# Why is Mars undergoing global warming? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 31, 2006, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778 "2006-03-31T23:35:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Flash\_Dancer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e495f1/32.png) [@Flash\_Dancer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flash_Dancer)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/81 "2006-04-02T19:44:48Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > You might want to check the forum rules for GD.Actually, he’s bringing plenty of data to the table, and certainly making a much more convincing case than you to this casual observer. Also, you might want to check who it was that made the math mistake. You’re the one currently making one. Sorry, I apologize for that mistake. Just frustrating when all of the NASA / NOAA data is discounted out of hand for the sole purpose of supporting an agenda. Was my math wrong too? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/82 "2006-04-02T19:50:13Z")
> [@Flash Dancer](#): > > Sorry, I apologize for that mistake. Just frustrating when all of the NASA / NOAA data is discounted out of hand for the sole purpose of supporting an agenda. Who has discounted NASA/NOAA data? The graph you cited was a diagram, not a real graph. I cited NOAA data that contradicted you, and you did not address it. Does that mean you are discounting it? ---
**Author:** ![Flash\_Dancer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e495f1/32.png) [@Flash\_Dancer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flash_Dancer)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/83 "2006-04-02T19:53:44Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Where does it say that on the graph? It is in the text at the site in the .gif link … plus it isn’t all that hard to figure out and, in fact, should be known by someone conversant in climatic change such as yourself? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/84 "2006-04-02T20:01:48Z")
> [@Flash Dancer](#): > > Since you obviously have no deductive reasoning or actual data … > > “The dashed lines are the present global average temperature of about 15° C (59° F)” > > Can you figure out the variance now? Okay, so we have one number - the dashed line. Now tell me if the range of the graph is 0-30C, or 13-17C, and I can help you with the variance. Until then, I’ve seen too many tendentious diagrams around ths debate to give that one any special credence. This is a favorite trick of people pushing a political viewpoint, btw - take a chart that shows a mild uptick in something, zoom in, and make that mild uptick look like a huge change. The chart should be marked as a broken-line chart if that’s done, but it seems it almost never is when the subject is a political hot potato. You’re doing a poor job of arguing for your side, and I say that as someone who is somewhat sympathetic to your viewpoint. If you want to convince people around here, you’ll stop throwing out charts like that, and start posting some links to actual peer-reviewed papers that argue your point of view, and then you’ll explain the author’s position, why it’s at odds with the scientific establishment, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Flash\_Dancer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e495f1/32.png) [@Flash\_Dancer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flash_Dancer)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/85 "2006-04-02T20:01:55Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Who has discounted NASA/NOAA data? The graph you cited was a diagram, not a real graph. I cited NOAA data that contradicted you, and you did not address it. Does that mean you are discounting it? Look, let’s stop all the sparring here and citing of “opinions” … what has the Earth’s variance in global temperature been over the last 10 to 20 centuries? year-to-year, decade-to-decade, what ever … Is “today’s” temperature change anywhere near statistically significant? Let’s apply the Daubert criterion here ok? ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/86 "2006-04-02T20:07:17Z")
> [@Flash Dancer](#): > > In 1975 they were talking about global cooling? Do you remember? You would just be making crap up here would you? You may find the following of interest: > [@](#): > > Man is digging out of the ground the coal and oil that were slowly laid down over many millions of years, and is burning it all in the course of a century or two. He is forming, once again, the carbon dioxide which plants had long ago consumed to make the tissues that eventually changed into coal and oil. > > Six billion tons of coal, oil, and gas are being burned each year and the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is slowly creeping upward (even though much of it is dissolved in the ocean and consumed by plants). It is estimated that at the rate we are going, the quantity of carbon dioxide in the air will be 25 percent higher in the eyar 2000 than it is now. By 2300, the quantity may have doubled. > > The presence of 0.06 percent of carbon dioxide in the air will in no way poison us, but what about the greenhouse effect? Slowly, the earth’s average temperature will creep upward. Indeed, it has risen a bit in the first half of the 20th century, possibly because of the added carbon dioxide in the air. This excerpt is from an essay called “Our Evolving Atmosphere,” written by Isaac Asimov for lay readers, and reprinted as chapter 13 in the collection _Is Anybody There?_, published by Doubleday. The essay was originally published in 1966. Since you seem to be having trouble with math, please let me point out that as 1966 is a smaller number than 1975, that means the essay above was published _before_, as in “prior to,” the material you reference. I won’t bore you with the calculation, but suffice to say the intervening period is approximately one decade. If a popularizer like Asimov was talking about carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect in lay-published articles in the mid-1960s, I think we can safely conclude that the subsequently offered global-cooling hypothesis to which you point in an attempted rebuttal is (a) just one of many models being considered at the time and (b) probably not the leading one, either. So far you haven’t offered a single argument that hasn’t been shown to be flawed in some way or wholly counterfactual. A responsible thinker would recognize the implication that the proferred thesis is thus unsupported, and abandon it. Who’s the one with the agenda? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/87 "2006-04-02T20:12:12Z")
> [@Flash Dancer](#): > > Sorry, I apologize for that mistake. Just frustrating when all of the NASA / NOAA data is discounted out of hand for the sole purpose of supporting an agenda. > > Was my math wrong too? 😕 For starters, your cite was last Modified on “Friday 28 March 1997”, so much for saying your graph ended in 2000, your cite is also an educational one, so they are bound to mention other points of view that the student then needs to investigate. So who has the most current data here? Calculate this then: **Colibri** ’s graphs are from **2004 and 2005** : > **[The Discovery of Global Warming](https://history.aip.org/climate/xmillenia.htm)** > > A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly) understand what people are doing to cause climate change. An abridged web version of Spencer R. Weart's book presented by the American Institute of Physics. You really need to take back, besides your insults, the assumption that guys like \*\*Colibri \*\* support an agenda. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/88 "2006-04-02T20:18:41Z")
> [@Flash Dancer](#): > > It is in the text at the site in the .gif link I checked that. It’s not associated with the graph in question, but the previous one. In any case, it was a completely ridiculous graph to offer in terms of statistical analysis. > [@](#): > > … plus it isn’t all that hard to figure out and, in fact, should be known by someone conversant in climatic change such as yourself? Are you serious? You think that every graph uses the same baseline? > [@](#): > > Look, let’s stop all the sparring here and citing of “opinions” … I wouldn’t call what we have been doing here “sparring,” since you haven’t actually provided any real backup for anything you’ve said, nor have you responded to the large amount of data cited that contradicts it. You have been the main person here citing opinions. > [@](#): > > what has the Earth’s variance in global temperature been over the last 10 to 20 centuries? year-to-year, decade-to-decade, what ever … What the hell does this mean? This makes no sense whatever. You have to define your time period before you can calculate a variance. > [@](#): > > Is “today’s” temperature change anywhere near statistically significant? Yes. I’ve already provided many cites indicating that it is. Please address them. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/89 "2006-04-02T20:25:21Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > For starters, your cite was last Modified on “Friday 28 March 1997”, so much for saying your graph ended in 2000, your cite is also an educational one, so they are bound to mention other points of view that the student then needs to investigate. > > So who has the most current data here? Calculate this then: > > **Colibri** ’s graphs are from **2004 and 2005** : > [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xmillenia.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xmillenia.htm) > > You really need to take back, besides your insults, the assumption that guys like \*\*Colibri \*\* support an agenda. The graph on the top is the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph, which I believe has been discredited. Read [Technology Review](http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp) for a layman’s description of the flaw in the analysis. Here’s the [Web Site](http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/fallupdate04/update.fall04.html) of the researchers who have found problems with the hockey stick, and their explanation of what’s wrong with it. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/90 "2006-04-02T20:26:49Z")
> [@Flash Dancer](#): > > Let’s apply the Daubert criterion here ok? [sub]For those of us following along at home, read the [Wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_Standard) on what that is. Is it possible to use in this situation? Who knows. Read the article to the end. [/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/91 "2006-04-02T20:31:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You really need to take back, besides your insults, the assumption that guys like \*\*Colibri \*\* support an agenda. From the quote I posted, it would seem my agenda is the same as that of George W. Bush . . . 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/92 "2006-04-02T20:39:58Z")
> [@Flash Dancer](#): > > Since you obviously have no deductive reasoning or actual data … > > “The dashed lines are the present global average temperature of about 15° C (59° F)” > > Can you figure out the variance now? There is no effing scale on that graph. There is no indicated axis or origin. All I can obtain from that graph is that there is some degree of variation in temperature; the magnitude and absolute variation is impossible to discern. Is the temperuate axis linear? Logarithmic? What are the confidence bounds on the data points? Are the data points evenly spaced, or are they bunched together? How much of the curve is interpolation (or extrapolation) as opposed to actual data? If you turned in this graph as fundamental part of a first-year undergraduate lab report in some basic science class, you’d get marked a C- at best. A graph is not “data”. A graph is a visual representation of data. A graph without clearly indexed axes isn’t any kind of quantitative information whatsoever. As **Colirbi** says, offering it as the basis for a stochastic assessment is an inherent absurdity. Without quantitative data, there are no statistics. Surely, someone who is, ah, so well versed in graph theory and statistical analysis as yourself should be able to understand this. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Flash\_Dancer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e495f1/32.png) [@Flash\_Dancer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flash_Dancer)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/93 "2006-04-02T20:42:52Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Okay, so we have one number - the dashed line. Now tell me if the range of the graph is 0-30C, or 13-17C, and I can help you with the variance. Until then, I’ve seen too many tendentious diagrams around ths debate to give that one any special credence. This is a favorite trick of people pushing a political viewpoint, btw - take a chart that shows a mild uptick in something, zoom in, and make that mild uptick look like a huge change. The chart should be marked as a broken-line chart if that’s done, but it seems it almost never is when the subject is a political hot potato. > > You’re doing a poor job of arguing for your side, and I say that as someone who is somewhat sympathetic to your viewpoint. If you want to convince people around here, you’ll stop throwing out charts like that, and start posting some links to actual peer-reviewed papers that argue your point of view, and then you’ll explain the author’s position, why it’s at odds with the scientific establishment, etc. Look, I can’t change anyone’s opinion on this subject. We can only bring up data and information that many discount or try to explain away in order to promote an agenda. The graph, regardless, of scale, etc., shows there has been variations in the Earth’s temperature not associated with man’s presence here. One of the more recent “warming” effects is now associated with a volcanic eruption. Here is another “no scale” NASA graph … to deny that there haven’t been global temperature variances, not due to man, and making today’s "global warming " totally insignificant is a joke. There is no other way to put it … [http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/tchgb1.gif](http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/tchgb1.gif) ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/94 "2006-04-02T20:48:49Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > The graph on the top is the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph, which I believe has been discredited. I don’t believe that the graph on the top is the actual “'hockey stick” graph, since that one shows less variability of the estimates at more recent time scales, though it certainly is similar. The lower graph incorporates the “hockey stick” as one among a variety of estimators. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/95 "2006-04-02T20:54:21Z")
> [@Flash Dancer](#): > > Look, I can’t change anyone’s opinion on this subject. We can only bring up data and information that many discount or try to explain away in order to promote an agenda. You haven’t brought up any real data that needs to be discounted or explained away. And you seem to be the only one with an agenda here. > [@](#): > > The graph, regardless, of scale, etc., shows there has been variations in the Earth’s temperature not associated with man’s presence here. One of the more recent “warming” effects is now associated with a volcanic eruption. > > Here is another “no scale” NASA graph … to deny that there haven’t been global temperature variances, not due to man, and making today’s "global warming " totally insignificant is a joke. There is no other way to put it … > > [http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/tchgb1.gif](http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/tchgb1.gif) No one denies that there haven’t been climatic variations in the past that were not associated with human activity. Where did you get that idea? The contention is that the present warming episode is anomalous in its size, scope, and cause relative to other such episodes, and that has been well documented. ---
**Author:** ![Flash\_Dancer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e495f1/32.png) [@Flash\_Dancer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flash_Dancer)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/96 "2006-04-02T20:55:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > For starters, your cite was last Modified on “Friday 28 March 1997”, so much for saying your graph ended in 2000, your cite is also an educational one, so they are bound to mention other points of view that the student then needs to investigate. > > So who has the most current data here? Calculate this then: > > **Colibri** ’s graphs are from **2004 and 2005** : > [The Discovery of Global Warming](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xmillenia.htm) > > You really need to take back, besides your insults, the assumption that guys like \*\*Colibri \*\* support an agenda. Hmmm … Moberg /NOAA , 2005 is old? 🙂 Enjoy … let me know what variance you come up with … then we might be able to converse based on some factual basis here ok? … ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions\_by\_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/97 "2006-04-02T20:55:38Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > No one denies that there haven’t been climatic variations in the past that were not associated with human activity. Where did you get that idea? The contention is that the present warming episode is anomalous in its size, scope, and cause relative to other such episodes, and that has been well documented. Sorry, that should be “No one denies that there _have_ been” ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/98 "2006-04-02T20:58:04Z")
> [@Flash Dancer](#): > > Enjoy … let me know what variance you come up with What variance do you come up with? > [@](#): > > … then we might be able to converse based on some factual basis here ok? … How about starting with responding to all the factual information I’ve provided? ---
**Author:** ![Flash\_Dancer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e495f1/32.png) [@Flash\_Dancer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flash_Dancer)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/99 "2006-04-02T20:59:06Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > You haven’t brought up any real data that needs to be discounted or explained away. And you seem to be the only one with an agenda here. > > No one denies that there haven’t been climatic variations in the past that were not associated with human activity. Where did you get that idea? **The contention is that the present warming episode is anomalous in its size, scope, and cause relative to other such episodes, and that has been well documented**. Then it should be statistically significant, correct? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2006, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778/100 "2006-04-02T21:01:59Z")
> [@Flash Dancer](#): > > Then it should be statistically significant, correct? Correct. It is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-mars-undergoing-global-warming/350778.md?page=6)