand Crawler thing in Star Wars.

Re:Quick, call GreenPeace! (0, Offtopic)

envelope (317893) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670529)

Ooh, you know where I can get a sandcrawler?? Post a link!!

Re:Quick, call GreenPeace! (1)

spanky555 (148893) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670731)

Yeah, if anything, we are probably heading for another Ice Age in a few hundred years or few thousand years. Why are we so worried about global warming when the average temps have been DROPPING in the recent past.(I forget exact amount and over what period of time, exactly. I think it's decades, and a half degree
Fahrenheit or so.) And I doubt anything we do could be having the kind of impact that large volcanoes have. Or, worse case scenario, a large meteor...we should be expending more money and energy planning for that than the so-called global warming that's going to kill us all. That's a very real danger - there's no disagreement in the scientific community over THAT (unlike global warming, at least caused by man) - it's only a matter of time. Of course, "time" could be 500,000 years. :)

Local temps for a season or three do not equal climate - that's weather. The global warming gloom-n-doom that we've been hearing preached so much by the fanatical environmentalists needs to be taken with a big grain of salt...and I wish the mainstream media would do a better job of presenting the facts. I'm so tired of hearing about global warming as if it's a fact...global warming preachers remind me of "creationist scientists" - junk science touted as real science to push a certain agenda. But, truth will out, as always.

Perfect! (1)

The_Pey (532136) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670289)

This would be ideal. When temperatures get into the correct range, we could likely start placing algae or some other similar plant onto the surface to terraform it.

Re:Perfect! (1)

mgv (198488) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670366)

I see alot of problems.

Not only the lack of oxygen, but also the amount of CO2 required to keep mars warm might be rather higher than that on earth.

This could lead to alot of problems - high CO2 levels are quite toxic. For the uninitiated, I suggest you see Apollo 13 from your local video store. Just having oxygen alone won't keep you alive.

Michael

Re:Perfect! (2, Insightful)

BLAMM! (301082) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670552)

I see another problem.
The article mentioned that this changing is happening rapidly. Well, its had the past few eons to make this change. Why now? And what makes anyone think this will be permanant? The only thing that doesn't change is change itself. I find it highly unlikely that this will give Earthlings the chance to start setting up trailerparks around Olympus Mons. I find much more likely that any change will just give us another obstacle to colonizing rather than giving us an advantage.
I'd give this argument more thought, but I've got work to do. :)

Good news for terraforming (1)

codexus (538087) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670296)

The first step for terraforming mars is to increase the greenhouse effect. So if it's already occuring, it will help us go a little faster in the very slow process of terraforming mars. Just don't expect to breath the martian atmosphere in your lifetime ;)

Bad news for terraforming (2)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670432)

I always thought that the gravity on Mars was low enought that the atmosphere just leaked away. So the erosion of the Ice Caps might not do enough to do the job.

Isn't water vapor a Green House Gas(tm)? Recent reports are that Mars once had very large oceans. I see that Mars is a frigid, very dry desert these days. So the gas leakage problem may be a very big problem in planetary engineering.

The only possible fix would be a constant inflow of water and other resources to replace those that are being lost. Terraformiong wouod have to include a rain of very smal icy comets to allow for more water in the atmosphere, etc.

In a Way, I would be kinda cool to be there for the first rainfall on Mars in millions of years.

Re:Bad news for terraforming (2)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670600)

I always thought that the gravity on Mars was low enought that the atmosphere just leaked away. So the erosion of the Ice Caps might not do enough to do the job.

See, that's my intuition as well. I wonder if there has been some obscure work done in this area explaining why this did not happen. Anyhow, here's a cool paper I dug up with a google search.

http://www.sfwa.org/members/Nordley/Gravity.pdf

-l

Most of the atmosphere went down, not up. (5, Informative)

Spamalamadingdong (323207) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670827)

Photodissociation of water may have released a lot of Martian hydrogen to leak away (the very high proportion of deuterium in Martian water compared to Earth's strongly argues for this), but the oxygen and whatnot are too heavy for much to escape that way. The only place for them to have gone is down.

This means that the oxygen, nitrogen and carbon are probably in the soil. This would explain why Mars is so red (all that oxidized iron) and why the atmosphere is so rarefied (most of the gases are tied up as permafrost, adsorbed gas or chemical compounds like nitrates). It also means that the right kind of change can release them and make them into a thick atmosphere again.

Bob Zubrin of the Mars Society has written that we could start what would probably be a substantial greenhouse effect on Mars with only a few million tons of greenhouse gases (such as sulfur hexafluoride and methane) per year. This is the output of one large-scale industrial plant. Once you start heating the soil the adsorbed gases come out and the permafrost melts, leading to more warming and more gas release. Once you've got 200 millibars of atmosphere you can walk around outside with nothing fancier than a heavy parka and an oxygen mask. That's not bad for a planet that's currently an iceball with 7 millibars of fire-extinguisher contents for "air".

If plants can go naked so can we (eventually). (2, Interesting)

Enigma2175 (179646) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670297)

If we can find plants that can survive in the Martian atmosphere then we may be able to make Mars livable for humans. The plants would produce oxygen for us humans to breathe. I don't know how much time it would take (that would depend on the photosynthisis rate of the plants) but eventually they should produce enough oxygen to make Mars habitable. Now we just need to lobby NASA to increase the frequency of missions. Terraforming takes a long time, the sooner we start the sooner the planet will be habitable.

Re:If plants can go naked so can we (eventually). (2, Interesting)

1D10T (455536) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670309)

I am not so sure about this. Plants need more than just some oxygen. First of all I don't know about the soil on mars. You will also need Nitrates in the ground and I am not sure about them. So you would need Nitrogen in the atmosphere and again, that will not increase just by melting the ice on Mars.

Re:If plants can go naked so can we (eventually). (1)

zombieking (177383) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670393)

Plants need more than just some oxygen.

Did I miss something here, or did you mean to type carbon dioxide instead of oxygen? If not, nice troll.

Re:If plants can go naked so can we (eventually). (1)

Nurgster (320198) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670615)

Plants still need oxygen, just not as much. Photosynthesis takes place when light is available, how do you thing the plants would survive at night?

Repiration still takes place in plants, exactly (well not exactly) the same way it does in humans.

Re:If plants can go naked so can we (eventually). (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2670658)

Er.. plants need oxygen. They breathe oxygen, and manufacture sugar from C02+ H20. Trees breathe oxygen all night, and CO2 all day..

Re:If plants can go naked so can we (eventually). (1)

zombieking (177383) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670699)

[insert foot into mouth] I stand corrected.

Re:If plants can go naked so can we (eventually). (1)

tantrum (261762) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670816)

webcam webcam!

I'd really like to see that!

On the other had it might look a bit strange..

;)

Re:If plants can go naked so can we (eventually). (1)

flewp (458359) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670669)

Would it be possible to start working on plants in the lab here on earth to be more accepting of the martian environment, through genetic engineering and whatnot?

If scientists could somewhat predict when the climate/atmosphere in Mars might somewhat inviting for plants, they could simulate the future environment in labs on earth and possibly test out the new plant life. Just a thought though, no real deep insight here.

Re:If plants can go naked so can we (eventually). (1)

mplex (19482) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670335)

Well, if the earth was full and our growth rate was still like 3-4%, we would fill up mars in about 20 years. Go bacteria!

Re:If plants can go naked so can we (eventually). (5, Insightful)

The Fun Guy (21791) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670372)

Um, yeah, well....

Plants are great, but they don't generate new oxygen, they just recycle the old stuff. If you start with 10^100 moles of CO2 and 10^100 moles of H2O, that works out to, 2*10^100 moles of C, 2*10^100 moles of H and 3*10^100 moles of O (1.5*10^100 moles of O2), right? So, all you need to do is:

a) find a massive source of CO2 (in the gigaton range, to start with) that will give you something close to earth atmospheric pressure
b) find a massive source of water (in the petaton range, to start with) to help with the atmospherics and the temperature stabilization
c) increase a and b to account for losses due to soil mineralization of the O
d) find a lichen that will grow (and reproduce) on Mars

oh yeah,

e) find some way to stimulate some plate tectonics to recycle the minerals and crack the O off the Fe in the crust (this is a long term goal, though)

Re:If plants can go naked so can we (eventually). (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2670421)

If you start with 10^100 moles of CO2 and 10^100 moles of H2O, that works out to, 2*10^100 moles of C

Bzzzt. Back to Chem101 for you! Try 10^100 moles of C.

Re:If plants can go naked so can we (eventually). (1)

Jburkholder (28127) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670375)

Isn't atmospheric pressure also an issue, though? Even if Mars could sustain plant live and eventually produce enough oxygen to make the atmosphere technically 'breathable', what else would you have to (could you) do to make things hospitable enough so humans don't need a pressure suit*?

Aside from converting CO2 to oxygen, don't you have to increase the overall 'amount' of atmospheric gasses in order to get something close to an Earth-like atmospheric pressure?

*although, I'm basing this question from assumptions taken from 'Total Recall' :-)

Re:If plants can go naked so can we (eventually). (2, Informative)

Kotetsu (135021) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670462)

You might be getting it from a movie, but it's actually correct. Unfortunately, Mars' atmosphere would be considered a usable vacuum here for many purposes. Even more unfortunately, it's probably not correctable over the long term. Mars lacks a significant magnetic field. [spaceweather.com] This results in erosion of the atmosphere by the solar wind. Unless a way is found to create a large enough magnetic field to protect an artificial atmosphere, it will bleed off into space as the original one did. This also leaves inhabitants much more vulnerable to radiation from solar flares and similar events.

Stop the destruction!!!!! (1, Redundant)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670300)

We must stop the destruction of the martian environment....the Ice caps are melting and soon the planet will be flooded.........the atmosphere is going to become warm.....we must maintain this bastion of solar system history!!!!

:-)

Re:Stop the destruction!!!!! (0)

Jburkholder (28127) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670349)

It's those damn martians and their indiscriminate use of freon air-conditioners and styrofoam coffee cups and aerosol hairspray that is depleting the martian ozone layer and causing this potential environmental catastrophe.

They must take immediate action to save mother Mars, otherwise their entire existance will be threatened! Think of the children!

....oh, wait

Re:Stop the destruction!!!!! (1)

anon757 (265661) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670460)

On the more serious side, NASA better get their ass together and send people to study Mars to study it, before it is so changed that we can't do any studying of it's past.

Re:Stop the destruction!!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2670514)

Who the hell keeps moderating this imbecile up? How in the name of Satan is this comment insightful? Is th_2nd_coming some sort of cabal of trolls?

Re:Stop the destruction!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2670778)

he was trying to be funny.....you moderators on /. are idiots....half the stuff you think is trolling or flamebait is not, most of those comments are actualy good criticl thinking, some are trying to be funny. if you can realy tell if some one is a troll or flaming, good. If you can not, be prepaired to get a bad meta-moderation.

Crist, even some of the moderations for insightful are miss used.

Re:Stop the destruction!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2670830)

/trying/ being the key word... /. really really needs a -1 unfunny mod option.

global warming (2, Insightful)

mirko (198274) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670302)

So, scientists have discovered that this does not only occur on Earth but also elsewhere.

Which impact will this discovery have on the recently overhyped global warming debate?

This may for example help relativize this eternal flame war which have been going on for years between pro and anti-ozone layer militants...

Re:global warming (5, Insightful)

squaretorus (459130) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670356)

recently overhyped global warming debate ?

I must say I find the accussation that Global Warming is over discussed, hyped, etc... bemusing. To me FOOTBALL is overhyped, CELEBRITY is overhyped, the WEATHER is overhyped- each of these are covered in every news bulletin in the world, every day.

Until people generally have the scientific background to understand these issues there should be more not less discussion in the media. Atmospheric effects of mans activities are poorly understood, so two main points of view are adopted - 'how can little old us effect something so big???' and 'don't piss in the bath'.

The greenhouse effect (the ability for certain atmospheric gases to trap more heat than others - leading to an overall warmer planet) is a scientific fact. Whether the effect is increasing or not is currently being debated - with the vast majority saying yes, it is.

The Mars results are interesting because they demonstrate that even without life, let alone industrial level life, the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can change year on year.

What it does not, cannot, tell us is wether this is a cyclical or progressive change. Thats the same as here on earth. The earth is warmer now than it was 100 years ago.

I'm a 'don't piss in the bath' person myself.

Re:global warming (1)

volkris (694) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670718)

What good would more debate among the uneducated general population do?

We can have more debate in the media about the validity of the theory of relativity, but it would also do just as much good.

Re:global warming (2, Insightful)

RickHunter (103108) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670742)

What it does not, cannot, tell us is wether this is a cyclical or progressive change. Thats the same as here on earth. The earth is warmer now than it was 100 years ago.

I don't think anyone's debating that fact. It would do well to remember that we are coming out of a mini-ice-age, and that there are warmer temperatures in recorded history. Remember that the Vikings did mange to settle both Iceland and Greenland (over 500 years ago, IIRC), and things were warm enough there for them to actually live off what they could grow there.

That the effect is increasing, or could be, doesn't mean that humans are responsible. We have no proof either way, though you're unlikely to see any meaningful discussion in the mainstream media. They've pretty much decided that its a convenient "fact" to be trotted out whenever they want to beat down industrial concerns, and something they can ignore the rest of the time.

Oh, and saying that the earth is warmer now than a century ago means nothing when one considers the scale of the processes involved. As many scientists have been trying in vain to point out, we don't have nearly enough valid data.

Re:global warming (3, Insightful)

Debillitatus (532722) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670796)

recently overhyped global warming debate ?

I must say I find the accussation that Global Warming is over discussed, hyped, etc... bemusing. To me FOOTBALL is overhyped, CELEBRITY is overhyped, the WEATHER is overhyped- each of these are covered in every news bulletin in the world, every day. Until people generally have the scientific background to understand these issues there should be more not less discussion in the media. Atmospheric effects of mans activities are poorly understood, so two main points of view are adopted - 'how can little old us effect something so big???' and 'don't piss in the bath'.

Hear, here! Meterologists don't have the slightest idea of what is going on is our atmosphere these days. IANAM, but I am a mathematician who does some fluids, so I'm hearing from these atmosphere guys all of the time. No serious scientist claims to understand these mechanisms.

What we do know is that the tempature of the planet has risen, pretty dramatically, over the last century, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen steadily over the last 300 years. This is not necessarily a causal relationship, but we do have a mechanism by which they would be related (i.e. more CO2 -> more greenhouse effect -> more temperatures). Of course, we don't know that we are causing any of it. For example, maybe the sun got brighter, or whatever, and so the earth heated up, and this caused many plants to die, leading to an increase in CO2. There is (speculative) evidence that we are causing it, however, to some degree.

I think you're right about the two major points. The first position people take is specious. There are many examples of humans causing drastic biological and environmental changes. We have certainly caused changes big enough to end up affecting us. Can we raise the temperature of the earth? Who knows. We can, however, release enough junk into the air to wreck our own worlds, we have proved this time and again. I guess I'm more in the "don't piss in the bath" camp, because once we mess it up, it may very well be permanent. It is worth our while to be cautious.

Another thing which the anti-global-warming politicians and pundits need to be worried about: if the earth is warming up independent of us, this is not a victory for them! For example, let's say that we have some very small affect on global warming, and most of the warming is some natural process. We will then need to curb our emissions even more, because then we have less room for error. For example, if you're on a fixed income, and inflation goes up, you have to spend less. It's not your fault inflation went up, but you have to spend less anyway. Not fair, but c'est la vie.

hype (2, Insightful)

Loundry (4143) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670806)

I must say I find the accussation that Global Warming is over discussed, hyped, etc... bemusing. To me FOOTBALL is overhyped, CELEBRITY is overhyped, the WEATHER is overhyped- each of these are covered in every news bulletin in the world, every day.

This is not a fair statement. The consequence of talking too much about football or celebreties is nothing more than an uninformed populace (which government officials love). The consequence of the "global warming" debate involves (if the leftists get their way) the removal of individual rights. The two are drastically different.

The greenhouse effect (the ability for certain atmospheric gases to trap more heat than others - leading to an overall warmer planet) is a scientific fact. Whether the effect is increasing or not is currently being debated - with the vast
majority saying yes, it is.


Vast majority of whom? Experts? You are trying to roll an ad numeram argument into your ad verecundiam argument, while ignoring the simple fact that destroys the validity of what you claim. The fact is that experts disagree on the subject of global warming. And as long as experts continue to disagree, I'm not going to be convinced. I wonder how you can be so sure of your position.

It's also interesting that the whole global warming argument seems to be brewing within the political sphere. It should not be a political argument, it should be a scientific one. When Al Gore states that the Worst Thing Ever (tm) was the internal combusion engine, it lends credence to the notion that "global warming" is a convenient tool to use to keep individuals from driving cars, riding 4-wheelers, buying Evil Horrible SUVs (like the one Tom Daschle owns), playing with jet skis, and all sorts of other individual activities that leftists just plain hate.

The earth is warmer now than it was 100 years ago.

You can say this all you want, but until I see all the data to draw my own conclusion, it's just words. And even if what you say is true, that does not imply that all of the ramifications tied up into the nebulous political beast named "global warming" are true.

I'm a 'don't piss in the bath' person myself.

Neither do I, but it doesn't matter since you're assuming the point in dispute.

Re:hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2670854)

I guess "expers disagree" on evolution too. If you think that Christian nuts are experts...
Experts _never_ agree on anything.

Re:global warming (5, Interesting)

sam_handelman (519767) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670417)

Which impact will this discovery have on the recently overhyped global warming debate ?

It will give ammunition to people who, having an interest in not cutting back in CO2 emissions, want to argue that the global warming we've observed recently on earth is a "natural" phenomenon.

Firstly, this isn't an observation of increased temperature on mars. This is an observation of polar CO2 erosion. No temperature increase (which has been observed on earth) has been observed on Mars.

Secondly, we allready knew that climate change occurs periodically and naturally. The fact that Mars may be in the process of exiting a "dry ice age" at the moment indicates nothing about the earth.

Furthermore, I'm going to take common-sense issue with the scientists announcement that this (which they have observed over only 1 yr. martian) is "definitely not a seasonal trend." They can't know that. As an example, the ice sheets could melt in summers and reform every third or fourth winter which hapened to be extra cold. Point is there would be no long term change. I don't see any data on the actual rate at which these ice sheets are eroding, either.

The Earth, on the other hand, is allready warm by recent-meteorological standards (personally, I'm a great fan of the theory that the himalayas caused the ice ages by stripping CO2 out of the atmosphere - Nova [pbs.org] did an episode about it.) The rate at which CO2 is going back into the earth's atmosphere is highly unusual given our knowledge of the climatic history of the earth so I don't see how our much-more-limited knowledge of the climate on Mars reveals much.

Speaking of flame wars, I have to resist the impulse to insult the previous poster. This has nothing to do with the ozone layer!

Re:global warming (3, Informative)

Icy (7612) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670454)

The Ozone layer and global warming are NOT related. So many people see these as the same thing, and they are not. The hole in the ozone layer simply allows for more UVB to reach the ground. The UVB has been linked to skin cancer, cataracts, damage to materials like plastics, and harm to certain crops and marine organisms and that is it. The green house effect is where a blanket of gases is formed around the earth that traps radiation and is natural and we need it. It stabalizes our temperature. But too much of this effect is what is believed to cause global warming.

two points (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2670522)

1. "Relativize" is a word?
2. There are "anti-ozone layer militants"?

Blame America First (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2670324)

I'm sure the loony left will find a way to blame the U.S. for this, too.

Re:Blame America First (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2670434)

Times have changed
Our kids are kids are getting worse
They won't obey their parents
They just want to fart and curse!
Should we blame the government?
Or blame society?
Or should we blame the images on TV?
No, blame Canada...
Blame Canada!

Re:Blame America First (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2670487)

I'm equally sure the loony right will find a way to blame the loony left for this, too.

This dosn't affect local global warming theories (5, Insightful)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670345)

This really shouldn't affect local global warming theories. After all, it's only been 23 months, and its the only data we have. We have no real historical record the way we do with earths temperature. (both with ice-cores and with recorded history).

And, earth and mars, obviously, have vastly different atmospheres.

The fact the temperature on mars increased slightly over the past 23 months doesn't actually change anything with regards to mans affect on the earths atmosphere. We already know that earth can change without us, it has in the past.

What we need to find out is how much (if any) effect on our climate we actually cause.

Re:This dosn't affect local global warming theorie (3, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670385)

True.

But one idea put forth about Global Warming on Earth is that there is an effect from solar flares. The CO2 posse has flatly rejected that, because of course you can't bitch about the sun.

Perhaps the warming on Mars's polar caps is evidence of an effect from the solar flares.

Or perhaps it's evidence that climates will undergo changes without American SUVs.

Re:This dosn't affect local global warming theorie (1)

Mobutu (13389) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670398)

> And, earth and mars, obviously, have vastly
> different atmospheres.

That's right. But the fun thing is that our earth athmosphere is a very complicated one. Slightly different temperatures can have a large impact on the biology in the air or in the water. Those are things we can not easily predict. Some weird bacteria may like two degrees (celsius, I am european...) more that much, that it will grow rapidly, first killing its food and thereby killing itself as well.

On Mars, there is no such thing as widespread biological activity, we've proven that by now. This does not mean radical chances can't take place, but when they take place, it's easier to point a finger at something.

Ecofreaks love to ignore all counter examples. (1, Troll)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670443)

Sorry, but it does prove one thing. The climates of planets is many times beyond our pale ability to understand or have an effect on.

Are we so egotistical to believe we can readily affect the Earths climate? We would seriously have to try very hard to make a noticable effect. A single volcano outdid us in 3 days... reducing sunlight striking the earth!

Yes we have pollution issues, but the fact remains that that 23 months of Mars data is very similar in one way to the earth, both are attempting to extrapolate what the resulting climates will become with limited data.

We simply don't have enough data to prove one way or another for the Earth

Re:Ecofreaks love to ignore all counter examples. (2, Insightful)

Pentagram (40862) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670534)

So if you think that you know better than the vast majority of climatologists, perhaps you can give us your scientific evidence? For a start, perhaps you could tell us how much CO2 we would need to significantly affect the world temperature compare d to what we produce now.

Hell, even Bush accepts that global warming is a fact.

Yes, I do realise you're just trolling, but some half-asleep moderator is going to give you a +1 Insightful any minute now.

Could we speed it up maybe? (2, Interesting)

DickPhallus (472621) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670348)

Michael A. Caplinger, a scientist with Malin Space Science Systems, said that if the rate of carbon dioxide erosion from the Mars poles continues for thousands of years, ``then it could profoundly amend the climate of Mars.''
Since it's going to take thousands of years, perhaps we could do something to help the process along a bit? Maybe send a few SUVs over or something? I suppose it is a bit ambitious however...

not all that helpful (2, Insightful)

archen (447353) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670358)

I still don't think this is very significant. Mars still doesn't have a sufficent AMMOUNT of atmosphere, which is probably needed to help keep the heat. Besides which, mars has a very eliptical orbit. It might be nice during the summer, but who would look foreward to over a year (earth time) of a winter that is FAR colder than any we've ever had on earth?

A tribute ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2670360)

Weeelllll -

my cunt is a'drippin',
your lips are a'sippin',
my ass is a'crappin',
your mouth is a'lappin'

all that comes out of an oracifce
you eat for a main course-ifice
poop and pee, all a'yummy
Sitting proud inside your tummy!

Thank you, thank you very much. I'll be here all week. Tip your waitstaff.

My feelings on this (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2670368)

Here is my ass
Which you may kiss.
Take time and aim well
You don't want to miss.

For if you aim low
And your lips they do fall
Then you will find
You'll be sucking my balls.

If you aim high
Despite your true heart
Sucks to be you
Now you're eating my fart.

Thank you, thank you. You're too kind. I'll be in Vegas next week, tickets are still available. Please, tip your waitstaff.

*BSD is dead (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2670380)

Netcraft officially confirms: *BSD is dying

Yet nother crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dead

Plants (1)

SlamMan (221834) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670397)

So, in perperation for us eventaully going, there, and exluding tthe actual logistics and amounts, couldn't we lots and lots of plants there to help make O2 for us? what conditions do they have that would prevent plants from growing, and how can we get past that?

Strongly recommended book (5, Interesting)

d5w (513456) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670413)

Given the "what if we..." comments following up here, I strongly recommend reading Kim Stanley Robinson's "Red Mars", "Green Mars" and "Blue Mars". The books start with a near-future colonization of Mars and go through one very well developed "what if" path, covering not just the technology but also the social and political engineering that follows. The idea of deliberate greenhouse warming shows up, among others.

Oh, yeah: they're also good reading, with an interesting set of characters.

Re:Strongly recommended book (2)

Happy Monkey (183927) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670744)

Oh, yeah: they're also good reading, with an interesting set of characters.

I can't decide whether I agree with this... I've been reading this trilogy since August, but I can seldom read more than a chapter or two before falling asleep. (I do my reading in bed.) But it's interesting enough to keep me coming back.

shirt-sleeve atmosphere ? (5, Interesting)

Random Walk (252043) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670429)

Currently, atmospheric pressure on the surface of Mars is about 6 millibar, which on Earth corresponds to a height of 35 km above sea level (4 times higher than Mt. Everest).

At such low pressure, some of the water in the soft tissues will vaporize and cause swelling of the human body (note that the blood will not vaporize, because it is always under sufficient pressure in the blood vessels). This can be prevented by "a properly fitted elastic garment", but such garments are only know to work at pressures of more than 20 millibars.

Which means that a lot of carbon dioxide would be needed until you could walk around without a space suit.

Re:shirt-sleeve atmosphere ? (1, Flamebait)

AnalogBoy (51094) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670501)

Well, if enough people go on a climax-of-total-recall type midnight stroll through mars' atmosphere, perhaps the pressure will increase a little? I suggest starting with...

1: Most of the population from south of the mason-dixon line
2: Members of the Taliban, except osama, who should be executed in some unique medieval fashon
3: Racists
4: Sexists
5: Criminals
6: PETA Members :) j/k

Re:shirt-sleeve atmosphere ? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2670550)

Most of the population from south of the mason-dixon line

are you volunteering yourself, you fucking racist... or are you reffering to the wetbacks or the niggers?

Re:shirt-sleeve atmosphere ? (1)

tnak (163802) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670603)

5: Criminals

Oh? You don't have any mp3s/oggs that don't belong to you on your hard drive then? And you haven't allowed anyone else to log onto your school/work network because their account wasn't working right? No speeding tickets lately either?

For that matter, your number 6 might just get you sent for spreading hatred and advocating the violent deaths of members of a group based soley upon their opinions as to the relative worth of animals to humans.

Re:shirt-sleeve atmosphere ? (1)

Debillitatus (532722) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670657)

Well, if enough people go on a climax-of-total-recall type midnight stroll through mars' atmosphere, perhaps the pressure will increase a little? I suggest starting with... 1: Most of the population from south of the mason-dixon line 2: Members of the Taliban, except osama, who should be executed in some unique medieval fashon 3: Racists 4: Sexists 5: Criminals 6: PETA Members :) j/k

I think that this post is telling us something. You feel comfortable lumping together all 80 million Southerners, yet after PETA, you felt that you had to put a "just kidding".

Don't worry, I'm not flaming you. I'm just saying your attitude is indicative of something in today's society...

Re:shirt-sleeve atmosphere ? (1)

mrseth (69273) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670668)

> Most of the population from south of the
> mason-dixon line

Perhaps you should be more specific. Maybe a better way to state it is all the actual or potential Jerry Springer guests?

Total Recall (2)

tonywestonuk (261622) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670430)

Simple - Remember the film 'Total Recall' - What's happened is that's somone's managed to get that martion (sp?) underground generator going!!

Re:Total Recall (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2670518)

Don't be so naive. Microsoft corporation controls the Air buisness in Mars, do you think they will allow the GNU/AirProducer to ever be turned on?

Isnt it odd... (1)

Manhigh (148034) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670446)

That Mars is also undergoing global warming without input from humans? Perhaps the Suns energy output is on the upswing. Would think that would be easily detectable though.

Planned Mission (2, Interesting)

lameland (23851) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670464)

I've read about a possible mission to Mars that would speed up the Green House effect. Basically, it was a lander whose only purpose was to emit as many green house gases as possible into the Martian atmosphere. The thinking was that if we could get the polar ice caps to melt,we could begin terraforming within 20 years, and then areas would be ready for humans in another 50-60 years.

We need a permanent solution (1, Interesting)

ManualCrank Angst (541890) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670468)

Mars' atmosphere will eventually deteriorate to the point where it will no longer support us. We must create bio-diversity and separate our eggs into multiple baskets. I propose we start a colony on another planet--how about the the third one from Sol? It's very hot and a depressing combination of blue and green, but it may be our only hope.

--From a fragment found underneath a Martian pyramid

Too soon to tell (1)

ferreth (182847) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670480)

Stating that mars may be in for a period of global warming based on ONE years data is, well, so much hot air.

If some good data could be presented indicating long term erosion of the polar CO2 caps, I'd say they might be onto something, but this is just irresponsible reporting.

How to make news -- out of nothing (1, Flamebait)

garoush (111257) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670484)

1) Pick a good headline/title: "Global Warming Mostly Confirmed - On Mars"
2) Make claims even whey they don't make sense: "A just-completed 23 month study"
3) And keep making stupid statements: "If this pattern continues over time, Mars could go from a planet whose winters are cold enough for dry-ice snow to having a shirt sleeve atmosphere."

Let us see how does this all add up. We spent less than 2 years studying this planet called "Mars" and concluded/found-out that it is heading to its domes-day. Oh right? Does this makes sense to anyone?!!

Couple of Thoughts (1, Redundant)

pagsz (450343) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670488)

Just a couple of thoughs (from a non-intelligent, non-scientist):
  1. Magnetic Field
    As I understand Mars, even if the CO2 the Martian atmosphere became thicker, it would not be able to hold it for long. This is because at present, Mars does not have a magnetic field as does Earth. Without it, the strong solar wind would strip the atmosphere away. (BTW, this is one theory as to how Mars could have lost its water. It is believed Mars did once have a strong magnetic field, which protected its atmosphere and allowed enough heat to be trapped for liquid water to flow. As the magnetic field died, so did the planet.) However, if Mars was somehow re-establishing its magnetic field (don't ask me how, I just spit out wild, non-sensical theories, I don't explain them), maybe it could.

  2. The Sun
    It occurs to me that this new "development" could be tied to the gradual warming of the sun. Perhaps a threshold has been reached, and is causing the release of Martian CO2 (this un-thought out, unsubstantiated "threshold theory" may also apply to Earth).

Then again, I could be wrong. Profoundly wrong. Not even within a parsec of the right answer. Most of my posts are that way anyway, why break the trend?

Looking forward to running naked on Mars (although Mars certainly isn't) . . .

Re:Couple of Thoughts (1)

codetalker (245862) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670555)

I've heard that Mar's gravity is too weak to hold on to an atmosphere. My physics teacher started ranting that the energy levels of gaseous particles would rise to the point where they could escape Mar's gravitational well. Or something. This is just another misinformed post. so don't punish me for generating discussion. But I remember there was sound reasoning at the time I heard it. I think its the same for Earth and Helium.

Re:Couple of Thoughts (1)

LWolenczak (10527) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670665)

This is true, I have had several discussions with friends on this subject. Since we know that mars' core is cold, the solution is to clearly heat it up. Me and my friends figured the only real way to do that was with a massive nuclear meltdown, put massive amounts of fissionable material into sealed caves and get it going on the process of nuclear meltdown. We figured that it would be the cheapest, quickest, and best way to get the process going. The material (in our idea) should melt down, all be it slowly, and in time gather in the core of the planet, where it would continue reacting, and generating heat. The heat should melt what was the core, or ateast start liquifying it, so a magnetic field forms. Hell, we could ship all our solid radio active waste to mars. Really, this would require special launch or elevator platform to get it into orbit.

So, with enough reactive material, we should be able to get it going, and possibly maintain it using some sort of plazma infusion system. Like in that next generation episode. Ofcorse, this would be a major effort to get going, but I would like to see it happening within my lifetime. If I ever build a space ship, you better belive i'm going to claim a part of mars. Also, for water, It has been discused using astroids composed of large amounts of ice, and just ramming them into the atmosphere. A friend of mind suggest using them to also alter the orbit and the spin of the planet.

Re:Couple of Thoughts (1)

Lord_Of_The_Beer (527765) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670831)

Why whould you need to alter the spin of the planet?

Also wouldn't driving large amounts of ice berring Astroids into the panet kick up huge amounts of dust, curring off light and casuing a (dry)ice age?

How long would the molten core last. would we have to do this every century or so?

Republicans in Space? (2)

toupsie (88295) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670502)

Guess that pretty nails down that "global warming" is due to the effects the Sun has on planets while going through its different cycles of energy release rather than a bunch of politicians that disagree with the pop culture environmental movement. I am just so shocked that the noted global warming scientists Sting, Drew Barrymore and Ted Danson completely missed this fact.

Terraforming (1)

Xaroth (67516) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670508)

If Mars gets enough CO2 to support a plant atmosphere, then it's not terribly unlikely that we could try to start terraforming the planet. All we'd need is to find a nice little phytoplankton-type algae that'll thrive there, and before you know it we'd be able to produce a breathable atmosphere.
Of course, we'd have to find a goodly source of N, but there's probably enough of that elsewhere on the planet that could be freed up in other ways.
The alternative, of course, would be to cross-breed plants and humans so that they'd use a chlorophyl-based metabolism instead of the current human-based solutions. Then, they'd be able to breath and metabolize the CO2 in much the same way that we do O2.
With the change in diet that would be necessitated, I expect that such plant-human mixtures would be several feet shorter than your average human.
More to the point, we'd have to create little green men and invade Mars.

naked plants (2, Informative)

oyenstikker (536040) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670539)

Plants, like us, need oxygen for their respiration. They photosynthise to create a lot of what they need, and kick out more O2 to the atmosphere than they will use, but there still needs to be a high enough O2 concentration in the atmosphere for them to take some of it back in.

Is this part of a cycle? (5, Funny)

mfarah (231411) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670553)

Just 23 months is pretty much nothing in terms of planetary cyclical events. Maybe this warming is just part of a very long cycle in Martian atmosphere, taking decades of even centuries, that we haven't observed yet. I'd hate to see the November 13, 2614 headlines of The Martian Times stating something like "Global cooling confirmed - atmosphere compromised".

(BTW, will Greenpeace stablish a Martian Chapter called "Redpeace"?)

Colonizing Mars (2)

Brian Stretch (5304) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670564)

So, if all we need to do is speed up the melting of the ice caps on Mars, we just drop a few nuclear-powered heaters, let them wander around the caps for a few decades, and assuming the new atmosphere stays put we'll have a habitable environment? There has to be more to it than that, but if the issues could be worked out...

By the time the atmosphere is properly cooked we should be able to transport people to Mars in significant numbers (hundreds, thousands). Give priority to people (the new pioneers!) who want to raise large families, and in a century or two Mars could have a fairly substantial human population.

Possible side effect: Mars could wind up very Catholic ;-).

(Sorry, I've been waiting weeks for a chance to use that line...)

terraforming (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670576)

Why oh why don't we send up a greenhouse gas generator? if we were to get the climate close to what earth has then we fling seeds all over the planet and see what happens. I'd bet that with current technology we'd have greenery on the surface within 100 years and a breathable atmosphere within 500 years, far earlier than we would see any mars base (given the current disregard for space and planetary exploration by the worlds governments.)

maybe someone could start the "seeds for mars foundation" although having the anticipated huge influx of cannibus seeds would probably be a detriment to the project's standings.

Re:terraforming (1)

Fun In The Sun (519673) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670727)

the anticipated huge influx of cannibus seeds would probably be a detriment to the project's standings.

Actually, cannibus is probably one of the kinds of things that should be sent. They don't call it "weed" for nothing. Cannibus, like kudzu, lilacs, dandilions, crab grass, etc, are particularly hardy plants, and can grow practically anywhere. You drop a large mix of those seeds in a relatively moist area, and soon you have ground-cover. Ground cover assists in retaining moisture, which will allow larger growth to take hold.

Before sending seeds over though, you'll probably want to send spores. I think moss and lichens will have a much better chance of surviving and flourishing than plants will. It will also allow you to gauge how well plants may survive in a given climate.

However, if I remember 10'th grade Biology correctly though, plants actually require oxygen to survive. Something about them using it during the night. Can anyone confirm this? If this is the case, it may throw a monkey wrench into any terraforming plans.

Well, that explains everything (5, Funny)

Masem (1171) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670590)

Apparently Dennis Quaid finally reached the controls of the reactor.

Expect blue skies on Mars in less than an hour!

<joke>

Influence of solar activity (5, Informative)

p4k (317034) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670592)

This would seem to support the theory that variations in solar activity are very significant in determining climate. It is known that the output of the sun is slightly higher during periods of high solar activity [nasa.gov] . We are just about at the peak of a solar cycle at the present, and the last few cycles have been strong, and it would appear that this is affecting the climate on both planets.

This graph [microtech.com.au] from this report [microtech.com.au] shows a striking correlation between the length of solar cycles and mean temperature over the last hundred years (interesting that the length of the cycle should give the best correlation - the authors suggest the shorter solar cycles correspond to higher solar output).

Also, there is considerable historical evidence that the current change in climate is really pretty small beer compared to what has happened in the past:

"The Norwegian farmer Folke Vilgerdson made the first attempt to settle in Iceland in about 865 AD... He lost his cattle in a severe winter and disappointed went back to Norway after having seen a fjord filled up by sea ice. Therefore he called the country Iceland. Only a few years later, in 874, Ingolf Arnason succeeded. He was followed by many others, and settlement was completed in 930 AD... In 982, Erik the Red discovered new land West of Iceland. He called it Greenland; according to the Greenlander Saga this was only to persuade people to follow him... But the O(18) curve suggests that the name described a reality... So the drastic climatic change [warming] late in the ninth century may be part of the reason why Iceland and Greenland did not get the opposite names." (Dansgaard: Palaeo-Climatic Studies on Ice Cores, in Oeschger, Messerli and Svilar, 1980).

Here [skywebsite.com] is another account, also suggesting that Greenland had a suprisingly comfortable climate at the time.

This is evidence AGAINST human causes on earth. (1)

Unknown Poltroon (31628) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670667)

This is some of the best evidence so far that HUMANS have nothing to do with the climate changing on earth. The fact that mars is undergoing the same climate changes(relatively speaking) that the earth is should prove that HUMANS are having little or nothing to do with the earths climate changes. IT is rather a normal climate cycle that we are having little or no effect on.

That's spurious reasoning at best. (1)

eclectric (528520) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670844)

No scientist ever claimed that global warming (or cooling) was anything but a natural effect. Indeed the earth is constantly in a state of flux. The suggestion is that we are *rapidly* hastening the next warm period, and given the number of coastal cities we have, this is something that we do not want. Earth has a pretty well balanced system... increased heat will spread plants and drown a bunch of animals, and that will decrease the carbon dioxide in the air, which will then cool us down.

Indeed, it's long been speculated that mars once had running water... this is probably just part of their cycle. I'd be interested to see how this cycle work.

Dammit, i want to live forever.

Mars (1)

Teto (519029) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670771)

Humans wouldn't have to provide any oxygen, just plants. A large number of plants would provide the Oxygen. (for a small group anyways) Plus, as the carbon "melts" and the plants spew Oxygen into the atmosphere, the pressure would go up as well.

Of course this won't happen for a few thousand years.
Teto

a YEAR? (1, Redundant)

psychalgia (457201) | more than 12 years ago | (#2670775)

that's stupid
they studied it for ONE YEAR, and feel they can make this conclusion
thats a little fuckign drastic, dont you think?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?