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

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by signoregregorio
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

What information ?

The OP.

I'm a student of a science, eventually I'll join the ranks of . And one thing you learn first-off is that you don't take one guys hypothesis (even if he is a scientist) as a theory until other scientists can uncover the same results in controlled observations. None of this happened. This is one guy in a laundry list of guys who have tried and failed to debunk the fact that green house gases trap CO2 and likewise CO2 is created by the influx of birth and carbon emitting machines. Carbon-dioxide is needed and it does cause warming trends naturally (based on the amount of life respiring on the planet at any given time) . Human interaction has accelerated this process. Everyone I've ever known who takes the side of global-warming being a myth is uneducated on the matter and is easily swept up by the hype of contraversy. It is my hypothesis that the tactics used by those who so fervently decree global warming as a myth do so in the matter they have been and continue to do so in an effort to persuade people who want to believe something counter to contemporary knowledge. But when it comes to scientific consensus, there is no other alternative to the truth in this world outside of blind-faith. And blind-faith is meaningless, so believe the tripe all you like but until it can be brought to a consensus it's pure conjecture.

Originally posted by mc_squared
Roy Spencer is a legitimate PhD who is one of the most well known global warming skeptics out there. He has the academic credentials and the experience to back himself up, so I guess that makes him a qualified scientist. But does that mean his opinion automatically outranks all the other qualified scientists who disagree with him?

For a while Spencer had a data set which seemed to indicate less (not zero) warming than most of the other data sets and theory.

It turns out that there were a number of detailed physical issues relating to the data set (things that professional research scientists do like going deep into the details of the instruments that took the measurements) that was not properly analyzed---others did a re-analysis & new correction. When they did, it matched the consensus picture.

But his opposition now appears to be ideologically motivated, not scientific. Normally, a scientist works very hard at self-correcting any errors, and accepting improvements in technique from other groups and reporting results fairly. But Spencer didn't do this it seems.

www.skepticalscience.com...

You will hear the same names over and over and over again from the denialist/obstructionist factions, because they are really so few: Lindzen, Spencer & Christy (and Christy accepts the correction). (In his scientific articles (as opposed to the egregiously deceptive Wall Street Journal op-ed) Lindzen tries to make real scientific points. He essentially has been proposing mechanisms by which climate sensitivity would be less than the consensus value. When they've been tested, they've turned out to be wrong. But he can still get published (if he writes something reasonable) in science journals, not censored, contrary to propaganda)


On the other hand, there are hundreds to thousands of other scientists who have worked for years and decades without public acclaim, doing the hard work. Among professionals the notion of human-induced global warming was sufficiently well established by the early 1990's. Since then all the improved data coming in have supported the mainstream picture and made any other explanation ever more remote.


[edit on 9-8-2010 by mbkennel]

[edit on 9-8-2010 by mbkennel]

This really ignores the point: while Greenhouse Gas emissions may not help, they are not the culprit.

It's not that greenhouse gases may not help, they can't help drive up the planetary temperature. The greenhouse effect promulgated by the AGW fraternity violates the second law of thermodynamics; a cold atmosphere cannot heat up a warmer planet. For the AGW theory to be true, they'd need to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics first. It's obvious schools nowadays don't teach children the critical life skills of logic and deduction. Just take a look at the people on this forum. The media just repeatedly beats into their patsy heads that every scientist agrees with AGW and the ones that are left are on the fringes and paid by oil companies and they lap it up like spittle-flecked idiots. "Oh… oh, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the only way for us to be saved is if we allow even greater circumscription on our individual freedoms, ride our bikes, and invest in some energy-efficient, overly-expensive light bulbs, and that should save the planet from total destruction."

reply to post by signoregregorio


That CO2 gas traps heat is not a debate. That the statistics used to determine any trend are manipulated (by doing things like hanging thermometers above bbq pits) seems to be a part of the issue here. Then there is the whole Climategate scenario.

To be honest, the "scientists" do not look very reputable to me.

And that is where i have my "skepticism" in this. Since the scientists have been caught lying, and we are seeing similar trends not only in the Earths history, but on other planets as well, it seems to me that the best approach is: don't buy into a theory that brings a new tax, but instead demand that our government subsidize research into alternative fuels and stop subsidizing and kid gloving big oil.

Just as I thought. Embrace the changes.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan



Let me give one example of an idea that has not been developed: nanogenerators embedded on a carbon nano substrate, where the generators are able to generate the current, and store it in the carbon nanotube.

And entire building made of this, generating electricity from ambient energy waves, is far superior to putting up on those stupid windmills that sit still on the hottest days (as there is no wind when it is hottest).

reply to post by Nathan-D


Nathan what the hell are you talking about? The second law means simply that any energy transferred is lost and can never be restored. A ball pushed only gets a fraction of the energy used to push it. It's implications on heat have no play here, in fact the scenario you talked about is illogical. In the matter of green house gases and their nature, they capture CO2 and keep it in the atmosphere longer. In thermodynamics it's not possible for heat to low from a cooler body to a warmer body without some kind of convention. That is where the green house gases come in to play. And CO2 does warm the planet. This has nothing to do with a cool climate affecting a warm planet. What are you even talking about?

reply to post by Nathan-D

I think you may not understand the effect of greenhouse gases. The surface of the Earth is exposed to a certain level of infrared radiation from the Sun. Some of that radiation heats the surface, a small amount heats the air as it travels through it. At night, when the sunlight is no longer heating anything, the warm surface of the Earth radiates heat (in the form of longwave infrared) into space. There is a balance between what is absorbed during the day and what is radiated at night.

Greenhouse gasses (CO2, H20, etc.) absorb that longwave radiation. They heat up and do not allow it to escape into space. If the balance changes, if the percentage of greenhouse gasses increases, the atmosphere does heat up. It has nothing to do with the second law, that refers to an isolated system. The Earth is not an isolated system, there is a great deal of energy input from the Sun.

reply to post by Phage


Right, that's right. I was confused I was thinking the CO2 got trapped by the green house gases but co2 is a green house gas, and they trap sunlight. Now I know where the weakness in my argument was, thanks for clearing that up. I feel a bit humbled that I made that error.

reply to post by signoregregorio

In theory, increasing temperatures would force CO2 dissolved in water out of solution, increasing atmospheric levels. Resulting in a feedback situation. I'm not sure about how that one would really work though.

[edit on 8/9/2010 by Phage]

Yea, because we know this because of all the weather stations we have scattered throughout the solar system.

BTW, if the Sun warmed up enough to warm up Pluto..

the earth would be jerky.

Think about it....

reply to post by digby888


Humm, this is very old news and one that I started several years ago, back in 2006 to be exact.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am sure that you saw my thread since even today doing a google search of any combination of "solar system and global warming" the second link that appears is to my thread, so I have to wonder how you found that article from 2007 without seen the one I started so many years ago in this same forum.

www.google.com...:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

When I write ANY thread if someone else has posted any information before me but if I need to repost something "that other person" posted before me I always give proper credentials.

In other words you should give credit where credit is due.


[edit on 9-8-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by C0bzz


C0bzz, you are very wrong, but since the op decided to post this without giving proper credentials, I will let him try to respond to the lack of facts you seem to have regarding this topic.

Nathan what the hell are you talking about? The second law means simply that any energy transferred is lost and can never be restored. A ball pushed only gets a fraction of the energy used to push it. It's implications on heat have no play here, in fact the scenario you talked about is illogical. In the matter of green house gases and their nature, they capture CO2 and keep it in the atmosphere longer. In thermodynamics it's not possible for heat to low from a cooler body to a warmer body without some kind of convention. That is where the green house gases come in to play. This has nothing to do with a cool climate affecting a warm planet. What are you even talking about?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics essentially states, in its most basic non-mathematical form, that heat flows from warm to cold, never the reverse. It is impossible to make heat flow from a cold object to a hot one. The Sun's heat for instance travels to the cooler Earth which ineluctably travels to a cooler space. A cooler atmosphere cannot heat a warmer planet.

Just to put it into perspective, the equivalent heat energy of the entire atmosphere is stored in just the top few meters of the oceans. The oceans absorb one thousand times more heat than the atmosphere and yet we're meant to believe the atmosphere is heating the oceans. I'm certainly no cognoscenti on this subject, but I know enough to know that isn't possible.

Also, CO2 is around one particle of 2500 spread evenly throughout the atmosphere. Unless the laws of physics have been temporarily suspended, you would have to heat that one particle of CO2 up to thousands, possibly millions of degrees, to generate enough energy transfer to measurably heat up the other 2499 particles around it.

Not only does the AGW theory violate thermodynamics, it also violates "cause and effect", because as everyone who has done the most rudimentary research into AGW knows, CO2 follows temperature as it declines and as it rises. I'm sure the AGW theory breaks a whole host of other laws, but I can't think of them right now.

And CO2 does warm

Sure, CO2 probably has a slight warming effect, and when I say 'slight', any positive number above 0.0000001 would qualify.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

FIRST OF ALL, you posted two articles from 2007 that BOTH state that the majority of scientists believe the sun is NOT to blame for global warming.

What's commonly left out of denialist arguments along this vein is that

OTHER PLANETS/MOONS ARE ALSO COOLING RIGHT NOW!

And they can all be explained, warming or cooling, by their own seasonal/natural cycles and NOT the sun. According to NASA, the sun AT MOST, MIGHT be causing UP TO one fourth of the warming. However, we are in an age of DECREASED solar irradiance for the past few decades, but still RECORD warming.

Please watch these NOW:

What is completely worrisome is the fact that there is no conclusive evidence to support the cause. Only theories.

Be it solar, geological, man-made or a combination there are some very concerning events currently happening and a longer term trend that clearly shows we are indeed headed toward catastrophic times.

Fires in Russia are claiming an estimated 700+ lives per day, extreme temps in regions of Russia where in normal summer conditions no air conditioning is required, and it is extremely hot and dry now, and much of it is burning. Millions of fish are dying near Bolivia for some unknown reason, massive ice shelf broke free from Greenland.... I could go on and on...

Regardless of the debatable causes, the facts don't lie. The planet is warming up at an alarming rate. Too much so for there to be a simple solitary explanation.

We may be looking at the wrong things for the wrong reasons and perhaps miss potential life saving solutions.

If you can't really trust the science, then what can you do?

I hope we don't find ourselves dying by the thousands daily soon everywhere while those still living are still debating the possible causes.

Methane is said to be one of the worst potential greenhouse gasses, is it possible that recent events could have accelerated the warming and perhaps contributed to recent extreme climate anomalies?

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
What is completely worrisome is the fact that there is no conclusive evidence to support the cause. Only theories.

You confuse scientific theory with a laypersons hypothesis - a laymen hypothesis is a theory without evidence, argument or ground - a scientific theory has both. The theory of gravity for example is a scientific theory - where as your theory of why you people are clueless regarding such simple issues is a laypersons theory - they are not the same thing.

AS for the rest of your argument - yes Methane is exacerbating global warming - and yes people are already dying.

The chances of global human extinction in the next 50 years are about 50/50 due to global warming - while many amongst us are still incapable of getting their heads around simple science, and the concept of corporate propaganda - unbelievable.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Aristophrenia]

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
What is completely worrisome is the fact that there is no conclusive evidence to support the cause. Only theories.

Aristophrenia is correct... there is a MASSIVE difference between a SCIENTIFIC theory and the average person's use of the word. In science, a THEORY is actually as close to 100% proof as you can get. Scientific theories INCLUDE laws and other evidence to support a more complex explanation for the way our world/universe works, and are therefore more comprehensive than laws.

Regardless of the debatable causes, the facts don't lie. The planet is warming up at an alarming rate. Too much so for there to be a simple solitary explanation.

You're correct, the facts do not lie about the planet warming up at an alarming/rapid rate. However, your logic that it's warming too rapidly for there to be a simple solitary explanation is false...

The explanation is, in its entirety, relatively complex with MANY factors and sciences coming together for an explanation. However, I'm sure what you mean was that there cannot simply be one CAUSE... and while that is actually true... by far the single GREATEST and most catalytic factor in global warming is human emissions of GHGs. The scientists who study this and all the vast amounts of actual data for a LIVING do not dispute this. They know better than ANY of us the reality and the vast majority of their opinions and works point to anthropogenic causes. Of course there are natural positive feedback effects that come into play, even the sun MIGHT be causing UP TO one fourth of the warming. However, with each new piece of data/evidence, it becomes more and more apparent that we play a huge and increasingly greater role in global warming and that the consequences are becoming more dire than even recent predictions.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


nop i never saw your thread because if i had i would not of started this one

this is just something i have been thinking about for i while and new about the storys on the sites i posted and i was a bitgrumpy so i just posted it i think there was another thread on human global warming at the time or it was on the bbc wich gt my gander up a bit so i wrote the post. i look forward to read your post
when i get time

Originally posted by malcr

Oh no please don't don't ask the deniers to listen to facts collected , correlated, cross referenced by thousands of scientists who are all part of a global conspiracy!

The problem is that the "warmist" camp has a severe selective hearing problem. The so called "deniers" - actually a term as ridiculous as "warmist" - do not "deny" climate change (let's not call it global warming please - that was dropped some time ago in case it starts to cool)

The opposite camp is NOT about denying climate change it is about denying that mankind IS THE SOLE CAUSE.

When the "warmist" camp actually bother to LOOK at what the so called "deniers" (actually called "climate realists") are saying they just might see that we all agree there is climate change and we all agree that it is a problem.

What we do not agree on is that Government and big business should profit from scaremongering whilst doing nothing to address any problems.