Sun did not cause recent climate change: U.K. study
Newsbot @ Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:49 pm
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=22814" target="_blank">Sun did not cause recent climate change: U.K. study</a> (click to view)
<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/9-science" target="_blank">Science</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=Robair" target="_blank">Robair</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2007-07-12 07:19:25
adahen @ Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:49 pm
I would like to watch that documentary,I have heard of it.It may be a natural occurence.
Robair @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:09 am
It's on youtube... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f8v5du5_ag
BartSimpson @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:30 am
So why is Mars warming?
Rev_Blair @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:32 am
Keep in mind that it has been discredited by scientists, including one who appeared in the film and was misquoted to the point where it appears he says the opposite of what he actually said.
It's good that some actual scientists have stood up to present the real facts instead of the junk science purveyed by the denial industry.
adahen @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:33 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
So why is Mars warming?
Due to dust storms
Blue_Nose @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:34 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
So why is Mars warming?
The Great Global Warming Swindle Swindle
hurley_108 hurley_108:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Avro4 Avro4:
There goes the Mars theory cons like to throw around.
So why are the Mars polar icecaps melting?
Dust storms are darkening the surface causing more light to be absorbed and converted to heat rather than reflected right back into space.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... _mars.html
toothpick @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:39 am
That study is flawed in two respects, as far as I can tell.
First, there was a report out a while ago that found the number of sunspots over the last half century was on a general upward trend and that sunspots were higher than the 11 year maximum they tend to follow. Sunspots increase the sun's output, so the statement that "all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.". Is obviously false if the aforementioned report is taken into consideration.
Second, the hottest part of the day is not noon. It's somewhere between 2 and 3pm, that is, after the sun has reached its hottest and is actually in decline. The hottest part of the year is not June, when the days are longest, but in August. This effect is even more prominent near water, which most of the world happens to be covered in. Why then should the temperature peak of the world come only when the sun's output is highest? It seems that a warming trend after the sun begins to decline in brightness is exactly what you'd expect if it were the sun causing the warming.
BartSimpson @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:39 am
adahen adahen:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
So why is Mars warming?
Due to dust storms
The dust storms only started up in the past 45 days. Try again.
adahen @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:39 am
I guess it is about "Who" you want to believe.As it is, too little CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere could also spell disaster
hurley_108 @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:43 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
adahen adahen:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
So why is Mars warming?
Due to dust storms
The dust storms only started up in the past 45 days. Try again.
April 4 was less than 45 days ago? What time warp are you living in?
[web]http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11531[/web]
Edit: changed to a different site with the same story on the same day 'cause space.com was making annoying popups.
kathematics @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:46 am
it won't really matter why or who caused global warming if the effects do come to pass...
do you think the millions of people who evacuate a flooded NY CITY will be soothed by the fact that it may have been a natural occurence? don't be ridiculous.
the pressure for the end of pollutants and ecologically damaging human caused problems is based on the desire to save humanity from collapse, not to damage the economy and the status quo.
your money, house and car are worthless when your dead
BartSimpson @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:48 am
I guess I'm only paying attention to the dust storms that have been of a significant enough intensity to affect NASA's landers.
Only in the past 45 days have the dust storms been what the Mars program folks have termed as more intense than usual.
It's been on CNN down here about how the dust storms are only now having a more than negligible effect on the solar cells on the landers. Since there's no way to clean those solar cells this is a bit of a concern to NASA.
Previous dust storms over the past thirty years that we've had missions on Mars have had almost no effect on those missions.
hurley_108 @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:50 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I guess I'm only paying attention to the dust storms that have been of a significant enough intensity to affect NASA's landers.
Only in the past 45 days have the dust storms been what the Mars program folks have termed as more intense than usual.
It's been on CNN down here about how the dust storms are only now having a more than negligible effect on the solar cells on the landers. Since there's no way to clean those solar cells this is a bit of a concern to NASA.
Previous dust storms over the past thirty years that we've had missions on Mars have had almost no effect on those missions.
Only in the past 45 days have the dust storms been what the Mars program folks have termed as more intense than usual.
It's been on CNN down here about how the dust storms are only now having a more than negligible effect on the solar cells on the landers. Since there's no way to clean those solar cells this is a bit of a concern to NASA.
Previous dust storms over the past thirty years that we've had missions on Mars have had almost no effect on those missions.
Give it up, Bart. The warming Mars is going through is not, repeat NOT due to any increase in luminosity in the sun.
Blue_Nose @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:59 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Previous dust storms over the past thirty years that we've had missions on Mars have had almost no effect on those missions.
It's not necessarily that less sunlight is reaching the surface, it's that the dust storms are causing more sunlight to be absorbed rather than reflected back into space. $1:
The researchers think all these events are related and have proposed a mechanism by which lower albedo drives wind circulation, creating even lower albedo. They think it works like this: In regions where winds blow away dust, the exposed dark ground absorbs sunlight and heats up; some of this heat is transferred into the atmosphere and heats up the air. Just like on Earth, the imbalance in the atmosphere's heat increases wind circulation above those regions.
"This could lead to a positive feedback effect in which the surface changes strengthen the winds that are producing the surface changes," Geissler said in a telephone interview.
"This could lead to a positive feedback effect in which the surface changes strengthen the winds that are producing the surface changes," Geissler said in a telephone interview.
Regardless, the Mars Rover argument is pretty weak to begin with.