jump to navigation

Mars heating up as well April 4, 2007

Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Global Warming, Idiots, Liberal Hypocrisy, MSM.
trackback

CNN reports here.

Earth’s dusty neighbor Mars is grappling with its own form of climate change as fluctuating solar radiation is kicking up dust and winds that may be melting the planet’s southern polar ice cap, scientists said Wednesday.

(snip)

On Earth, carbon dioxide traps infrared radiation which can affect global climate. This a phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Fossil fuel emissions add to the problem.

On Mars, it’s the red-tinged dust.

Wouldn’t it be nice if people could see the correlation that is staring them right in the face that it just might be solar radiation that is causing global warming, and that it just might NOT be anthropogenic in nature?

Naw.  Too much to ask.  We MUST terrorize the people into making the correct decisions that we, the liberal MSM and adjuncts of the Goracle, must make for a population too dim-witted to know better.

Sad, really.  If the Goracle and the rest of his crew get their way, the democratic experiment is over.  They wish to go back to feudal times when the aristocracy really knew what was best for the commoners, who were then kept ignorant so that they could slave away at maintaining the estates of the aristocracy.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Publius - April 4, 2007

Actually, first off, that wasn’t feudal times, that was about the first 50 years of this country. The Founding Fathers, as “Children of the Enlightenment,” did not believe that the common people should be allowed to decide who would run the government, as they were uneducated, uninformed, and would not be able to make a reasonable choice.

Secondly, DUH global warming is caused by solar radiation. That’s the whole point. Solar radiation heats the earth. However, when it hits the earth, MOST of it is reflected off and into space. When you increase carbon dioxide levels (which is the “red dust” they refer to on Mars, whose atmosphere is nearly 80% CO2) more of the solar radiation gets trapped in the atmosphere than released, basically cooking us.

The polar ice caps act as a cooling system of sorts. The ice helps reflect more of the sunlight off. As they melt, however, more and more radiation is absorbed rather than reflected, speeding up the process that is originally started by too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

And if you do the math, the amount of extra water from a melted polar ice cap would be enough to cover all of Shanghai, New York City, San Francisco, most of Florida, and lot of Great Britain, Japan, and much of Europe, alond with pretty much the entire country of Bangladesh and much of India. That’s millions and millions of people.

Now this scenario is extreme, and probably won’t happen in the next decade or so, but it WILL happen if nothing is done. If we do something now, we can easily prevent it.

Also, CO2 is a by-product of fuel emissions and fossil fuel burning.

2. demolition65 - April 4, 2007

Either I am being unclear or you are being deliberately obtuse. Of COURSE the sun is responsible for warming. That is what is known as “self-evident.”

The POINT is that the variability of our sun is causing the warming, not necessarily the increased CO2 emissions.

Meanwhile, I am (and I am far from alone) extremely skeptical that a) we are causing enough warming to melt the ice caps, b) that the caps will even melt in the first place, and c) assume b is true, that we can do a whole lot to stop it.

3. Publius - April 4, 2007

If you read the article that you yourself referenced, they do not refer to the variability of the sun. They’re talking about radiation coming from Mars itself.

“NASA scientist Lori Fenton and colleagues, reporting this week in the journal Nature, now believe variations in radiation from the surface of Mars are fueling strong winds that stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet’s temperature.”

“From the SURFACE of MARS” is what the man said. As for the idea that we are causing enough warming, if you look at a chart of the Earth’s levels of CO2, and its average temperature from the last several thousand years, CO2 corresponds directly with temperature. When there is a spike in CO2, there is a spike in temperature. The levels of CO2 right now are rising incredibly fast and are going much higher than they should in the normal cyclical nature of Earth’s climate patterns. We should currently, according to that cycle, be entering the cool down before an Ice Age, and yet we’re only getting warmer. The last six years have been the hottest on record.

How do else would you explain this, other than how every scientist in the United States has been explaining it for the past few years?

4. Publius - April 4, 2007

Also, the UN is going to report on Friday, that humans are most likely responsible for most of the world’s warming.

You can read about it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/science/earth/05climate.html?hp

5. demolition65 - April 5, 2007

Of course the UN is going to report this. It provides them the opportunity to increase their bureaucracy. This means exactly nothing.

“EVERY” scientist?? Please. We should currently, according to that cycle, be entering the cool down before an Ice Age, and yet we’re only getting warmer. And of course, we had direct observation of these changes when they took place? I think not.

Look. All I am saying – all I HAVE been saying for months- is that we cannot be certain. We can talk consensus, we can talk likelihoods. Fine. Let us sell them as such; not as a form of Chicken Little screeching. The sky may be falling. Not that it IS falling. Much, far too much of the rhetoric, particularly from Goracles, is that this is a certainty. It is not. There is no way we can tell; we don’t have the observed data over enough time. Computer models only enhance programmer’s biases.

A responsible statement would be: “Based on what we can tell, and that might be damned little, it seems we are poisoning our atmosphere with CO2. We need to limit those emissions.” God knows it’s not as sexy as “WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE IN THE NEXT 50 YEARS. . .” but it’s also more honest, both humanly and scientifically.

6. Publius - April 5, 2007

If you don’t want to look at the massive picture of thousands of years, then you can just look at the evidence ever since we’ve been recording temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere. There IS a correlation. The last decade has seen massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, higher levels the ever before, the last decade has also seen rising temperatures and have been the hottest on record.

And yes, nearly every scientist that has examined the issue has come away saying that global warming is a fact.

As for the statements about the Ice Ages and such, you’re offhand dismissal of the statement is a completely irrational dismissal of actual scientific evidence. Go talk to a few scientists or read some of their papers. Examine the science behind before you dismiss it as something that is “questionable.”

I’ve spoken this last year with four different science professors who specialize in four different subjects (Astro-Physics, Chemistry, Geology, and Ecology) and ALL of them – who are experts in their fields and were educated at places the likes of UCLA and Princeton – are steadfast in their assertion that Global Warming is not a “climate theory” but is a fact of life that needs to be dealt with, not because we’re “all going to die in the next 50 years,” but out of responsibility to protecting the planet, and in an effort to prevent some of the myriad problems that could arise from it (such as flooding, disrupted and unpredictable weather patterns, massive droughts, death of certain species, new diseases, etc).

So before you are so quick to dismiss something because it is advocated by people or institutions you despise, why don’t you examine the facts of the problem – the actual facts put forth by the people who study the subject, not rhetoric (from Al Gore or the oil companies or anyone).

7. demolition65 - April 5, 2007

Publius, I genuinely appreciate your efforts in discussing this. However:

-Exactly how is my dismissal of Ice Ages and such “offhand”? We are expending a great deal of energy drawing conclusions based on second hand data. Granted, it is the best we have, at this time. It does not make for conclusive evidence.

As for the professors, I have read at length writings from professors in similar fields with degrees from Harvard. . .who share and in many ways fuel my skepticism. Dropping names will get us nowhere.

I maintain that my “responsible statement” from my previous comment better addresses this issue.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: