Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

National Geographic ^ | February 28, 2007 | Kate Ravilious

[moneyrunner]

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

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 space research at 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.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

[palmer]

I don't know if they used the full spectrum or not. I do know that other satellite measurements of the sun's full output don't show a lot of change in the few decades they've been measuring. Clouds are complicated since they can warm or cool. Obviously daytime clouds cool and nighttime clouds warm. From there it's not simple, high clouds warm because they are cold (see any IR satellite picture). Low clouds may warm or cool but since their tops are warm they may cool more. Clouds in higher latitudes warm in winter (less sun reflection, more heat trapping in those longer nights)

Water vapor is a whole nother ballgame. Like clouds it requires a huge amount of detailed weather modeling to get the effects right. Water vapor does not need clouds to produce its greenhouse effect. WV traps more heat in the upper atmosphere than in the lower which again depends on weather (convection) to get it up there. When the UV hits it and it turns into clouds as you suggest that would probably produce a cooling effect since that would only happen during the daytime. But I am not sure and it certainly is not a simple problem.

[ancient_geezer]

The same effect would not occur on Mars because there are no clouds to be enhanced by the cosmic rays.

Cosmic rays need not be invoke for Mars, variation in UV is more than ample to modulate CO2 ice clouds as well as affect surface albedo through evaporation of CO2 at the Martian poles.

For Mars all you need it the right kind of clouds, and a nearly pure CO2 atmosphere to encourage their formation for small changes in solar irradiation to have an extreme effect:

On the Scattering Greenhouse Effect of CO₂ Ice Clouds
R. T. Pierrehumbert and C. Erlick
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Article: pp. 1897–1903
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0469(1998)055%3C1897%3AOTSGEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2#I1520-0469-55-10-1897-CRISP1

ABSTRACT

The authors offer some remarks on the greenhouse effect due to high clouds that reflect thermal infrared radiation, but do not absorb or emit it. Such clouds are an idealization of the CO₂ ice clouds that are thought to have existed early in the history of Mars. Clouds of this type enter also in the ability of Earth to recover from a globally glaciated “cold start” and in the determination of habitable zones of planetary systems. A simplified model of cloud optical effects is used to estimate the effect of high CO₂ ice clouds on the planetary radiation budget in the solar and infrared spectrum. It is argued that the scattering greenhouse effect certainly cancels out a large part of the cooling effect due to the cloud’s visible albedo and in some circumstances may even lead to a net warming as compared to the no-cloud case. Speculative implications for the climate of early Mars are discussed.

[palmer]

The media will lose its consumer product advertisers if everyone refrains from buying toilet paper. I worry about the eradication of scientific teaching in favor of political propagandizing which will ultimately create a high amount of cynicism in the young. I think the world government aspect should be alarming to anyone with a tiny bit of common sense. But ultimately the drama that the globalist alarmists have fostered will have to be replaced with some other drama more suitable for selling soap powder, maybe some new health scare or an asteroid heading for earth.

[AlexW]

"I don't believe tht there are any Freepers who actually believe Mr. Gore's Global Warming Fantasy."

Oh, but you are wrong. There are at least two, and one has already posted about it on this thread.

When fighting the MSM and communist, it will take a long time to overcome the Gorbalist

[palmer]

It's not clear from the abstract whether ice clouds still exist on mars or not. The small measured increase in solar irradiance includes UV so that it not likely to explain more than a small part of any earthly or martian warming. The unknown effect of changes in the sun's magnetic field, changes in electrons and other particles hitting mars could easily have warming effects different from earth's. I'm not ruling the sun in or out, just saying its unlikely that there's a direct solar irradiance effect responsible for warming on both planets.

[Thickman]

The media will lose its consumer product advertisers if everyone refrains from buying toilet paper. The hard part will be dislodging corporate America from the greeno alliance. Have you noticed how many energy companies advertise about how concerned they are about global warming? It is a vicious circle of propaganda.

[RightWhale]

Have you noticed how many energy companies

It's much worse and much bigger than that and it's been going on way over a century even just in modern history. It's not exactly a conspiracy but more a way of doing commerce. That, in fact, is the tip of the iceberg.

[Old Professer]

Outcast; stone him!

[Wuli]

"I don't know if they used the full spectrum or not."

They did not. I read the report. Their entire report and the solar data they considered were only related to "brightness"; nothing more.

Yes "clouds are complicated", but regardless, tests have shown that Ultraviolet radiation plays a role in cloud formation (increase the UV input and the rate of cloud formation increases). Also, regardless of some variation between daytime and night time, clouds hold in water vapor and at much greater densities than does the absence of clouds. That density is more important than the fact that water vapor does not need clouds to have its greenhouse affect. And, atmospheric water-vapor is many times greater in its per-cc-greenhouse affect than is CO2.

And, output of solar ultraviolet radiation is influenced by magnetically active regions on the Sun. These magnetically active solar regions are demonstrated in sunspots. The magnetic field is especially strong in sunspot regions.

In terms of Sun spots, and related solar events, scientists have seen the past twenty years as one of the more active periods recorded here on earth.

NASA's recent study of the UV record in the Nile region, and the correspondence with "warming" and "cooling" event-data in the Nile record, adds a strong suspicion that solar UV fluctuations are mirrored in earth warming and cooling cycles.

Due to the UV affects on clouds, the clouds' relationship with water vapor and water vapor's "greenhouse" affects, the NASA-Nile study adds allot more demonstrable science than the mathematical models run regardless of GIGO by the ICCP.

[jonrick46]

There is one effect of increased solar activity that is being ignored: As solar activity increases, cosmic radiation is blown away from the solar system. Such cosmic radiation is responsible for the production of clouds. The more cosmic radiation, the more cloud formation and cooler temperatures. The less cosmic radiation, the less cloud formation and warmer temperatures that also add to the increase in solar temperatures (as is being experienced by other planets in the solar system). When temperatures increase, there is more water vapor which increases the greenhouse phenomenon and ice melt off, which releases trapped methane gas (another green house gas with greater effects than CO2). Man's contribution is small compared to the other effects.

A study in the cloud rain cycle would reveal that less water is distilling out of the atmosphere in the form of precipitation. It is because of this phenomenon that the true culprit in green house warming has occurred.

[ancient_geezer]

The small measured increase in solar irradiance includes UV,

In fact most satellite instuments are only sensitive in relatively narrow bands generally focused on visual or IR and I know of no decadal studies of UV intensities over time, it is only very recently, we have even been able to do a credible job of measuring near UV out to 0.3microns.

More importantly the indirect effects of UV is not included in the studies I am aware of.

UV being much more energetic than visible and IR wavelengths and thus causing substantially greater changes in an atmosphere as regards ionization and effecting chemical decomposition and high energy reactions. The studies I have seen evaluate only direct themal heating effects as opposed to the much broader potential of high energy photons thus include a disclaimer similar to the article you reference to the effect that:

"Apart from solar brightness, more subtle influences on climate from cosmic rays or the Sun's ultraviolet radiation cannot be excluded, say the authors. However, these influences cannot be confirmed, they add, because physical models for such effects are still too poorly developed."

In fact the abstract of the original source paper makes it clear the study did not include any energetic UV effects:

Title: Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate
Authors: Foukal, P.; Fröhlich, C.; Spruit, H.; Wigley, T. M. L.
Publication: Nature, Volume 443, Issue 7108, pp. 161-166 (2006).

Abstract

Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.

[moneyrunner]

This has been an interesting discussion. But before “we consolidate a core position” I would want to know who “we” are (kemo sabe) and what that core position is. One of the primary problems with the “moderate” position on issues is that core principles are abandoned for compromises that allow the opposition to use salami slicing tactics to get what they want. If you cede the basic premise you are simply the enabler of the Echo-Extremists and the only discussion is about means and not ends.

In the not too-distant past, “moderate” Republicans like the honorable Bob Dole were so wedded to the concept of balanced budgets that they became the tax collectors for the welfare state. This is politically unwise because it left them in a perpetual minority position. It is morally unwise because they were continually compromising their other principles.

If “we” are looking for a moderate position that effectively acquiesces to the belief that global warming is man-made, but “we” need to be careful what policies we implement to counter the effect of mankind on the planet, I’m sorry, I’m not the “we” you’re looking for.

Finally you stated: “It may be factoids like the one this thread is based on will work for some. But I think we have to do the same thing that you point out the NYT is doing: consolidate a core position that does not include every curmudgic soviet scientist's theory that we can get our hands on.”

This is clearly a swipe at me by calling this study a “factoid,” referring to the Russian (the Soviet Union is no more) scientist as a curmudgeon, and implying that people who use these studies to reinforce or change their beliefs are rather … well, lets just call it “gullible.” If this were the only piece of evidence we may dismiss it with the “factoid” slur, but you may note that Beowulf at post 45 references other non-terrestrial warming studies. Suddenly we’re out of the “factoid” stage and into the “interesting and widespread phenomenon” stage. If the large masses of matter in the solar system (generally referred to as planets and moons) are getting somewhat warmer, and our planet is the only one with humanity driving SUVs, I can start eliminating those things that the other planets don’t have and start looking at things that they have in common.

At this point I assume you believe in man-made global warming and are just looking for the Republican Tax Collector’s route to saving mankind. You will have many people on your side. But count me out.

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

old story, but...

[driftless2]

Well obviously this Mars warming thing is just a trick fabricated by the eeeeeeevil Bush-Cheney-Rove cabal. Yeah, that's right....the nefarious trio were last seen commandeering a spaceship (the new kind, the ones with better cupholders and AM reception) on their way to sabotage Mar's heating system. The swine.

[FreedomPoster]

Funny how those "unique" factors are happening across muliple solar system bodies concurrently.

[palmer]

Thanks for the extra info, interesting as always. I may have been wrong in stating UV was included in my posting. I am still trying to find the link where they made the measurements.

[palmer]

UV can only form clouds during daytime, therefore cooling. I would also suspect those are high clouds, therefore cooling. From those factors the UV would tend to be more cooling than warming.

The flip side is that UV induced clouds will be diffuse and uniform and diffuse clouds are more cooling than concentrated ones. Also they may tend to reduce concentrated convection which is cooling (because it allows more IR to escape between clouds). From that standpoint, UV would be warming, not cooling.

So what's the bottom line? Beats me, but a decent model should be able to figure it out.

[palmer]

This is clearly a swipe at me by calling this study a “factoid,” referring to the Russian (the Soviet Union is no more) scientist as a curmudgeon, and implying that people who use these studies to reinforce or change their beliefs are rather … well, lets just call it “gullible.” If this were the only piece of evidence we may dismiss it with the “factoid” slur, but you may note that Beowulf at post 45 references other non-terrestrial warming studies.

Part of the problem is each of these studies is presented in isolation as "the answer" by implication. The real answer is that solar matters and greenhouse gases matter too. Anyone who excludes GH warming from the core position will only have one leg to balance on. The man-made GH warming is only a minor issue to me (see core position below). I believe a lot of CO2 is natural (see my website) although there is also a fossil fuel signature for some CO2.

My core position is that preparing for any possible outcome is best done through continued technological and economic advancement. When the time comes that a model is accurate enough to predict warming and consequences accurately, then I would consider if there should be anti-warming policy. I believe there should not be anti-carbon policy based on what I know about the carbon cycle and the CO2 role in climate. I do want further research about CO2 and climate, but only as part of an accurate climate model taking into account all factors so that the model can be used (if needed) to mitigate warming.

[AFPhys]

A couple weeks ago, the whole problem with that "too weak" grew more a huge problem, in this exciting article: GLOBAL 'SUNSCREEN' HAS LIKELY THINNED, REPORT NASA SCIENTISTS

IF it is finally conceded by the global warming alarmists that aerosols have been blocking the sun in recent decades, and that masking of solar power is now not as important, that leaves a VERY HIGH correlation with the Sun (imagine that) as the major contributor to warming, with "greenhouse gasses" as minor factors. I strongly believe this to be the case, and believe that CO2, etc, contributes less than 20% of the 20th century warming. The sun vs. temp graphs had almost matched up before that, except for the last few decades, and it had been proposed that aerosols were the reason. Now, that is shown true. See, from this site http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.html this graph:

Your article is out of date.

Now, the concept that the 0.2% increase in the solar irradiance having CAUSED the 0.2% of temperature increase on the earth over the last 150 years is gaining more and more recognition.

[AFPhys]

The same data over a longer trend looks like this:

OOPS! Gee, I am not sure Central Park looks much warmer.

---<>---<>---<>---<>---

Neat! I never saw that expanded graphic! LOL...