Why is Mars undergoing global warming?

[Flash_Dancer]

@Colibri

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?

Column 1, in the reference provided above … let me know the yty variance you get … I don’t want anyone here to think I made this up

Then we can use statistical / probability methods to ascertain just how significant the recent “global warming” trend really is eh?

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

@Flash Dancer

… 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?

Column 1, in the reference provided above … let me know the yty variance you get … I don’t want anyone here to think I made this up

Then we can use statistical / probability methods to ascertain just how significant the recent “global warming” trend really is eh?

Getting other people to do your own homework for you is against the board rules, you know.

[Flash_Dancer]

@Colibri

Correct. It is.

Please show the significance / confidence level calculations, parameter values, their basis, etc., for your claim here? Sort of my field, would like to see it?

[Flash_Dancer]

@Qadgop the Mercotan

Getting other people to do your own homework for you is against the board rules, you know.

Ahahaha! Good point … not homework, it is my job! Just doing this so no one here thinks I “fudged” the data Thanks …

[GIGObuster]

@Flash Dancer

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.

Cite for that? Everything I read before mentioned that the earth actually cools down after a major 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

Unless you can point to anyone denying “that there haven’t been global temperature variances, not due to man” you are now entering the misleading or lying part of a debate graph. No one has denied that there was warming in the past, those greenhouse gases then had a natural reason to be in the atmosphere, many of the current ones don’t. To be taken more seriously you have show from where the unprecedented accumulation of greenhouse gases of today is coming from, and why that is not affecting the current trend.

[Colibri]

@Flash Dancer

Please show the significance / confidence level calculations, parameter values, their basis, etc., for your claim here? Sort of my field, would like to see it?

Read the NRC and IPCC Reports. Please provide a detailed refutation of them.

[Flash_Dancer]

@GIGObuster

Cite for that? Everything I read before mentioned that the earth actually cools down after a major eruption.
Unless you can point to anyone denying “that there haven’t been global temperature variances, not due to man” you are now entering the misleading or lying part of a debate graph. No one has denied that there was warming in the past, those greenhouse gases then had a natural reason to be in the atmosphere, many of the current ones don’t. To be taken more seriously you have show from where the unprecedented accumulation of greenhouse gases of today is coming from, and why that is not affecting the current trend.

You mean “greenhouse gases” like water vapor, CO2 and, yes, even ozone?

[Flash_Dancer]

@Colibri

Read the NRC and IPCC Reports. Please provide a detailed refutation of them.

Read them … none provided a statistcal basis showing that the recent “warming” is significant re historical variances? Please provide if I missed the calculations …

[GIGObuster]

@Flash Dancer

You mean “greenhouse gases” like water vapor, CO2 and, yes, even ozone?

I knew the water vapor canard was going to be mentioned, it is really a great bit of ignorance from the part of critics that claim humans have nothing to do with the current trend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas which, of all greenhouse gases, accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor levels fluctuate regionally, but in general humans do not produce a direct forcing of water vapor levels. In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. This in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature, and thus an increase in water vapor, until equilibrium is reached. **Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback (but not a runaway feedback) to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2. ** Changes in the water vapour may also have indirect effects via cloud formation.

Most scientists agree that the overall effect of the direct and indirect feedbacks caused by increased water vapour content of the atmosphere significantly enhances the initial warming that caused the increase - that is, it is a strong positive feedback.([5], see B7).
Water vapor is a definite part of the greenhouse gas equation even though not under direct human control: IPCC TAR chapter lead author Michael Mann considers citing “the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas” to be “extremely misleading” as water vapor can not be controlled by humans [6]; see also [7] and [8].

You still need to show why the unprecedented accumulation of greenhouse gases of today is not a factor.

[Q.E.D]

@Flash Dancer

387 / 1,000,000 = 0.000387 x 100 = 0.0387% … :rolleyes:

Yes, you’re correct; mea culpa. But, I notice you don’t bother to address any of the rest of the post, which was really the main issue here. Why is that?

[Flash_Dancer]

@GIGObuster

Cite for that? Everything I read before mentioned that the earth actually cools down after a major eruption.

Ok …

March 13, 2003

Mt. Pinatubo Eruption Provides A Natural Test For The Influence Of Arctic Circulation On Climate

A recent NASA-funded study has linked the 1991 eruption of the Mount Pinatubo to a strengthening of a climate pattern called the Arctic Oscillation. For two years following the volcanic eruption, the Arctic Oscillation caused winter warming over land areas in the high and middle latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, despite a cooling effect from volcanic particles that blocked sunlight.

Mt. Pinatubo Eruption Provides A Natural Test For The Influence Of Arctic...

[Flash_Dancer]

@Q.E.D.

Yes, you’re correct; mea culpa. But, I notice you don’t bother to address any of the rest of the post, which was really the main issue here. Why is that?

I am addressing every one of you points, I can’t argue “opinion”, no one can. Let’s try to prove that the recent global warming trend is significant based on accepted statistical / probability theory. I provided extensive yty temperature data from which the variance can be ascertained (and btw, which is essentially independent of its accuracy ) … waiting for some one here to give me the sigma …

At that point we will be able to see if the recent “global warming” is significant or not … regardless of any “opinion” …

[tomndebb]

@Flash Dancer

With all respect, you are an idiot! That graph ends in the year 2000. You really can’t be this stupid, right?

With very little respect, I will point out that this is a direct violation of Board rules.

Flash Dancer, you have been dancing around serious posts in this thread with snide comments and appeals to the “authority” of your own knowledge (which you have failed to demonstrate).

With this post, you stepped over the line. Do not hurl personal insults in Great Debates (or anywhere outside the Pit).

Make an attempt to directly address thequestions presented and you may find that you have persuaded some posters to your position. Continue to dance around the topic, and you will simply irritate people. Engage in direct insults, and we will not have to worry about whether anyone agrees with your claims.

[ /Moderating ]

[Q.E.D]

@Flash Dancer

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030313081900.htm

Swell. You’ve shown us that local temperatures can increase despite a global average temperature decrease following a major eruption. Which has nothing to do with what was asked.

And no, you have not addressed my points concerning the relative strength of the greenhouse effect between water vapor and carbon dioxide. Those were facts, not opinions.

[GIGObuster]

@Flash Dancer

Ok …

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030313081900.htm

And reading that, the only warming was for that climate pattern, elsewhere we got cooling:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:w5B_5JPLarQJ:climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/VEAChapter1_Robocknew.pdf+Global+warming+Arctic+Oscillation+pinatubo&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10

The largest cooling in the summer of 1992 was in the cen-ter of North America (Plate 3). As a result, the ice on HudsonBay melted almost a month later than normal that year. Polarbears, who feed and have babies on the ice, were much heav-ier and had more healthy cubs that summer. Biologists callthose now 11-year olds “Pinatubo Bears” [Stirling, 1997].The cool conditions in the summer after the Pinatubo erup-tion was very beneficial for the Hudson Bay polar bears, andthere were many more bears born that year than the yearbefore or after. The long-term concern for these bears, andmany other plants and animals in the Arctic, however, is theopposite impact from global warming. This temporary posi-tive impact from Pinatubo strengthens the argument of thenegative impacts of the predicted warming. Pinatubo pro-duced global cooling, but impacts work in both directions, sothe benefits of Pinatubo from global cooling teach us aboutthe negative impacts of anthropogenic global warming.

And, the important thing for this discussion: human made global warming, and other damage caused by gases released by humans can not be discounted:

Volcanoes and Climate Change

By comparing the climate simulations from the Pinatubo eruption, with and without aerosols, the researchers found that the climate model calculated a general cooling of the global troposphere, but yielded a clear winter warming pattern of surface air temperature over Northern Hemisphere continents. The temperature of the tropical lower stratosphere increased by 4 Kelvin (4°C) because of aerosol absorption of terrestrial longwave and solar near-infrared radiation. The model demonstrated that the direct radiative effect of volcanic aerosols causes general stratospheric heating and tropospheric cooling, with a tropospheric warming pattern in the winter.

“The modeled temperature change is consistent with the temperature anomalies observed after the eruption,” Stenchikov says. “The pattern of winter warming following the volcanic eruption is practically identical to a pattern of winter surface temperature change caused by global warming. It shows that volcanic aerosols force fundamental climate mechanisms that play an important role in the global change process.”

This temperature pattern is consistent with the existence of a strong phase of the Arctic Oscillation, a natural pattern of circulation in which atmospheric pressure at polar and middle latitudes fluctuates, bringing higher-than-normal pressure over the polar region and lower-than-normal pressure at about 45 degrees north latitude. It is forced by the aerosol radiative effect, and circulation in winter is stronger than the aerosol radiative cooling that dominates in summer.

Man-made, or “anthropogenic” emissions can make the consequences of volcanic eruptions on the global climate system more severe, Stenchikov says. For instance, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere start a chain of chemical reactions on aerosol surfaces that destroy ozone molecules in the mid-latitude stratosphere, intensifying observed stratospheric ozone depletion.

“While we have no observations, the 1963 Agung eruption on the island of Bali probably did not deplete ozone as there was little atmospheric chlorine in the stratosphere. In 1991 after the Pinatubo eruption, when the amount of CFCs in the stratosphere increased, the ozone content in the mid-latitudes decreased by 5 percent to 8 percent, affecting highly populated regions,” says Stenchikov.

[tomndebb]

Flash Dancer quoting:

@Science Daily

A recent NASA-funded study has linked the 1991 eruption of the Mount Pinatubo to a strengthening of a climate pattern called the Arctic Oscillation. For two years following the volcanic eruption, the Arctic Oscillation caused winter warming over land areas in the high and middle latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, despite a cooling effect from volcanic particles that blocked sunlight.

This does not say what you appear to think it says. It does not indicate global warming in any way. It mentions that there was a trend of localized warming weather patterns, for a limited duration at specific times of the year, based on interrupted weather patterns despite a cooling effect from the volcano. That is NOT an indication that

One of the more recent “warming” effects is now associated with a volcanic eruption.

Anyone who has followed the arguments regarding global warming and cooling from the 1960s forward recognizes that there will be localized countervailing trends as the overall patterns change; those localized trends cannot be identified as part of the overall movement.

[Flash_Dancer]

@tomndebb

With very little respect, I will point out that this is a direct violation of Board rules.

Flash Dancer, you have been dancing around serious posts in this thread with snide comments and appeals to the “authority” of your own knowledge (which you have failed to demonstrate).

With this post, you stepped over the line. Do not hurl personal insults in Great Debates (or anywhere outside the Pit).

Make an attempt to directly address thequestions presented and you may find that you have persuaded some posters to your position. Continue to dance around the topic, and you will simply irritate people. Engage in direct insults, and we will not have to worry about whether anyone agrees with your claims.

[ /Moderating ]

Well, I’m not sure you are right on the part about me not having demonstrated my knowledge on this subject, maybe your opinion?, but I did apologize, even though a member here, said I could not figure out 387 ppm to % …

I am only interested in determining if the recent “global warming” is significant or not in this thread? Based on fact and not opinions.

That is why I visited this BB … the ppl here and in GQ are very knowledgeable, based on what I have read so far …

Obviously, I am not in a favorable positon now from your view point … what would you suggest I do correct it?

[Flash_Dancer]

@GIGObuster

And, the important thing for this discussion: human made global warming, and other damage caused by gases released by humans can not be discounted:

Then it should be very easy to show its statistical / probability significance, correct?

[GIGObuster]

@Flash Dancer

Then it should be very easy to show its statistical / probability significance, correct?

So far it shows you still don’t know how to spot evidence in your favor.

But speaking of data and statistics, the overall picture I get is that computer models were more accurate than the critics accept, usually they don’t accept the results because they point to human intervention as being a part in the warming:

Pinatubo volcano research boosts case for human-caused global warming

Most significant, the scientist said, Pinatubo helped validate computer-generated climate models that demonstrate human-caused global warming.

Using computer modeling, said Robock, scientists have been able to account for natural warming and cooling, as found in Arctic and Antarctic ice core samples and tree rings covering hundreds of years up to the last century.

[jjimm]

I would, if I may, like to follow up clairobscur’s query as to the “political agenda” alluded to by Flash Dancer. What are the aims and objectives of this agenda, who is “pushing” it, and who do you feel has the most to gain from it?

Also, purely from a layman’s position, deferring to Flash Dancer’s expertise in this matter, could I ask whether the 1970s cooling “blip” might have anything to do with airborne particulates from the burning diesel, coal and oil burning - and the end of the blip coinciding with the enactment of Clean Air Acts in most of the industrialized nations?