Ocean heat content: best evidence of global warming and confirmation of global climate models.

a reply to: Phage

First this one:
www.washingtontimes.com...

This is the article that Washington is basing it on. Unfortunately its behind a paywall:
science.sciencemag.org...

Apparently they used the NASA Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter to meassure the polar ice caps.

a reply to: thesungod

See above.

a reply to: flice

Apparently they used the NASA Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter to meassure the polar ice caps.

So, no global temperatures and a very limited time scale?

Do you think that the warming trend on Earth is related to the widely variable obliquity of Mars' axis?

a reply to: Phage

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree as we are reading the data completely differently then.

a reply to: thesungod

I don't think you're actually seeing what is written in the article.

The red planet, which moved closer to the Earth on Monday than at any other time since 2005, has retreated from a glacial period that would have covered large areas in white before the thaw about 370,000 years ago, according to a study published Friday in the journal Science.

Earth has been through a lot of glacial and interglacial periods in that period of time.

The consensus view is that the warming trend on the planets is coincidental and that climate change on Earth can be attributed primarily to increased greenhouse-gas emissions in the atmosphere.

m.washingtontimes.com...

a reply to: Phage

And I don't think you are.

“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,” he told LiveScience in 2007.

In 2014, Kentucky state Sen. Brandon Smith pointed to evidence of warming on Mars as evidence that global warming is being driven by factors other than carbon dioxide emissions, prompting ClimateProgress to declare that “there is absolutely no scientific evidence that one sole instance of melting [on Mars] is the result of a planet-wide trend.”

From same article.

originally posted by: flice
a reply to: Phage

First this one:
www.washingtontimes.com...

This is the article that Washington is basing it on. Unfortunately its behind a paywall:
science.sciencemag.org...

Apparently they used the NASA Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter to meassure the polar ice caps.

What does this have to do with earth mars goes through cycles because it's tilt to the sun and it's orbit. It's stmosphere is to thin to trap heat what causes ice on Mars is simply sunlight hitting the ground. If you think there is a reason other than its orbit or tilt that only leaves one option. And that would mean thr suns intensity has changed but we have been monitoring that since 70's and guess what it isnt. Our sun is amazingly stable and good thing to if it wasn't we wouldn't be here.

So mars warming has nothing to do with earth shocker they are two difrent planets with different environments. Camparing the two is like comparing a cup of coffee to a roast beef sandwich.

a reply to: thesungod
I read it. You think the opinion of a state senator matters in matters of science? You think he was aware of Mars' unstable obliquity? Did he provide any of those "other factors?"

Hmm. Kentucky. Coal. Hmmm.

a reply to: Phage

How about that ClimateProgogress has 100 million dog in the fight.

I'mgoing to sleep, but just to show you I am objective and have looked at both sides I will leave you with this and with this. JPL had to add quirks to one, while the other adds queatiionabke methods of measure to the other.

Again I need empirical info.

Agree to disagree on my end.

a reply to: thesungod

Again I need empirical info.

So, now you're back to questioning whether warming is occurring?
There is plenty of empirical data. Posting two articles about two entirely different aspects as if they contradict each other does not indicate a quest for data. More of a lack of understanding, if not simple confirmation bias.

There is a solution for the former. Not so much the latter.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
How many thousands of years of ocean temperature data do we have to go by?

Take your pick

So all of those are ocean water temperature data?

NOPE!

originally posted by: thesungod
a reply to: Phage

This was 90s not the 2000s.

Sorry, but until someone pulls some actual empirical data without being funded by a global warming group I can't believe it. All old data says cooling, since we've begun collecting data about the climate, about 100 yeas ago also, we have a warming trend. I trust the data from 1000+ years of semi accurate data, over 100 years of more accurate data.

That said we are having an effect on our world. We need to chnage things.

Thing is we have accurate old data and not just from history books. The last 100 years of data gathering has helped us where to look, gas samples from ice and tree rings comes to mind. Though old trees are becoming rare in the northern hemisphere they can be used with ice samples to understand gas levels and say the effect of a volcano eruption.

Point being, those 1000's of years of "semi-accurate" data only enhances our understanding of the effect of the composition of our atmosphere. The data compiled by scientists is becoming more and more accurate and the evidence shows that the last 250-300 years of industrial growth is effecting the atmosphere.

We were destroying the ozone layer with our actions. We all stopped using products contributing to it's demise... I guess it's just coincidence the ozone layer is now showing signs of recovery.