Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report

Heartland Institute ^ | November 1, 2005 | James M. Taylor

[mhking]

Blaming global warming on global warming?

No, blaming Martian warming on global warming.... [rolling eyes]

[cogitator]

Yet none of that can explain planetary warming being observed throughout the solar system.

I can (and have previously, recently on FR) provided links that explain the "warming" (frequently a misconstrued term) on all of the other Solar System planets and moons with which the term has been associated.

Take out the "America-hating" spiel. Let's concentrate on the science.

What about Occam's Razor? The obvious explanation for warming on multiple planets at the same time is THE SUN.

You are misusing Occam's blade. It's not the simplest explanation; it's the simplest explanation that fits all the facts. And the fact is, there has not been a significant measured increase in solar activity that could cause the various phenomena observed. In several cases, "warming" hasn't even observed, just warmer-than-expected areas (like Saturn's south pole).

After all, why is it that other factors on Mars are not COOLING Mars just when the Earth is apparently heating up?

Because Mars is not Earth?

[marvlus]

Because a Martian year is approximately twice as long as an Earth year....

Hmmm, this could create all kinds of opportunities!!

[cogitator]

The thread in which I addressed all of the other "warming" instances reported in the Solar System is here:

£3.68 trillion: The price of failing to act on climate change (the wonders of Google allowed me to find this quickly!)

See post 50. There is some response and rebuttal, leading to post 70.

Bottom line: Much as you might like Occam's Razor, there has to be data indicating a significant increase in solar activity. There isn't any data to that effect.

[Moseley]

Au contraire. Many researchers HAVE measured an increase in solar output. You missed the article in London's TELEGRAPH, I see. And other articles.

Moreover, solar energy occurs across the entire electromagneic spectrum, microwave, X-Ray, ultraviolet, infrared, radio, etc. If we observe multiple solar bodies all warming up simultaneoulsy and if (NOT TRUE) we don't (think) we see an increase in solar radiance the obvious concern is that the sun's sunspot-related energy increase is not in the spectral bands that we are measuring.

Furthermore, we haven't LOOKED at other solar bodies. The political correctness is so thick that nobody is seriously looking for this. What we are discussing here is only what we have seen by ACCIDENT.

Finally, the "explanations" you offer are rickety, absurd, nonsensical monstrosities like rube-goldberg contraptions (referring to a type of ridiculously over-complex contraptions popularized under the name Rube Goldberg as intentional attempts at entertainment, now seen in cartoons, and NOT an ethnic comment).

Just as the Global Warming Hysteria Hypothesis propenents engage in extremely contorted and absurd explanations with regard to the Earth, if you have to resort to absurdly-overly-complicated rube-goldberg contraptions and wild coincidences to hang on to your discredited GW theory, perhaps your theory is just plain WRONG. Your attempt to patch together a "save" with chewing gum and string is not impressive.

Let's cut to the chase: Why would anyone believe incredibly-strained and preposterous attempts to explain away the obvious truth: The sun is at a peak of energy output in its very complex sunspot cycle.

[Rodney Kings Brain]

Not just Mars, also Jupiter and Pluto. The sun is also putting out more heat. Obviously that little bastard E.T. has traded in his magic flying bike for a Hummer.

[Moseley]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
Last Updated: 11:15pm BST 17/07/2004



Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

advertisement
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

It's Bush's fault!

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

I say we dispatch Al Gore to Mars pronto with a copy of the Kyoto Protocol for the Martians to sign.

Beer meets keyboard... ;^)

[Moseley]

There's a dimmer switch inside the sun that causes its brightness to rise and fall on timescales of around 100,000 years - exactly the same period as between ice ages on Earth. So says a physicist who has created a computer model of our star's core.

Robert Ehrlich of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, modelled the effect of temperature fluctuations in the sun's interior. According to the standard view, the temperature of the sun's core is held constant by the opposing pressures of gravity and nuclear fusion. However, Ehrlich believed that slight variations should be possible.

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19325884.500-suns-fickle-heart-may-leave-us-cold.html

[cogitator]

Many researchers HAVE measured an increase in solar output.

Not a significant one. And an increase in solar output that has a warming effect is going to be most important in the shortwave IR. Do some physics.

Finally, the "explanations" you offer are rickety, absurd, nonsensical monstrosities like rube-goldberg contraptions

Well, that's just plain ridiculous. I posted links and comments from planetary scientists, not "my" explanations and not explanations from scientists studying Earth's climate. The planetary scientists have no vested interest in climate change theory.

Let's cut to the chase: Why would anyone believe incredibly-strained and preposterous attempts to explain away the obvious truth: The sun is at a peak of energy output in its very complex sunspot cycle.

Actually, the Sun is near the terminating minimum of the 11-year sunspot cycle (Cycle 23, by name):

Solar Cycle Progression

'

[cogitator]

I read the whole article. He's apparently got a long way to go to make it more likely to be true than Milankovitch forcing.

[aruanan]

No. The processes occurring on each planet (well, I'll still call Pluto a planet) are entirely different. See post 40 for info on Mars.

Well, some say that the sun has been steady, but recent studies have shown that a very small increase in solar activity can have a large effect on atmospheric temperature via increased cosmic rays, not "hotter sun means hotter planet."

[aruanan]

Bottom line: Much as you might like Occam's Razor, there has to be data indicating a significant increase in solar activity. There isn't any data to that effect.

Significant depends upon the means leading to the effect. One may have an insignificant increase in total solar radiation that is not significant enough to raise temperatures. However, accompanying this insignificant increase could be a change in the sun's magnetic field that results in an increase in cosmic radiation which affects cloud formation which, in turns, affects global temperatures.

[spikeytx86]

Well it is obvious. The martians are republicans and they are destroying there planet just like our warmongers. There is only one option... send our democrats to save them from them selves. I say we send our congressional democratic Representatives and there supporters to mars indefinitely to stop the insanity. Gods speed you noble heroes!

[Beowulf]