Mars and Earth: Both experiencing global warming?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

paulolearysp

Guest
There's been a lot of talk about the artic ice on earth shrinking. That's been in the news quite a bit the last 20 yeras. Recently I read something about the ice shrinking on Mars. Never heard of that before. In fact I think most people don't even know there's ice on Mars. It's supposed to be the red planet, not the red and white planet? Could all this global warming talk is really solar warming (by the sun) of both the earth and mars? <br /><br />What does everyone think of that?<br /><br />We can't really be changing the climate on Mars with a couple rovers, can we? <br /><br />Could it just be the sun doing all of this? We did have a mini ice age in the middle ages. Perhaps this we're having a water-age?<br /><br />Mars ice shrinking:<br />http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/gallery/20050912-repeatNPWIC.html<br /><br />Earth ice shrinking:<br />http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003200/a003266/index.html<br /><br />http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050928/arctic_sea_ice_050928/20050928?hub=CTVNewsAt11
 
J

jatslo

Guest
Microwaves heat water, the satellites use microwaves to measure X, Y, Z, and T; put the two together, and we have a potential source of global warming on two planets with satellites.
 
J

jatslo

Guest
The only thing for certain is that the planets are warming and there are multitudes of opinions floating around. crazyeddie mentioned some of the most popular theories, but failed to ask what you think, so what do you think about your question?<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><font color="black">However, the global warming everyone talks about is not caused by the sun growing hotter, it is caused by the increase in the amount of greenhouse gases, which is created by human activity. Or, it could also be caused by a natural cycle of warming and cooling. Ocean currents, the position of the continents, and many other factors can affect the temperature of the planet. </font><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>
 
N

nexium

Guest
Lets try some arithmetic on that 30% in 4.6 billion years. 10% higher color temperature in the first Million years from nebula to max temperature as a proto star. 50% cooler at moment Sol became main seqence "beginning of it's life"?. 3% warmer at age two billion years; 9% warmer at age 3 billion years; 27% warmer at age 4 billion years; 81% warmer at 5 billion years. Yes oceans will boil in 1/2 billion years, if the sun has been getting expedentually warmer for 4.6 billion years. If linear warming, 1/2 billion years may be bad news close to the equator, but survival close to the poles will be easy. It is my understanding that there is little historical evidence that Sol got significantly warmer, the past 3.2 billion years, so why do we think it will warm even 5% the next 1/2 billion years?<br />If Earth has moved farther from the Sun to keep surface temperatures close to constant, why do we think Earth will stop moving away from the sun?<br />My numbers are mostly guesses, so try some numbers of your own that might make 30% color temperature increase fit the fosil record. Is any temperature of Sol other than color temperature warming Earth? Neil
 
P

paulolearysp

Guest
I'm tempted to think that there could be a relationship. It's just that there's no mention of it in the mainstream press. <br /><br />It's interesting that the ice on both planet is less visible after just 7 years on Mars and 25 years on earth. There are obvious differences, the ice on earth is largely in water(except for what's visible on Greenland) and the ice on Mars is land based. <br /><br />We know that glaciers used to extend well into the United States eons ago, and I don't think that was because of human events. Of course comets or volcanos could have caused the cooling. Maybe it's just a lack of volcanos or comets that are causing the warming? I think I'm getting off track here.<br /><br />I haven't seen any articles discussing this possible correlation of the polar caps. Perhaps the power of the sun would be an obvious avenue worth exploring? We know that the sun has a huge influence on the temperature here on earth every day, so why not a more subtle influence as well? <br /><br />It seems like we'll gain more information on mars the longer that we have these satelites in orbit over there.<br /><br /><br />In reply to :<br />The only thing for certain is that the planets are warming and there are multitudes of opinions floating around. crazyeddie mentioned some of the most popular theories, but failed to ask what you think, so what do you think about your question?
 
J

jatslo

Guest
I have recently made a connection through research that leads me to believe that microwaves are, in fact, capable of creating trouble. This technology is relatively new, and fits the timeline nicely, but I could be wrong too. They are beginning to talk of microwaves and weather in the phenomena section under weather conspiracy, so if your interested in getting involved, now would be a good time, and of course feel free to express yourself, because it is okay to speculate. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />I have a history of not following mainstream science. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />
 
N

newtonian

Guest
paulolearysp - The first link did not mention martian warming - and I do not see significant shrinking of the martian polar ice in those pictures.<br /><br />Did I miss something?<br /><br />On global warming (earth} see my further responses.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Neil (nexium) - excellent post. <br /><br />Excellent question, which is certainly quoteworthy:<br /><br />"If Earth has moved farther from the Sun to keep surface temperatures close to constant, why do we think Earth will stop moving away from the sun?"<br /><br />Earth will indeed move farther from the sun, in my opinion, as a result of the sun's loss of solar mass due to nuclear fusion - and perhaps other causes due to the Newtonian laws of motion tweaked by Einstein's relativity - e.g. by perhaps tidal interactions between earth and sun [which is why the moon's orbit around earth is not decaying - apparently even ever so slightly receeding].<br /><br />This is why some scientific models have earth far enough from the sun during red giant phase so as to avoid much of the destruction envisioned in the more popular models (at this time). <br /><br />Note that earth has actually cooled - apparently catastrophically the last time - resulting in quick and permanent freezing of many animals in arctic permafrost, e.g. mammoths in Siberia. [albeit current global warming has been thawing and rotting some of these carcasses during the last 100 years especially.]<br /><br />However, earth's cooling over geologic and historic (e.g. Bible history) time was not due to solar cooling.<br /><br />Rather,. there were atmospheric effects, described somewhat in the Bible, which both caused the Noachian flood and also caused a permanent change in global weather, including a dramatic decrease in the greenhouse effect - a decrease we are now reversing.<br /><br />Not to be ignored, btw, were the lingering effects of planetary accretion which formed planet earth and also caused the accretion of earth's water.
 
P

paulolearysp

Guest
Here's the article that talks about retreating on Mars. This has a graphic that shows the retreating. <br /><br />http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/gallery/spying_changes.html<br /><br />While the retreating of the over-water polar caps on earth have been substantial, the over-land ones on mars have been retreating anywhere from 3 to 26 feet per year. I think for a better comparison between the two planets(even though planet comparisons are inherently difficult to make), we'd have to look at how fast the ice is retreating on a land object on earth as compared to Mars. Anyone been to Greenland lately?<br /><br />Newtonian wrote:<br />paulolearysp - The first link did not mention martian warming - and I do not see significant shrinking of the martian polar ice in those pictures. <br /><br />Did I miss something? <br /><br />On global warming (earth} see my further responses. <br /><br />Prove all things, hold fast that which is good - AV
 
N

nexium

Guest
Since I can't do the math, I'm skeptical of those who can. Can we point to red giant stars that were much smaller (or larger?) a thousand years ago? Does the spectra of red giant stars suggest that they are burning helium instead of hydrogen? Did even tiny amounts of helium burn when we exploded large H bombs? How do we know that burning helium is a more energetic reaction?<br />Have we honestly modeled a thousand times less carbon dioxide offsets a 30% increase in solar flux? If Earth has not moved farther from Sol, can we show that it has moved closer by one milimeter per year = one kiliometer per million years = 1000 kilometers per billion years? How much solar flux increase can we offset if carbon dioxide decreases from 0.04 to 0.01%? Surely there are some good mathematicians who question the red giant burns helium theory. Neil
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It's interesting that the ice on both planet is less visible after just 7 years on Mars and 25 years on earth. There are obvious differences, the ice on earth is largely in water(except for what's visible on Greenland) and the ice on Mars is land based.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />You're forgetting -- only one of the polar ice caps is situated over an ocean. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> The other covers the continent of Antarctica.<br /><br />Mars' polar ice caps are different from Earth's in a few other ways too. One of the biggest is that it's not just water that's frozen there; it's also carbon dioxide (dry ice). Mars is a LOT colder than Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
paulolearysp - Thank you.<br /><br />On land ice shrinking on earth - here is one news clip:<br /><br />"Threat From Shrinking Glaciers<br /><br />The world’s largest body of ice outside the polar regions will disappear within 40 years if the current rate of melting continues, reports The Sunday Telegraph of London. A combination of rising global temperatures and the relatively low latitude of the Himalayas threatens the region’s 15,000 glaciers. The Gangotri glacier, which is one of the sources of the Ganges River, has shrunk by almost one third of its length in the past 50 years. Syed Hasnain, a scientist who monitors the glaciers, warns that if the current rate continues, “rivers such as the Ganges, the Indus and the Brahmaputra, which receive about 70 to 80 per cent of their water from snow and glacial melt, will dry up.” The result would be “an ecological disaster,” he warns. Meantime, the risk of serious flooding grows. When glaciers shrink, lakes are formed that are surrounded by fragile walls of ice, boulders, and sand. As melting continues, the walls burst, sending devastating floods to the valleys below." - Awake!, 2/8/00, pp. 28,29<br /><br />It is quite clear that global warming is a fact.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Neil (nexium) - First - on the effects of increased carbon dioxide (=CO2) on climate - note the planet Venus. Venus underwent a runaway greenhouse effect that increased surface temperatures incredibly.<br /><br />Most of earth's early CO2 atmosphere is now locked up in carbonates in earth's crust - put there by the geologic carbon cycle.<br /><br />The latter cycle is still removing CO2 from the atmosphere, by the following route:<br /><br />1. CO2 dissolves in earth's oceans, which is why the oceans are a CO2 sink (reservoir). <br /><br />2. Dissolved CO2 in the oceans becomes the CO3 ion in H2CO3. This CO3 ion then reacts chemically with sodium, calcium and potassium ions which precipitate out as carbonates.<br /><br />3. This results in carbonate deposits, notably calcium carbonate aka limestone.<br /><br />On Solar flux, or variation in solar energy reaching earth, here is a brief quote:<br /><br />"SOLAR CYCLES: Contrary to what many people think, the sun’s output is not absolutely constant. Its brightness diminished about 0.1 percent between 1979 and 1984. This makes the increasing global temperature during that period seem all the more ominous."- "Awake!", 9/8/89, p. 6<br /><br />On main sequence stars becoming red giants, I question popular solar evolution models for a number of reasons:<br /><br />1. The assumption that all main sequence stars are similar - evidence indicates amazing variety in stars. The varying properties would naturally effect their evolution (=change, not Darwinian).<br /><br />2. Zeroing in on one property: stellar magnetic fields. It is now known that stellar magnetic fields vary greatly, which is why a few with extremely strong magnetic fields ultimately become magnetars. Our sun has very strong magnetic fields which heat the solar corona far beyond the solar surface temperature.<br /><br />3. The assumption of zero mixing of gases between stellar core areas and zones of gases closer to the surface. Likely most stars do have nearly zero mixin
 
P

paulolearysp

Guest
Thanks for the article Newtonian. Things are definitely melting here. <br /><br />I just wonder if the sun is emitting more heat (or if that's not the appropriate term, let me know) today than say 7 or 25 years ago. Does anyone know? I'm sure someone keeps track of those things. Perhaps the effects Mars?<br /><br />Mars is at it closest point to the earth for another 13 years. Is Mars's closeness to the sun these days insignificant in terms of AU?<br /><br />I wonder if the caps on Mars will continue to shrink or if they are merely in the middle of some cycle. <br />
 
N

newtonian

Guest
paulolearysp - Your're welcome. <br /><br />I'm not sure where we are currently in the solar cycle - I hope to look that up.<br /><br />Meanwhile, hre are two more relevant articles and some down to earth dangers involved:<br /><br />Concerning the rise in sea level in earth’s global ocean, and its effects on Tuvalu, out literature referencing “New Scientist” magazine noted 25 years ago:<br /><br />“AN UNDERWATER FUTURE?<br /><br />Dire predictions about the global warming trend, known as the greenhouse effect, are particularly foreboding to residents of the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu. As it is, virtually none of Tuvalu rises more than six feet [2 m] above the sea. Yet, scientists predict relentlessly rising sea levels. New Scientist magazine of England quotes one expert as saying: “If internationally accepted assumptions are correct, most of Tuvalu will be inundated by the end of the 21st century.” - “Awake!,” 9/8/89, p. 28<br /><br />This year we published the following update, referencing “Science” and “Smithsonian” magazines, reports:<br /><br />“According to an editorial in the journal “Science,” “sea levels have risen 10 to 20 centimeters [four to eight inches] in the past century, and more is in store for us.” How might this be related to global warming? Researchers point to two possible mechanisms. One is the prospect of the melting of land-based polar ice and glaciers, which would add to the volume of oceans. The other factor is thermal expansion---as oceans become warmer, their volume increases.<br /> The tiny Pacific islands of Tuvalu may already be experiencing the effects of rising sea levels. “Smithsonian” magazine notes that data collected on the atoll of Funafuti shows that the sea level there has risen “ an average of 0.22 inches annually over the past decade.”” - “Awake!,” 7/22/05, p. 6.<br /><br />Note the melting of earth’s land based polar ice and glaciers are part of the cause.<br /><br />Locally, it has been alarming news for years that SE Louisia
 
N

newtonian

Guest
paulolearysp - Note this current thread.<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=freespace&Number=349478&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1#Post349484<br /><br />Note my post noting the conflicting reports, to wit:<br /><br />But a 2003 study by a group headed by Columbia's Richard Willson, principal investigator of the ACRIM experiments, challenged the previous satellite interpretations of solar output. Willson and his colleagues concluded, rather that their analysis revealed a significant upward trend in average solar luminosity during the period. <br /><br />and:<br /><br />Applying their analytical method to the solar output estimates by the Columbia group, Scafetta's and West's paper concludes that "the sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming." <br />
 
E

earthseed

Guest
Well, Newtonian, it turns out the Tuvalu story is a fraud. According to the IPCC, average global sea levels have risen between 10 and 20 centimeters over the last century. However, changing ocean currents and wind patterns can affect regional sea levels by up to 50 cm, overwhelming the background rise. If you look at the attached map of sea level changes (from this paper), you will see falling sea levels for the past 50 years in parts of the Pacific Ocean. Tuvalu happens to be in the middle of one of those blue spots. Sea level is falling there, as admitted by its prime minister.<br /><br />The island is not doing too well, so they tried to use the global warming issue to get their people declared as "environmental refugees". Nice scam.<br /><br />If you really want to "Prove all things", then maybe you should not believe what you read in publications that report unsubstantiated stories without checking their facts.<br /><br /><br /><br />
 
N

newtonian

Guest
earthseed - We were referencing Smithsonian, which, while not infallible, is a reputable scientific journal.<br /><br />I wlll research this further.<br /><br />One of your links did not work, btw.<br /><br />The other link indicated conflicting reports.<br /><br />Who or what is IPCC and do you consider it more reliable than Smithsonian, and, if so, why?
 
N

newtonian

Guest
earthseed - Well, spaceseed, it turns out the charge of fraud are a fraud.<br /><br />Just kidding.<br /><br />Seriously, Awake! considers accuracy of statement paramount, and while not infallible, I have yet to find an error in reporting.<br /><br />Checking AOL search I found both the controversy to which you refer, and the actual article from Smithsonian which Awake! was referencing.<br /><br />That article is excellent.<br /><br />Here is a link to it:<br /><br />http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues04/aug04/pdf/tuvalu.pdf<br /><br />Concerning your assertion that our citing of evidence of 0.22 inches per year was inaccurate reporting, note the Smithsonian report after considering both sides of the controversy: <br /><br />"The controversy began in 2000, when then director of<br />Australia’s National Tidal Centre (NTC), Wolfgang Scherer, announced that after seven years of measurements around the Pacific “there is no acceleration in sea level rise—none that we can discern at all.” Tuvalu, in particular, got a pie in the face: the NTC announced that sea level at Funafuti had<br />actually fallen by 3.42 inches since 1993. “Falling Sea Level Upsets Theory of Global Warming” read a headline from the London Telegraph at the time.<br /><br />The announcement fed skepticism of Tuvalu’s claims of<br />impending doom. The nation’s leaders had just started asking Australia and New Zealand to accept Tuvaluans as environmental refugees; doubters now saw this lobbying as a ploy to further Tuvaluans’ economic prospects abroad. And “governments like those of Australia and the United States, which had been loud in their resistance to emissions targets, took heart,” recalls geographer Patrick Nunn of the University<br />of the South Pacific in Fiji.<br /><br />But hidden in the NTC’s findings was the reason Tuvalu’s<br />sea level fell. An especially powerful run in 1997 and 1998 of
 
N

newtonian

Guest
earthseed - to answer my own question:<br /><br />"Skeptics point out that only a small percentage of greenhouse gas emissions are man-made. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a research group that is sponsored by both the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, reports: “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”<br /><br />Climatologist Pieter Tans of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says: “If I had to put a figure on it, I would say that it is 60 percent our fault . . . The remaining 40 percent is due to natural causes.” - "Awake!," 8/8/03, pp. 5,6<br /><br />OK, IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change <br /><br />Now, why the hostility and why did you feel our reporting was unsubstantiated? <br /><br />Surely you should check your facts rather than believe biased reports on the internet!<br /><br />It seems to me that IPCC is fairly accurate also, btw.<br /><br />If not, one might ask why Smithsonian referenced the group and why Awake! referenced the group.
 
E

earthseed

Guest
Sorry, Newtonian, the forum is not treating me well tonight. It messed up the link (does not seem to like "%20"), and I have written a reply twice, and it lost it both times. Here is the link to the paper in Science (the "biased report on the internet") again: Sea Level During Past 40 Years.
 
E

earthseed

Guest
You cite Tuvalu as an example of the perils of sea level rise caused by global warming. Yet, as the Smithsonian article confirms, the data is controversial at best. Most of its environmental problems are caused by land degradation, not climate change. The map in the Science paper says sea level has been dropping in Tuvalu for 40 years.<br /><br />Then you follow up with Louisiana. The land there is sinking because of oil extraction and diverting the Mississippi River. They also built a city of half a million people below sea level in a location where strong hurricanes can hit. Again, this is not related to climate change.<br /><br />I agree that global warming is occuring, most of it is human caused, and there may be negative consequences. But when I see what I think is biased or incorrect coverage of this issue in this forum, I try to balance the discussion by pointing out the other side. I do this equally for global warming promoters like you, and to skeptics who deny warming is even taking place at all.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
earthseed - Well I likewise am having trouble with the forum. First I couldn't get your link to come up, then while writing this response I hit the wrong key and instantly lost my post but got your link!<br /><br />In this case, I got the better of the deal!<br /><br />I will study the link before responding concerning it.<br /><br />However, note that Smithsonian concluded sea level is rising at a mean global rate of .22 inches annually.<br /><br />I have noted for many years that the question of sea level rising has been seemingly deliberately ignored. <br /><br />More recently I have noted an incredibly contradictory array of reports claiming to be scientific concerning this question - and you have made this even more obvious.<br /><br />There is something very, very wrong - and I will not rest until I find out what is going on here.<br /><br />Clearly part of the problem is political and economic, as with this example Smithsonian reports:<br /><br />"Yet the White House stirred controversy last<br />year when it deleted sections of the Environmental Protection Agency’s draft report on the state of the environment that referred to human contributions to climate change."<br /><br />Meanwhile, here is another excerpt from Smithsonian showing why the conclusion was sea level is rising in Tuvalu overall (despite variations caused by El Nino, etc.):<br /><br />"Arangy woman of middle years, Vavae cuts an unusual figure in her native Tuvalu: she is an Australian-trained scientist and a Muslim in a traditional and Christian society. Lately, she has also played Cassandra to her laid-back country people. “I think we have a lot to worry about,” she says later in her computer-filled office. “Cyclones and tropical storms have been getting much worse since the 1980s. We had a big drought starting in 1999. Flooding from extreme high tides is increasing also.” Big swells and freak waves are<br />washing over the island more frequently. And then there’s a different kind of flood. “In the late 1990s
 
N

newtonian

Guest
earthseed - This link is from UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization:<br /><br />http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=21205&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html <br /><br />An excerpt:<br /><br />http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=21205&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html<br /><br />“Climate change<br />Disappearing Tuvalu<br />The coral islands of Tuvalu in the Pacific Ocean, like the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, are set to disappear as sea level rises with global warming.” <br /><br />And:<br /><br />Hilia Vavae, Tuvalu’s senior meteorologist, was splashing through the waters that had surrounded her office. “The floods have increased tremendously,” she said. “Last year we were flooding during the high tides of November, December, January, February and March. When I first started work in the Met Office in 1981, you would normally see it in February only.” <br /><br />There are other signs of rising sea levels, too. Pit plantations of pulaka, a root vegetable like taro, have been suffering from saltwater intrusion. In some places three-quarters of the plants have died, leaving people reliant on imported foodstuffs. Meanwhile, Tepuka Savilivili, a small island on the rim of Funafuti atoll, was washed over by waves a few years ago and its vegetation destroyed. Tuvaluans consider it a harbinger of what is to come for the rest of their homeland. <br /><br />Coastal areas at risk <br />Even so, some sceptics accuse the Tuvaluans of being the architects of their own fate, suggesting that overpopulation, groundwater extraction or the mining of offshore sand from the seabed could be to blame for the problems of flooding and erosion, rather than sea-level rise. But the islanders point out th
 
E

earthseed

Guest
I read some of the material you linked to. Again, it is a mixed story. You need to distinguish between rising sea level and a sinking island. Satellite measurements seem to show that Tuvalu is in an area where sea level is falling, in contrast to most of the ocean which is rising. These islands are clearly fragile, and several of these articles mention issues such as building an airport which could cause the islands to subside. This could explain apparent sea level rise.<br /><br />If you come across hard information (eg. can we measure whether or not Tuvalu is sinking?) I would love to know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts