Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Sun May Be Warming Both Earth and Mars

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the dang-mars-suvs dept.

Mars 1050

MCraigW writes "Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes might have a natural — and not a human-induced — cause. Mars, it appears, has also been experiencing milder temperatures in recent years. In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide 'ice caps' near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun."

cancel ×

1050 comments

"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18222920)

First Post you CUNTS!!! Ah HAHAHAHAHAHA so much for the "Read More" link!!!!

All I have to say is... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18222936)

I told you so.

ya but.. (1)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18222938)

says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

Ya but what changes? Can we measure said changes? What about global dimming?

Re:ya but.. (1)

Ice Wewe (936718) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223090)

The sun is getting older, which means that it's expanding...

Now... excuse me for making the bold assumption that the High School text books are right about what stars do when they get older. Now, I have no doubt in my mind that these books are correct, even though they were printed on parchment. So, wouldn't it be possible, ney, probable, that our own sun is expanding?

Re:ya but.. (5, Insightful)

i_should_be_working (720372) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223138)

Ya but what changes? Can we measure said changes?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are solar physicists around the world observing every measurable characteristic of the sun (that we can measure from here) all the time. Seems a bit silly to infer what's going on with the sun by looking at Mars instead of the sun itself. Unless some solar observations back this up, this'll probably be the last we hear of it.

Well Duh (2, Insightful)

Walzmyn (913748) | more than 7 years ago | (#18222940)

So you mean only source of heat and energy for the planet is responisble for it's weather and tempreture? Wow. I bet these guys went to post-graduate school to figure that one out.

Re:Well Duh (4, Insightful)

omeomi (675045) | more than 7 years ago | (#18222992)

So you mean only source of heat and energy for the planet is responisble for it's weather and tempreture? Wow. I bet these guys went to post-graduate school to figure that one out.

Well, that's clearly a gross oversimplification. For starters, the Earth has its own geothermal heat, and without greenhouse gases, the sun's heat would be reflected back out into space, leaving the planet quite cold. The presence of CO2 in the atmosphere clearly does warm the Earth. Nobody seriously debates that. The Earth has also been getting warmer in recent years. Nobody really debates that either. The only question still open for debate is whether humans are the primary cause of the increase in temperature.

Re:Well Duh (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223146)

'For starters, the Earth has its own geothermal heat'

True, although this could actually be built-up heat that has resulted from the continuous process in which the sun cooks our planet.

Re:Well Duh (3, Informative)

omeomi (675045) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223196)

True, although this could actually be built-up heat that has resulted from the continuous process in which the sun cooks our planet.

Could be, but it's more likely that it's heat caused by the extreme pressure at the Earth's core caused by gravity...

Re:Well Duh (1)

Skreems (598317) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223228)

It's actually impossible, in the way the OP phrased it. Solar heating would by definition heat from the outside in, so the internal heat has to be either stored up from waaaaaaay long ago before the planet was at all habitable, or else generated by some other mechanism.

Re:Well Duh (1)

omeomi (675045) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223252)

It's actually impossible, in the way the OP phrased it. Solar heating would by definition heat from the outside in, so the internal heat has to be either stored up from waaaaaaay long ago before the planet was at all habitable, or else generated by some other mechanism.

Maybe he assumes the sun is a basically just a big microwave oven...

Re:Well Duh (5, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223234)

The only question still open for debate is whether humans are the primary cause of the increase in temperature.

There are two questions still open for debate --

Are humans a significant cause of the increase in temperature?

Are steps to mitigate the human effect on temperature worth taking?

I believe the answers are yes and yes, but we don't have to be the primary cause to make it worthwhile to reduce our carbon emissions.

seem to be a post-grad dropout yourself... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223154)

FTFA

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

I can't wait for the sequel!! (2, Funny)

Psychotic_Wrath (693928) | more than 7 years ago | (#18222946)

What's Gore's sequel gonna be called?

Re:I can't wait for the sequel!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18222986)

A Convenientist's Truth (according to Colbert)

Re:I can't wait for the sequel!! (0, Troll)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223084)

I'd like to see a reply to his "documentary" called "Inconvenient Facts." Al Gore is nothing more or less than a phony, and I'd love to see him called on it. Of course, if it were made, it'd be almost impossible to get it publicized or into theaters because it wouldn't say what Hollywood Liberals want said.

Re:I can't wait for the sequel!! (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223096)

"I'd like to see a reply to his "documentary" called "Inconvenient Facts." Al Gore is nothing more or less than a phony, and I'd love to see him called on it. Of course, if it were made, it'd be almost impossible to get it publicized or into theaters because it wouldn't say what Hollywood Liberals want said."

One name - Oliver Stone.

Re:I can't wait for the sequel!! (1)

Kythe (4779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223126)

Absolutely correct. Liberals control the world. Sucks to be a poor, oppressed, powerless right winger these days.

It's just a suggestion, but you might want to hold off on the victory dance until these results are verified and studied a little more thoroughly.

Re:I can't wait for the sequel!! (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223270)

Absolutely correct. Liberals control the world. Sucks to be a poor, oppressed, powerless right winger these days.


But I'm not a right winger, I'm a Moderate. (Yes, a tad to the right of center, but I'm not a Conservative by any means.) Of course, you might consider anybody who's not a Liberal to be a right winger, but that's your problem, not mine.

I might add that I'm not claiming that Liberals control the world, just that most of the people with power in Hollywood seem to be Liberals today.

Re:I can't wait for the sequel!! (1)

novus ordo (843883) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223332)

Al Gore replied with:

"During my service outside the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Inconvenient Facts."

Woo! (5, Funny)

Chouonsoku (1009817) | more than 7 years ago | (#18222958)

Take THAT hippie environmentalist tree huggers! I'm gonna go set a pile of styrofoam on fire in celebration.

Re:Woo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223028)

Haha,

Living in Boulder Colorado and seeing this posting really gave me a chuckle. Now I know exactly how to get rid of all those new egg boxes.

Re:Woo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223066)

Any human-produced climate change is even more serious if the sun is simultaneously helping out. It's not really a laughing matter. If the sun's output is rising, that means the simulations we run would suggest things are worse than we thought - more heat to be trapped by more greenhouse gases.

 

Re:Woo! (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223214)

'Any human-produced climate change is even more serious if the sun is simultaneously helping out. It's not really a laughing matter. If the sun's output is rising, that means the simulations we run would suggest things are worse than we thought - more heat to be trapped by more greenhouse gases.'

True, but that does misrepresent the facts through implication. You imply that human greenhouse gas output represents a substantial amount compared to other sources. Yes, humans have increasing greenhouse gas output and even if it only 1/2% of the total output on the planet we are a contributing cause. That doesn't mean the human output threat is large enough to justify the inconviences and hurdles associated with removing it.

The problem of global warming and increasing greenhouse gas levels needs to be addressed. The solution could be to artifically curtail natural greenhouse emissions somehow rather than to curtail sources that man is responsible. Maybe, just maybe, contrary to current political belief that the blindly crashing along balanced by ignorant and automatic cause and effect natural systems need to be fixed by the arrogant tree-killing humans who dare to mess with mother nature.

Re:Woo! (1, Troll)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223330)

May as well. We contribute less than a percent of the entire amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Everything else comes from volcanoes and water vapor. Combine that with the global temperature records showing no rise in temperature since 1999, one wonders how long politicians can scare voters before they wake up to what's happening.

Of course, environmentalism is a religion, so it's going to be hard to wrench those folks from their dearly held beliefs of a natural Eden sullied by man that can only be saved through ritual sacrifice lest we face the judgement of apocalypse (sound familiar?).

CO2 least of my worries (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18222960)

I am more worried about carcinogenic crap in the ground, in the water and in the air than global warming.
Under the guise of "global warming isn't real" .. the global cancer rate is going to go up.

Thanks a lot.

We need clean nuclear power ASAP charging our electric cars, not driving around cancer fumers.

Take that, Status Quo! (0, Flamebait)

PopeOptimusPrime (875888) | more than 7 years ago | (#18222968)

Those of us with brains have known for a great while that the anthropocentric model of global warming was a load of hooey, but if we dare to present papers on the subject, we are inevitably ostracized from the scientific community. I'm glad to see some Russian scientists have the yaichki to push forward with scientific reasoning.

Re:Take that, Status Quo! (5, Insightful)

GrapeSteinbeck (970275) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223024)

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

Let's suppose that the orbit alteration is not the case. Wouldn't it still make sense to prepare for the worst? Why not stop CO2 emissions, we're better off slowing CO2 output and being wrong about global warming than we are heating up the planet with CO2 and being wrong about not having a human global climate impact.

Re:Take that, Status Quo! (2, Funny)

BigBlockMopar (191202) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223086)


Why not stop CO2 emissions, we're better off slowing CO2 output and being wrong about global warming

Think of what stopping CO2 emissions will do to those poor defenseless plants! You plant-killer! We at PETP (People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants) will not stand idly by and allow you to suffocate all those dandelions! Dandelions have feelings, too!

Re:Take that, Status Quo! (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223276)

'Let's suppose that the orbit alteration is not the case. Wouldn't it still make sense to prepare for the worst? Why not stop CO2 emissions, we're better off slowing CO2 output'

I agree. The part I debate is where to cut emissions. There is this strange prevailing belief that nature is somehow superior to man and that therefore it must be man who upset this delicate balance. Maybe it is time that we started ignoring those naysayers (based upon a long history of manmade technology ultimately proving to be superior to nature in in the applications it is designed for) and looked curtail the far more substantial natural sources of CO2 emissions. It could be time to look into putting caps and scrubbers or some such onto volcanoes to reduce their emissions instead of nickel and diming with cars and gasoline.

Perhaps reducing these far more immense sources of CO2 would reduce emissions enough to that man wouldn't have to alter his lifestyle.

thank the Lords of industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223044)

YES! Vindicated at long last! Pollution shall no longer wear the veil of a pariah.

Let the factory chimneys sing with the roar of a an infinite toxic refuse stream! Let us discharge its glories from the highest peak to the lowest depths of the sea!

Re:Take that, Status Quo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223052)

That's so much crap. Scientists live to overturn theories - that's the whole point of science. Interesting evidence that seems to overturn the status quo does occasionally get rejected out of hand, but scientists are still usually smart enough to realize that in long run they benefit by pushing correct but unpopular theories.

Re:Take that, Status Quo! (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223112)

Yeah the IPCC that decided based on thousands of peer reviewed papers that human-caused warming is very likely, all the papers their conclusions were based upon, they should have looked at news articles like these.

If you read the IPCC's report you see how they take solar influencing into account, and that it likely has been having a positive warming effect, but that it doesn't account for all the warming we're experiencing.


Given that the sun is probably giving out more heat, do we want to exaggerate the impact that would have by itself by releasing gigatonnes of sunlight absorbing gasses?

Re:Take that, Status Quo! (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223194)

Yeah the IPCC that decided based on thousands of peer reviewed papers that human-caused warming is very likely, all the papers their conclusions were based upon, they should have looked at news articles like these.

Not to bash on the IPCC or anything, but your argument doesn't respond to his. If most of the people submitting papers, and thus those doing the peer reviews, are in favor of global warming, then all the papers that come out of the IPCC are going to be in favor of global warming. I'm not saying they are all trying to make that outcome (although without a doubt some are) but sometimes that's what happens.

Re:Take that, Status Quo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223116)

So based off of three years of Mars data, we can tell that its warmer now than it has been ever.

Yet we can't tell anything about Earth when we have a particularly mild winter?

The bullshit meter is ringing.

Re:Take that, Status Quo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223136)

Those of us with brains have known for a great while that the germ theory of disease was a load of hooey, but if we dare to present papers on the subject, we are inevitably ostracized from the scientific community. Those conformist liberals just cling to their idiotic superstitions about little demons in people's bodies, oblivious to the obvious fact that all sickness is caused by imbalances in the four humours.

Re:Take that, Status Quo! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223144)

I highly doubt that you are qualified to present papers on the subject, or that you have any involvement in science.

Solar forcing is already taken into account in today's models of climate change, and estimates range from no substantial effect to around 5% or so of warming being caused by the sun - the rest is nearly all anthropogenic.

Furthermore, if you read the article, the person proposing this as the SOLE means of heating really doesn't understand the greenhouse effect, or the role of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Please stop trolling - you are wrong, the person pushing this is wrong, and the evidence is out there on this already if you would but look.

Re:Take that, Status Quo! (1, Flamebait)

krakround (1065064) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223186)

Let me guess, you are a tenured professor of geophysics at a private university in the eastern United States and have 5 degrees?

Re:Take that, Status Quo! (2, Funny)

AlGore (Oscar Winner (1071160) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223220)

Oh please. How dare you profane my Internet with such hooey. That makes about as much sense as their claim that a study of temperatures for the last 150 years is invalid just because it only represents .00075% of the time man has been on the planet and .00000003% of the earth's existence.

Just think of that number: 150. That's a big number. If someone walked down the street and offered you a $150 wouldn't you be happy? That happiness is what the Republicans want to take away.

-Al

Re:Take that, Status Quo! (1)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223258)

I wouldn't say that my stance has ever been "Anti-Global Warming" as much as asking people to question what they're being told and the motivation behind it ...

I think that (regardless of your stance on the science) it is clear that Global Warming has been promoted mainly for political purposes. The argument has stopped being about what the science says, how strong the science is, or whether we can trust computer climate models (when we are really in the infancy of the technology) and moved to being a political debate.

I suspect that if we had the voice of God come out of the sky and say "Man Made Global Warming is a myth" or "Man Made Global Warming is happening" it wouldn't have any impact on the debate today ...

Re:Take that, Status Quo! (1)

thyrf (1059934) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223296)

So, what, we're seeing a noticeable increase in global temperature from the last 50 years (as opposed to the thousands in the past) and you're saying global warming is a load of 'hooey'? Supporting an alternative theory is all good and well but you can't just toss global warming aside, once you put two and two together its fairly obvious.

Re:Take that, Status Quo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223316)

you mean, they have yaitsa. not yaichiki.

but then again, we don't even *use* that expression, it's an english expression.

Re:Take that, Status Quo! (1)

Viceroy Potatohead (954845) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223334)

While I agree that many people are foolish enough to think we are the cause of global warming, and that this is incorrect, it isn't really seriously disputable that we are having some effect. How much? This issue has been politicized so much, it's hard to tell. Regardless of the main culprits, we should be attempting to mitigate the damage as much as we can. Instead of saying: "It isn't us, it's impersonal natural forces." we should be saying: "We'll stop the little (?) damage we do, and see if we can come up with solutions to offset the natural forces."

Personally, I'm not particularly concerned with a handful of extinct species (except the mice, of course, we're only here for them after all) or with (likely) trivial coastal city water level increases. I'm more concerned with bizarre weather states. How much will this fsck precipitation, degree-days, cloud cover, and the like, where we produce our food.

I recently saw a projection of how our viable, arable land will shift northward. This would be a disaster. I grew up on a farm, have spent plenty of time in the SD badlands, and in central and northern Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, and I can say (with quite a bit of confidence), that conditions for agriculture are better in the badlands than in the alkali swamps and pre-cambrian shield of the north. Even if such projections are inaccurate, the changes in weather patterns will have serious repercussions.

Whether or not we are largely responsible is kind of a moot point. We have a problem, and it's likely going to cause a lot of damage, and a great deal of money to deal with it. The last thing we should be doing is industrial-business-as-usual.

This will not stand (5, Funny)

spike2131 (468840) | more than 7 years ago | (#18222972)

We must destroy the sun!

Re:This will not stand (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223124)

No! It's obvious that Mars' global warming is manmade as well! We must blow up Spirit and Opportunity! It's all their fault!

Re:This will not stand (1)

Dik Zak (974638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223236)

I wonder if Mars being milder will help Spirit and Opportunity to keep functioning for even longer.

Re:This will not stand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223160)

I suggest we blow it up... at night.

Re:This will not stand (2, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223164)

We must destroy the sun!

Just declare it a terrorist orb, and you-know-who will take care of it.
           

Sun isn't that bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18222984)

Sure, Sun has done some less than proper things, but you can't blame them for warming the earth can you?

CO2 still a problem (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223000)

CO2 dissociates in water to produce carbonic acid. The increased acidity can have major impacts on eg corals by dissolving their exoskeletons. Even if high levels of atmospheric C02 do not cause global warming, it is still a problem.

They got it all wrong. (1)

Skythe (921438) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223058)

The Martians still use CFC's.

holy shit some scientists are idiots (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223004)

Well dee dee dee, if we measured the temperature and the CO2 level and they match up perfectly for the last couple hundred milleniums, then it must be the sun's light amount changing! I mean geeze, it's not like we can measure the sun's light amount perfectly and haven't found any significant differences in the last couple decades or anything. Yup, must be the sun's fault. Anyway, if some scientists want to study global warming with their head up their ass, then that's their problem but either way, remember the story on Slashot a while ago about building a giant dimmer sheet thingy around the earn like a big sunglass lense? That would fix the problem regardless of the cause!

Re:holy shit some scientists are idiots (1)

orkysoft (93727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223032)

Yeah, and they measured the temperature and CO2 levels on Mars for the last couple hundred millennia as well!

How long do we have to argue about the why... (0)

bluephone (200451) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223020)

How long do we have to argue about the why before we just start to try to ADDRESS THE PROBLEM? Seriously. I don't care WHY you think the Earth is warming, all I care about is people trying to DO something about it. I really really don't care if Pat Robertson calls it Intelligent Warming because God is chilly. Why do we have to waste time arguing about the cause? If a guy comes into an ER, and passes out, they don't stand around arguing about why he passed out before they help the guy.

Re:How long do we have to argue about the why... (4, Insightful)

johnlcallaway (165670) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223094)

If you don't know why, you can't fix it. Duh.....

Re:How long do we have to argue about the why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223274)

Surely, one gigantic air conditionning unit... no?

Re:How long do we have to argue about the why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223182)

You are clearly confused. ER doctors do *exactly* that. They find out why he fainted before they can fix it. First they check pulse and airway, and if they find either one missing they preform CPR and rescue breathing. However, if they *do* find a good pulse and breathing, they certainly don't preform CPR, since there is a good chance they'll crack some ribs. Once they are sure he isn't dead, they make him comfortable and then wait and find out what is wrong before treating him.

Just the same, humans must find out why the world is warming for sure before we try anything radical to reverse it... if in the end it turns out a large part isn't caused by humans then removing more CO2 then we put in, in a given year, from the atmosphere or otherwise altering its chemical makeup could be a really bad idea, for example.

Anyway, I rather suspect that humans *are* making significant additions to global warming, in addition to natural cycles on the earth and the sun. The only question is how much, and what we can safely do to minimize our impact. For all we know, the large local changes in temperature from cities causes significant changes in the natural air movement in the atmosphere and actually is a bigger problem then CO2 emissions... I doubt it, but we really don't know enough about the climate to say for sure.

Re:How long do we have to argue about the why... (4, Insightful)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223208)

Seriously. I don't care WHY you think the Earth is warming, all I care about is people trying to DO something about it.


Because if we try to change what's going on without understanding the situation we might easily decide on a cure that's totally ineffective. If C02 emissions aren't a major factor (And I'm not saying they aren't.) then lowering them won't help much, if at all. It's better to spend a little money learning what's really going on before we spend a huge amount of money on possibly useless countermeasures.

Re:How long do we have to argue about the why... (1)

Chapps (1037508) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223256)

I'm pretty sure doctors DO argue about it. A bad diagnosis can lead to death, yanno.

Re:How long do we have to argue about the why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223288)

Um...if it's something external--we can't do anything about it.

Without a "why" you don't even know what to fix (3, Insightful)

JudgeFurious (455868) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223306)

Without knowing why it's happening you don't know what to fix or if you even can fix it. Say for instance it's the sun and it's only the sun causing global warming. What in the hell are you going to do about the sun? I'll tell you what you're going to do about the sun. You're going to sit there and put on your sunblock and shut the fuck up. The sun owns our ass like George Takei owns.... somebodies ass. What if it is "Intelligent Warming because God is chilly"? What are we going to do about it?

  The part where we try and figure out the cause is the most important part there is. Otherwise we stand a good chance of wasting resources we don't have or screwing something up that isn't broken to begin with.

You've Obviously Never Been in an ER (1, Insightful)

wdr1 (31310) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223320)

Are you crazy? You can't just ASSUME what wrong with the guy & begin to treat him for your guess. More than likely you'll KILL him. So much for "do no harm."

If you've actually ever been in an ER, you know they don't do anything until they know the cause. Know the cause, know the treatment. Anything else, you're seeing a witch doctor or something.

Bring it back to the article, you're missing the central point. If carbon emissions really aren't causing global warming, reducing them will have absolutely no effect. The earth will still get hotter, we're still be in square one, only with less time & money.

-Bill

Maybe (1)

KKlaus (1012919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223342)

I actually was nearly finished writing a "Mod parent up" post, when I realized you're not quite right. Causes _are_ important because they affect how we treat it. A better analogy (if we *sigh* need an analogy) would be if someone came in coughing blood and vomiting. It's very important to know whether that's drug related, viral, cancer, etc, before you can treat him effectively. So it is relevant whether it's carbon emissions, or solar activity, or some other unknown factor. If carbon emmissions were irrelevant (just SUPPOSE, I'm certainly not advocating that as truth in any way), then spending money to cut emissions would be a waste of resources that maybe we need to build a solar shade (or whatever).

That said, however, there does come a point when you need to say, OK guys, the house is on fire, and it's time to do SOMETHING, even if more information would be handy. And to the extent that we are nearing that point, the bickering over causes does need to stop, particularly if it's just going to be all heat and no light.

global warming is a complex issue (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223026)

Global warming is such a politicized issue from both sides, and a lot of money from both environmentalists and big oil is going into 'proving' it, that it's really quite difficult to know what is happening at all. This is in addition to the natural difficulties of the subject, who can say for sure what is happening in such a big place as the earth? Sure we have the satellites measuring temperature, but we know they had errors once, how do we know they are not in error still? Anyone who says they 'know' global warming is/isn't reality ought to be treated with suspicion.

That said, taking care of the environment in general is a good thing. So either way we ought to research renewable energy, keep recycling, etc.

Re:global warming is a complex issue (3, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223200)

This is in addition to the natural difficulties of the subject, who can say for sure what is happening in such a big place as the earth?

Suppose for the sake of argument that it is natural. If it creates havoc for humans, such as bad weather, lost farmland, and lost coastlines, then perhaps we should still do something about it. Continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere is not helping the situation.
     

Please apologize (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223038)

Awaiting apologies from those calling me "Bush-bot" and Holocaust denier.

Which was wrong, notwithstanding any view of global warming.

RTFA (4, Informative)

crayz (1056) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223046)

crackpot:

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."....

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Re:RTFA (1)

Kythe (4779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223224)

Ummm...wow. So this guy doesn't even buy the idea that CO2 traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere?

That doesn't exactly inspire confidence. What's his next act? Proving the sun goes 'round the Earth?

Re:RTFA (1, Insightful)

argoff (142580) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223264)

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars. But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

The #1 greenhouse gas is not CO2, but methane - which reflects back far more heat and exists in far greater amounts, and the #1 emmitter of methane is not humans, but plants by an order of magnitude. The fact that scientists didn't even know that most plants emit methane a mere two years ago makes the case even stronger that the "global warming" movement is filled with idiots that don't even know what the hell they are talking about. In fact, all the recent over-hype about "global warming" is precicely because compelling evidence is starting to show that it is not mostly man made, meaning that those whom had insincere motives for promoting the "global warming" agenda are in a real rush to push their regulations.

One more thing. If a polluting inefficient electric generating coal plant that cost a billion dollars to build faces competition from a cheap clean efficient high-tech competitor - how do they stop them? You guessed it, buy up all the CO2 credits and lock the competitor out.

Yes, the Sun goes through cycles (5, Insightful)

dl107227 (632747) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223048)

It is common knowledge that the sun goes through cycles in which its output is increased thereby increasing the the solar radiation that strikes its planets. However we are still putting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere which act to trap the solar radiation on the Earth. No reputable scientist will claim that every fraction of a degree in temperature increase is due to human influence on our atmosphere but they do know that the methane and carbon dioxide that we put continually pump into the atmosphere acts as a solar trap and can't help but raise the overall temperature of the planet.

It's good to see that I'm not alone here (3, Funny)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223212)

Sir it's always good to see another of the same persuasion and I fully endorse your article and I would
ask you to do the same for my reply to this heresy. Here is what I told these man-made global warming
denial morons just a few minutes ago countering their childish theories with sound science-inspired deep
thinking on the matter:

As far as your latest apologist whacko theory is concerned, it is more than obvious that vast amounts of
CO2 and Methane are carried away from Earth's atmosphere by solar wind into space where it is deposited on
the other planets of the solar system. That's why we're losing the martian polar caps! It's YOUR IMMENSE
CARBON FOOTPRINT that's causing it so WE REALLY NEED THAT CARBON TAX YESTERDAY!

I can't wait for the day we can take them to court for their hate crimes and then lock them away for good.

If it's true (1)

KillerHamster (645942) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223054)

If it's true, and if global warming isn't really our fault, that would be sort of a relief, since we wouldn't have to clean up our act. Of course, it would also mean that Mars is equally screwed. So much for moving there. I guess I'll just stop worrying about it and go back to playing video games.

Re:If it's true (1)

AlGore (Oscar Winner (1071160) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223286)

If it's true, and if global warming isn't really our fault, that would be sort of a relief...

That's pretty short-sighted. You have to look at the big picture. Such as, my movie just coming out on DVD. A significant portion of a film's revenue these days comes from DVD purchases & rentals. If true, a significant portion of my proceeds from DVDs could be lost & I might even have to start turning my own damn lights off.

-Al

Re:If it's true (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223294)

Well you think that global warming is bad... It is bad for some people and life forms but possibley better for other.
Think about Canada and parts of Russia and China?
Warming wouldn't be so bad for them.
Yes Venus style warming would be bad but a little might not be so bad. And for Mars it might be very good :)

FUCKING RIGHT (1)

The_Abortionist (930834) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223056)

About time people start thinking. No one doubts, even Bush, that humans are polluting like hell. But if we follow those who convict too quickly without even taking into account any evidence, the problem will only get worse.

KNOW THE FACTS.

After we're done dealing with Islam, it's gonna be the eco-terrorists' turn.

Misplaced faith in the conclusion (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223076)

Actually, Mars may be a good model for human inputs of CO2 since as the Martian polar dry ice caps evaporate it simulates the effects of human produced CO2. So, no, actually, this doesn't prove that the sun is the sole cause of planetary fluctuations in temperature.

Re:Misplaced faith in the conclusion (1)

dl107227 (632747) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223142)

Well, that is an interesting thought that had not crossed my mind. There is a question if the influence of an influx of CO2 can be seperated from the seasonal temperature differences. The planet is likely at an equilibrium point where the greenhouse effect of the CO2 influx is just part of the seasonality of Mars. Obviously, further exploraion of this idea is needed. Does Mars' atmosphere appreciably thicken during the summer?

Further enhances my theory... (1)

duhasteifersucht (859131) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223078)

This only strengthens my theory that The Sun is working with Microsoft, France, and, ironically, Blizzard to craft our ultimate destruction.

It is not the sun warming the earth! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223080)

It is manbearpig! I'm super-serial!

Man-made Global Warming Deniers be ashamed! (1)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223102)

As far as your latest apologist whacko theory is concerned, it is more than obvious that vast amounts of
CO2 and Methane are carried away from Earth's atmosphere by solar wind into space where it is deposited on
the other planets of the solar system. That's why we're losing the martian polar caps! It's YOUR IMMENSE
CARBON FOOTPRINT that's causing it so WE REALLY NEED THAT CARBON TAX YESTERDAY!!

Your SUV is consigning the solar system to a fiery death.

Don't forget the other planets and moon(s) (4, Informative)

SengirV (203400) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223104)

Who sponsored this study... (2, Insightful)

cpm80 (899906) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223108)

LUKOIL and Exxon?

Re:Who sponsored this study... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223290)

LUKOIL and Exxon?
The well! It is POISONED!

Who is sponsoring the man-made GW pushers? (1)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223302)

Answer that or STFU.

180 deg. (1)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223110)

I see a major increase in the amount of conservatives believing scientists.

I am much relieved (5, Funny)

slickwillie (34689) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223120)

When the temperature hits 200 F in a couple of years, we will be glad to know we didn't cause it.

maybe both? (1)

phlegmofdiscontent (459470) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223130)

Honestly, I think humans have some effect on climate. You can't increase the concentration of an important greenhouse gas like CO2 by nearly 50% and not see SOME effect. On the other hand, to totally dismiss the effect of the sun like the IPCC has is foolish. (By the way, IPCC is hardly unbiased and I tend to discount their opinions on such matters. They are not the ultimate authority on climate change, being just as biased as any oil company shill).
In the simplest terms, you've got an equation that determines the surface temperature of a planet. The biggest effects are the output of the sun and the albedo of the planet. Atmospheres are only a second-order term. Granted, the atmosphere raises the temperature by about 50 kelvins and we're concerned with 1 kelvin, but the fact still remains that a 1% change in solar flux or albedo will have more of an effect on temperature than a 1% change in the atmosphere's absorption. Of course, the question still remains as to how much the solar flux and albedo of Earth have changed versus how much more radiation our atmosphere absorbs.

SHIT! (5, Funny)

AlGore (Oscar Winner (1071160) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223132)

Either way, no way I'm giving back my Oscar! -Al

Three summers is no big deal (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223148)

'ice caps' near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

3 summers is hardly an indicator of a long-term trend.
       

Good news and bad news... (1)

PimpDawg (852099) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223152)

Well, the good news is that you can't blame us for global warming. That bad news is that the sun is about to explode.

In Soviet Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223170)

In Soviet Russia, the earth warms the sun.

When will the environmentalists picket NASA? (1)

MSRedfox (1043112) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223188)

NASA has been sending probes and landers to Mars since the 70's. How long will it take until some radial environmentalist group decide that this is the result of man's interference there? While any rational person would see this article as a reason to question global warming theories on Earth, some people will see this as an excuse to blame humans for Mars' melting ice caps. Be prepared for this to be used as a new unfounded excuse.

Re:When will the environmentalists picket NASA? (1)

bricko (1052210) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223312)

Its obviously due to those SUV type 6 wheel drive Rover vehicles causing the damage on Mars. You have all heard how evil they are.

Oligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223210)

Let's just make sure that Uranus stays cool!

Another possibility: we infected Mars (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223238)

Maybe bacteria from the half-dozen or so Mars probes of the 70's has spread on Mars and is starting to change it. By some accounts the sterilization done to the probes by both the US and Soviets was inadaquate.

Interesting (1)

Dan East (318230) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223242)

You know, this is extremely interesting. Mars' climate is vastly simpler than Earth's. The lack of oceans alone reduces the complexity enormously. Earth's biology, and its ability to convert and store massive amounts of gases adds additional complexity. Throw in humans, and its pretty much impossible to figure out what's really going on. Although Mars has an atmosphere, the processes going on there are so much simpler that external forces (the sun) will result in faster and more dramatic change. Thus Mars would be a great litmus test of what impact the changing sun might have on Earth. I have a hunch that if this is really the cause of what is happening on Earth, and if we had this quality of Mars data going back further in time, we could have possibly predicted the trends we are seeing on Earth now.

Dan East

CO2 is accelerating the effect of warming on Mars (1)

bunbuntheminilop (935594) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223282)

isn't it, considering the CO2 poles are now melting. What effect is the new atmospheric CO2 having on the surface temperature on Mars?

SunFire (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223292)

Sun May Be Warming Both Earth and Mars

...and my server room. Damn v240's. Their power-supply fans are driving me nuts, too.

I hope we are causing it . . . (1)

Aurelfell (520560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18223328)

. . . because if our CO2 emissions aren't to blame, then we have a much more serious problem here. I hate the stupid Green Peace commercials, and the smug, self righteous environmentalists, and my first instinct is to be happy every time some thing like this comes up that might prove them wrong and knock them down a peg, but the fact of the matter is that if we aren't causing it, we're going to have a much more difficult time doing anything about it.

The bottom line here is that it doesn't matter whether we're causing Global Warming or not, we still need to move towards renewable energy, if not for the environment, then for the economy. If global warming is going to be the boogeyman that scares people into investing in alternate energy sources, then I'm all for it, even if it means siding with the environmentalist doomsayers.

Irresponsible 'journalism' at best (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18223340)

Ignorant at worst.

We know that there is a historical correlation between CO2 composition of the atmosphere of earth and the mean temperature dating back hundreds of millions of years. Sediment, Ice core and geologic records have been used to cross verify this correlation- so thats good science. We know tha in every computational model we have assembled on atmosphere that CO2 concentrations tend to rpoduce a warming effect- so thats good science. So here we have good scientific knowledge indicating not just correlation, but causation. Its not refuted either. No climactic model has demonstrated that CO2 does not have some warming effect- the only question is how much. To my knowledge, no rise in CO2 in earths history has not also correlated with an increase in temperature. So lets count it down:

Like Planks constant or like Newtons laws, its cross-verified in a number of different domains.
Like Relativity, it has never been outright contradicted.
Like all good statistically grounded hypothesies, we have indication of both correlation and causation.

So why should the hypothesis: CO2 increase leads to global warming be rejected? I see no rational reasons, only political, emotional, religious or superstitious reasons.

To continue, With respect to understanding the martian climate:

We have only the thinest, and I mean anorexically thin knowledge of only a very small temporal slice of martian climate. We have only been collecting data on mars for a few decades, and what data we have is spartan and does not reliably indicate climactic conditions in the same time frames we have on earth. If mars is warming, AND I DO MEAN IF, we have no idea as to the cause.

Nobody would deny that the sun will have a direct input on the climate of all planets in the inner solar system. Nobody will deny that the Sun has variability in output over time. But the salient question is what is the primary causal factor most responsible for historic warming trends. The answer is the chemical and possibly particulate composition of Earths atmosphere.

And please, lets not play the 'volcanism' card: the atmospheric isotopic levels are not consistent with the increase in atmospheric CO2 being caused by Volcanism, and we also have no data to convince us that volcanism is increased in the 19th and 20th centuries world wide. If wishes were horses, but they're not.

For those of you who can not/will not grasp the sheer simplicity of the scientific and logical case, lets try common sense: Man is pumping out CO2 to such a degree that it is producing LARGE AND MEASURABLE changes in the atmospheric content of CO2. At the same time, it seems clear that we are warming. At the same time, we have all this data sitting around saying 'if you increase CO2, then all other things being equal, you will get a warmer temperature'.

Now, what would the rational human being conclude? Much less the scientist?

Association of Global Warming with 'fringe' political philosophies or repugnant 'anti technocratic/anti industrial' viewpoints does not in and of itself make Global Warming an invalid hypothesis. Quite simply- Man has a limitless demand for energy and a vested interest in maintianing a habitable environment. Any individual, country, industry or etc that can provide this energy and demonstrate that it can do so in a way that maintains a habitable planet stands to make a fortune. There is money to be made, simply put. Accepting the rational scientific case for anthropogenic global warming does not entail accepting ideologies that people find repugnant. If anything, the enterprising person might look at this as discovery of a breeding ground for new Value Added products, and new business models.

But, I have afeeling more people are interested in laughing at/pissing on tree huggers and al gore then they are about insuring the futre of Humanity and western Techno-Industrial civilization.

Call me a chauvinist, but the point is that the Demon Haunted World sucks. Lets not go back there. And Ignoring catastrophic climactic change is a shure fire bet to land us back there. We have brains, people, lets use them.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...