Skip to comments.Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming
Posted on 03/02/2007 6:22:22 AM PST by WBL 1952
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a naturaland not a human- inducedcause.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalgeographic.com ...
I think the episode is brilliant.
"Ya, right, the guy who single handidly killed Manbearpig is a loser."
It is an excellent episode. I'm also partial to the episode from Season 1 when the boys from South Park get Robert Smith of the Cure to save South Park from Barbara Streisand.
I miss Big Gay Al.
That was a very funny character.
I'm Super Fantastic! Thank you soooooo much for asking.
Sit Sparky! Good boy. Roll over Sparky. Good. Now, don't be gay Sparky.
Thanks for the links!!!
The links don't work for me.
You're welcome. I use them all the time to shut the yaps of those "We humans are killing the planet" types.
One warmer's response:
I got this from a mainstream site, Gristmill - "How to Talk to a Skeptic"
Their graph shows variations above and below a trend line of increasing temperatures, and includes the 1998 spike. The trend line still goes up.
The short term high spikes in temperature of the following graph are do to El Nino, the red line is the combined ocean & land temperature index, the black is land meteorlogical stations only.
Do you see the BOTTOM of the recent "red" lines - the lines that are high-lighted as IF they were filled in from 0 to the current temp increase of .3 degrees? On the REAL chart from NASA for troposphere temperatures (which is what this character has warped for his purposes) the red lines are the max-min points for each year. They are NOT filled in like he has done. They do NOT show a continuous rise since 1980.
They do NOT show a "0" point at 1980 - a LOW point in NASA's graph!
This graph from the warmer socialist is a LIE. Temperatures since the 1998 peak have been up and down, but have NOT increased since that period: they are steady, but cycling up AND DOWN around the same point they were 8 years ago.
Gore may get doctorate (Univ.Of Minnesota, and Liberalism, CRAZY GORE ALERT )
To the guy who invented the internet.
Yeah, it's kind of hard selling *global warming* when people are digging out from a blizzard in -20 degree weather.
Gristmill ("How to talk to skeptic") got the graph shown from the Climate Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia:
I haven't clicked on all their links, so I don't know where they got their data, and so can't agree or disagree on their having falsified the NASA data.
They do NOT show a "0" point at 1980 - a LOW point in NASA's graph!
What NASA graph?
I think CRU set the "0" point at 1939, not 1980:
It's not so much that "falsified" NASA data, more that they (deliberately) are presenting it from "zero" points and in a graph format that shows the wrong conclusion. So you see large red lines, but not the declines and drops.
You "see" a huge increase, but the actual increase is LESS THAN 1/2 of one degree. Make sense?
Bingo! Ali Gorat would agree.
Sun causes global warming. Who'd have thunk?
I see short and tall red lines and blue lines, and thick and thin red and blue lines:
Declines and drops - do you mean the black trend line doesn't decline and dip where it should?
That is too rich. I think Algore has lost the last brain cells he has with his global warming theory.
How this graph looks for the previous ten centuries?
George W. Bush owns the Hummer franchise on Mars.
I'm suprised to even see this coming from National Geographic considering they're on the front line of the "man is destroying the earth" argument. I've subscribed for years, but every issue now is battle between the articles that require a barf alert due to lefty politics of any kind and the truly informative politically neutral articles. The letters section keeps me going. For every moonbat that writes, there's usually a sanity check from someone else.
Here's how the old and new yearly average anomalies compare:
Jan-Dec global average anomalies reported in 2002 followed by average anomalies currently reported for same years.
1990 49 38
1991 44 35
1992 16 13
1993 19 14
1994 31 24
1995 45 38
1996 34 30
1997 38 40
1998 69 57
1999 41 33
2000 39 33
2001 52 48
All of a sudden 1998 is not the warmest year on record in the NASA data. Though I didn't show it above, 2005 is the warmest year in the current data set with an anomaly value of 63. Somebody has been adjusting the data to give different average values.
The NASA data table says that the data since 1981 have had outliers eliminated and the data made "homogeneous."
Thanks. I will have to learn some terms and concepts, including outliers and the reasons for adjustment.
There can be justifiable reasons for discarding or adjusting data. I just don't know how reasonable throwing out points at one extreme or the other (i.e., outliers) or massaging the data (i.e., making them more "homogeneous") was in this case.
Given the potential political and economic impact of global temperature data, I'd want to check into the justification for the changes before I gave the adjusted data a lot of credence.
The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT) Q. What exactly do we mean by SAT ? A. I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10 ft or 50 ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest), the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50 ft of air either above ground or above the top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted. Even if the 50 ft standard were adopted, I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50 ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location.
Too bad we don't have a simple satellite measurement of heat emitted by the Earth.
I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I come up with 3 halves!
But then again, Algore is getting bigger....
Of interest? Over my head...
I had archieved the data back in 2002 to try some Fourier analysis on it. I handn't noticed the difference in the old and new data until now. It seems from the discussion at the link above that it is quite a matter of concern. Many thanks for the link.