Seems unlikely when we know how much carbon dioxide is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels and that this amount is more than enough to account for its increases in concentration.

I'm new to this forum, and this thread, so please excuse me if this has already been addressed/discussed/answered.

I recently read something by someone (I'm assuming he has little science background), but I wanted to learn more about his statement. Here it is:

"It is just the fact that Mars is going though the same climate shifts that we are. So it has nothing to do with "green house gases" it is a solar shift. Plus like good science teaches us, if our assumptions are wrong then our results and conclusions are wrong. We are on the assumption that CO2 is a green house gas and is doing what a green house gas does, it hasn't been proven yet."

Does anyone know anything about an increase in temperature on Mars & what they may or may not have to do with the earth? Also, I was pretty confident that science had proven that CO2 WAS a molecule that caused heat to be trapped in the atmosphere. Is there any possibility that this has not been conslusively researched? (Since I was on the topic, I just thought I'd double check.)

Forgive me if these questions seem simplistic and ignorant. Science is more of an interest and a hobby for me.

Thank you for your help. If you would like to e-mail me with your answers, instead of posting, that would be fine with me.

~Petite Américaine
petiteamericaine@gmail.com

'Proven' may be the wrong word. 'Accepted' may be a better one.
I think it is 'accepted' that CO2 is a green house gas.
Studies have been done, but to use the word 'proof' they would need data over a longer period of time, or some such.

I doubt the person in your quote would be able to state:

'We are on the assumption that CO2 is a green house gas and is doing what a green house gas does, it hasn't been 'accepted' yet.'

This would be a false statement.

__________________
'Sir........, I don't like these numbers.'
'Then hire somebody that can change them!'
("`-/")_.-'"``-.,,
\. . `; -._( );, `)
(v_,)' _ )`-. \ ``'`
_.- _..-/ /((.'
((,.-' ((,/

Of course, there's some more information on this guy's website here

__________________
The quarrelsome oarsmen were rowing,
The great violinist was bowing;
But how is the sage
To tell, from the page:
Was it pigs or seeds that were sowing?

Petite Américaine,

Warm welcome to the forum. You would be hard pressed to find better sources of information about such a wide variety of topics.

Because the atmosphere of Mars is only about 1% that of earth and given that it's entire surface is rock and soil, the dynamics of Martian climate are much different than those of earth.

I believe that the warming on Mars is localized (near the southern pole?). A quick bounce around the internet will get you to some articles that explain this warming as a change in albedo of the Martian surface due to winds exposing darker or lighter materials.

For instance, a Google search of "mars+warming+albedo" netted me this bunch of stuff.

Have fun learning about it and expanding your horizons and welcome again to the forum.

__________________
"The universe is a big place, perhaps the biggest."

-Kilgore Trout

has there already been here a topic about sun shields to reduce global warming ?

Has there already been here a topic about sun shields in order to reduce the global warming ?

At least one. (And, I'd bet more.)

Global warming Prevention

Some others:

Sun shades to make you cool
Solar Shade to Reverse Global Warming

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Is this some kind of joke? Not even anyone's fault. I recall this is a natural cycle in the evolution processes of life on earth. Believe me, global warming is no such thing.

__________________
Matt


Website:
www.freewebs.com/mattweather/

Forums: http://stormshunters.informe.com/

My two cents........... It is the Sun's and Humans fault. Either way we need to stop burning fossil fuels. Peak oil is on it's way (probably within most of our lifetimes) and that is a bigger concern to me.

__________________
"Attack the idea, not the person" Posted by a Moderator.
Useful words around here indeed!!

Fraser has written about global warming and solar activity, too:

The Sun Isn't Responsible for Climate Change

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

I would suggest you Google 'NASA +"David Hathaway" ', you will see that he is NASA's main solar person. His job is to understand the sun, sunspots and the possible effect to earth. Then add "+2022" to the end of your search, and read his prediction. He is looking at sunspot cycles and saying in the early 2020's the sunspot cycle will be the weakest in several hundred years. Then look up the "Maunder Minimum", a period in the mid 1600's with very few sunspots and very cold weather.

Actually, if Dr. Hathaway is correct, you will see the cooling start in 2015 and progress to 2022. It could stay very cold for 50 to 100 years (comparing it to the Maunder Minimum).

If the sun does play a major role in the earth’s temperature we will know it in 15 years.

I'll bet that is what Al Gore and the radical Global Warmers are counting on. Some indication of a cooling trend. That way they can say, "See, what we are tryinng to do is working. Now we need to do more." Taxes, regulations, and the like.

__________________
I'm not a scientist, but I play one on the internet.
http://www.rrac.org

I heard somewhere that NASA has a plan, if Global Warming becomes a huge problem to erect a huge sunshield in space at a Lagrange point between the sun and the earth (L1).

There's another name for such a shield - solar sail. A huge shield like that would be tough to keep in position unless you could somehow balance out the solar force on it by applying a continuous counter thrust such as by a bunch of ion engines.

What kind of change in cloud cover would we need to get, say, a 1C increase in mean surface temperature?

Overpopulation. Wrong.
Running out of food. Wrong.
Running out of resources. Wrong.
Pollution levels not falling. Wrong.
Global Cooling. Wrong.

Does it really take a large leap of the imagination to beleive that the latest "looming disaster" in the form of Catastrophic Global Warming is wrong as well? When all the rest have fizzled?

__________________
Why did the cat fall off the roof?
Because he lost his mu.

I just destroyed the periodic table. I only recognize the element of surprise.

Falling birth rates have fixed the overpopulation problem in developed countries. In developing countries, the situation is far worse. People recognized the threat and acted. Problem partially fixed, only local disasters in places like Ruanda or Darfur.
The solution to the problem, the Green Revolution, was not predicted. Problem fixed, no disaster.
The amount of unused resources and our ability to collect them were underestimated. No problem, no disaster, although we will run out of resources sooner or later unless we learn to recycle more efficiently.
People recognized the problems caused by pollution and acted. Problem still is far from fixed.
Global cooling was media hysteria based on very inaccurate computer models. No problem, no disaster.

Don't you understand that many of those disasters were averted not because there were no problems, but because people recognized them and acted?

As a positive example, I can happily say that acid rains seem to be the thing of past here where I live. The effects of cleaner air is staggeringly obvious if you know where to look. It is a good example of a problem that was recognized: sulfur oxide emissions were curbed.

__________________
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
-- Richard Feynman

This is somewhat ironic, really; at the time that global cooling was a concern, temperatures had been falling for decades. Now we know it was because of aerosol pollution--and aerosols have been greatly reduced since the 70s. This has made the current warming trend even worse.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

I was thinking the same thing.

Maybe sometime in the future, after we've gotten climate change sorted out and we're starting to face the next global problem, the naysayers will add "Global warming: wrong" to that list. Then the circle of irony will be complete.

Look to Venus.

This is a great game! Let's see what other things we can prove using this "logic."

Geocentrism. Wrong.
Comets caused by earthly sin. Wrong.
Seas on the moon. Wrong.
Canals on Mars. Wrong.
Wet and humid Venus. Wrong.

Does it really take a large leap of the imagination to believe that the latest "mainstream belief" in the form of Apollo Astronauts Actually
Walked on the Moon is wrong as well? When all these other ideas were failures?

These are all internal effects well earth surface really, not even internal.

Anyway since we are part of a dwarf galaxy being torn apart by a large milky way galaxy and Einstein gravity fields have a plane like effect why isn't inclusion in a larger galaxy noted?

as for fuel, this from dirty_g:-

Hemp first to reclaim the land, add value to the soil. Then Forest once the hemp coverage is adequate.

Greenies, no problem 'A' they will support hemp
'B' grow the 'good stuff' and they wont know your cutting it
'C' use residue with water to make lye
'D' hemp oil makes bio diesel in 8 hours and doesn't smell of hamburgers
'E' tailgaters in traffic got no choice but to 'mellow out'
'F' population wont notice any one making mistakes

Problem no problems, I wont even have to explain how funny this all is.

Nice example of the Straw Man fallacy:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

__________________
Why did the cat fall off the roof?
Because he lost his mu.

I just destroyed the periodic table. I only recognize the element of surprise.

I reject your hypothosis that the birth rate is falling because people were worried about overpopulation. I would like to see some evidence for that supposition. So Mary and Joe talk late into the night and decide they will only have two kids becuase they are worried about overpopulation. Maby some people think that way, but enough to curtail population growth? No, most people do not think like that.

I agree that we have taken many positive steps towards being better stewards of the planet but you happened to mention one of the main problems with the Global Warming theory: Global Warming is also media hysteria based on very inaccurate computer models. No problem, no disaster. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I am glad you mentioned the underestimation of our resources back then also. I assume you are proposing that now we know better? I submit the same kind of errors are being made once again.

__________________
Why did the cat fall off the roof?
Because he lost his mu.

I just destroyed the periodic table. I only recognize the element of surprise.

I should clarify why this counts as a Sraw Man Fallacy. None of your examples deal with looming crisis. All of my examples dealt with disasters that were supposed to be occurring soon but the assumptions were wrong. You know, the Math. Therefore I submitted that it followed logicaly that the same mistakes were being made again with Catostrophic Global Warming. None of your examples dealt with mistakes in Math. Actually some of your examples dealt with some thoeries we have not had to debate for 400 years.

Of course I was not saying that because Scientists have been wrong before they can never be right again. I thought that was self evident in my post. I guess not.

__________________
Why did the cat fall off the roof?
Because he lost his mu.

I just destroyed the periodic table. I only recognize the element of surprise.

In reply to Roland Brak’s comment:

The sun is hypothesized to affect planetary temperature by modulating the magnitude and intensity of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and modulating the global electric circuit (electroscavenging) both mechanisms affect the amount of global cloud cover and hence change the planetary albedo. (More clouds cooler. Less clouds warmer. The effect is greatest over the oceans as the atmosphere over the ocean is ion poor compared to the continental crust which is slightly radioactive.)

The specific mechanisms are more complicated than number of sun spots vs planetary temperature. There is satellite observation of planetary cloud cover and measurement of earthshine (earthshine reflected off of the moon) that supports the assertion that the affect is real and significant.

A) Correlation:

Paper by Georgieva, Bianchi, & Kirov “Once again about global warming and solar activity”

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760.....76..969G.pdf

From that paper: B) Long term study of the mechanisms and application of analysis to current observations.

Nir Shaviv’s “On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget”

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0409123

This response is interesting to another paper by Shaviv and Veizer's.

Shaviv and Veizer’s detailed response to Rahmstorf et al.

http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/C...torfDebate.pdf




Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links between Solar Activity and Climate
By Brian Tinsley and Fangqun Yu, provides more details concerning the mechanisms.

http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

This is an interesting paper that provides an explanation as to why the Antarctic cooled in the 20th century. "The Antarctic Climate Anomaly and GCR" by Svensmark, (Antarctic ice albedo is higher than Antarctic clouds, hence less clouds colder Antarctic.)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612145


C) The following are papers that discuss the solar changes in the 20th century.

Doubling Sun’s Coronal Magnetic Field in Last 100 years
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../399437a0.html

From Solanki, Usokin, Kromer, Shussler, Beer's, 2004 paper "Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years"

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

The following is a link to Bond’s paper “Persistent Solar influence on the North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene”

http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/sem...0al%202001.pdf


D) This is a link to the Earthshine Data

http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf

Palle’s earthshine analysis found that the 1994 to 2001 reduction in cloud cover warmed the planet by 7.5 W/m2 +/- 2.4 W/m2 which is three times greater than the total estimated greenhouse gas estimated warming for the 20th century.

Comment:
There is some evidence that the period of high solar activity is over and the sun is moving to Maunder like minimum.

Well if we're going to start naming fallacies then someone might as well point out that your original argument was a non sequitur.

No it's not. It was an attempt to demonstrate that what you wrote is a non sequitur. That is, your suggested conclusion does not follow from the information you gave. Here is another example to show how silly the style of arguement you used is:

2+2=5 Wrong.
2+2=3 Wrong
2+2=1 Wrong.
2+2=6 Wrong.
2+2=0 Wrong.

Does it really take a large leap of the imagination to believe that 2+2=4 is wrong as well?

See how silly it seems?

And you say:

It does not follow logically. That is what I am demonstrating.

Regardless of the fact that your arguement does not make logical sense, you are saying that scientists were wrong on overpopulation, running out of food, running out of resources, pollution levels not falling and global cooling which have since been shown to be wrong? Really? Was there some sort of consensus on these issues and this consensus has since been shown to be wrong? No, there wasn't. I think you are actually confusing science with what sometimes gets published in newspapers or shown on TV.

I didn't say so. I said that birth rates fell which fixed the problem in developed countries. That was not expected, but it was the solution to the problem. I did not say people acted consciously.

Baby steps at best. Our imprint is still very strongly negative.

If you compare 70s and 2000s computers, you may find some differences. Also, climatology itself has changed a lot.

Current climate models explain nicely past changes in the climate so they're right predicting past. Those same models expect strong changes in future climate due to anthropogenic CO₂. Either the models are reasonably correct, or the future climate is governed by different laws of nature.

Well, I don't think resources are infinite. Some are plentiful, some are not. Some are not that important, some are vital to our economy. I hope you understand what I mean.

What's your solution? Keep pumping more CO₂ into atmosphere and hope nothing happens? I would call that rather irresponsible. Many past civilizations have made the erroneous assumption that their environment could support their lifestyle. They miscalculated and lost. Some civilizations became aware of their problems, acted and survived. I really much like my luxurious living style (compared to past generations) and I really would like that future generations could enjoy the same.

__________________
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
-- Richard Feynman

Exactly.

__________________
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
-- Richard Feynman