Why has global warming in Mars been so badly misrepresented?

Question

The media has been quick to claim that global warming on Mars is caused by darkening of the planet. Nobody wants to mention that this darkening has only been estimated to account for 5 x 10^12 kg or 30% of the total observed loss of ice. Contrary to what the media is reporting, the findings are consistant with warming caused by an increase in solar intensity.


Here's a section from a research paper presented at the USRA.

"The estimated increase in south polar mass loss from the IRTM to the TES albedo model runs is ~5x1012 kg, or ~0.02% of the total martian atmos-phere. This represents a ~3% increase in potential mass loss from the IRTM to the TES model runs. Pre-vious estimates of summertime CO2 mass loss, based on observations of scarp retreat, range from 8.4x1012 kg [7] to 2-4x1013 kg [4]. Our predicted in-crease is of the same order of magnitude as these estimates, albeit on the low side."

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2007/pdf/1480.pdf

Answer 1

Well, of COURSE they have to say that. And of course they say they know for sure, right? Because if they give a hint of uncertainty, their whole theory will be wasted in about three seconds.
It drives me crazy how the media can just get away with warping whatever they want to make it "politically correct," and people still believe them.
And Trevor, I think that you're mixing up the skeptics with the "believers." HOW many things did Al Gore skim over that would be inconvenient for him to mention? Like, for example, that only 3% of the gases in the atmosphere are CO2, and that only 0.054% of THAT is anthropogenic?? That totally blows away the root of his "hypothesis." So don't accuse one party of something that it doesn't do , and the other party does a thousand times worse!

Answer 2

Probably because some in the media are doing the same as some on Y!A - trying to claim that warming on Mars is due to increased solar activity.

Warming on Mars is an interesting phenomenon, and we don't have the full story as to why it's happening. But it's not due to increased solar activity. We know this because if it were, almost all terrestrial bodies in our solar system would be warming. In reality just a few are warming, more are cooling, and the vast majority are experiencing no significant temperature change.

On top of that, Total Solar Irradiance has been decreasing, and all other solar climate forcings have been in the direction of cooling over the past few decades while global warming on Earth has accelerated rapidly.

I'm sure dust storms darkening Mars' surface don't tell the whole story as to why it's warming. But it's likely the largest factor causing that warming, and it's certainly not due to variations in the Sun.

Answer 3

It's strange that you would complain about misrepresentation, and then misrepresent this article. I urge everyone to read it themselves. It in no way says the warming on Mars is consistent with an increase in solar activity. It suggests that previous estimates of the mass loss may be overestimates. It says the mass loss is due to darkening (from dust storms), period.

One reason is that there is no increase in solar radiation in recent history. Proof:

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar
climate forcings and the global mean surface
air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A
doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

News article at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

Answer 4

If warming of the other planets was taken as factual, then man is not the cause of global warming. If man isn't the cause of warming on Earth, then politicians would be powerless to pass any laws that could correct these perceived problems.

How would the UN negotiate global warming? How would politicians banish SUV's?

Even now it's getting hard to keep up the fraud of global warming here on Earth.

● The south polar ice cap is expanding
● Warming is localized - South America is in a year long deep freeze.
● There hasn't been a warmer year since 1998
● Several planets are warming
● There is no warming constant

Politics + Money = bad science. But as long as there is the greed of people, they will always take advantage of others fears.

These fear mongers who ignore the science of the Suns contributions to the climate are no different then the debate that formed when man first determined the Sun was at the center of the universe, not the Earth. At this time, the consensus ignore the science just to declare their preference was correct. And they are doing it again with "global warming"

Answer 5

I often wonder the same thing. The skeptics never seem to mention any of the things that don't fit their explanation, here's just the first 10 that come to mind...

● The north polar ice cap is expanding

● Warming is localised

● The atmosphere on Mars is incomparable to that of Earth.

● Several planets are cooling

● There is no solar constant

● Total solar irradiance is falling

● All studies conclude Martian and terrestrial warming are unrelated

● Warming on Mars is inconsistent with that on Earth

● Martian warming is not cyclical and doesn't follow solar variation

● That global dust-storms on Mars are the primary climate forcing agent causing changes

I guess it boils down to what we see all too often from some skeptics - namely that if it doesn't fit their explanation then ignore it. You could make a very convincing argument that the world is flat if you ignored all the evidence that it was round. Mind you science + skeptic = confusion does seem to be the norm.

- - - - - - - - -

TO MR JELLO:

Warming on other planets is taken as factual, as are the reasons why there's warming and cooling on other planets. Which in every instance is caused by circumstances remote to and unique to the planet in question. In short, no two planets are warming for the same reason (Jupiter's moon Triton may be an exception as we don't know for certain why it's warming. Warming on Triton is almost 100 times as fast as Earth and is probably due to either or both the reduction in frost cover or changes to it's albedo).

As for politicians, you are of course only looking at one side of the story. Yes they may pass laws and impose taxes that penalise but they have also passed laws and imposed tax breaks and financial incentives that reward. Here in Europe you can not only get CFL lightbulbs for free but can get your whole house insulated for free, furnaces (we call them boilers) replaced for free, free double glazing etc. People who drive cars with lower emissions pay less tax, alternative fuels to gas are half the price; solar panels, wind turbines etc are subsidised. For someone who 'goes green' they typically save $2,000 a year.

The south polar ice cap is not expanding per se. There are some parts which are expanding, there are more parts that are retreating. The ice is thickening in the Interior due to increased precipitation, itself a consequence of global warming. The net ice volume reduction averages 80 billion tons a year.

Warming is not localised, it's virtually global with a few exceptions. As usual, you're looking at just a single year rather than the trend. But let's stick with the last 12 months and look at where cooling has occurred - part of Brazil, part of Canada, much of Antarctica, a small section of the North Atlantic and an area to the east of the Caribbean. Every other country and region in the world has warmed up.

You state that there hasn't been a warmer year than 1998. On this I agree, even though some temperature records (including NASA) put 2005 and 2007 as being warmer. But once again, you're picking specific years. When you look at the trend, be it the 5, 10, 20, 25, 30, 50 or 100 years trend (the standards), the temperatures are going up - you could choose your own period, it makes no difference.

If we apply your unusual logic then the whole world goes awry. Around the same time that the temperature record was being set so too was the land speed record, applying your logic means that cars must now be slower. The oldest person ever to have lived died, therefore people are dying earlier, the fastest mile was run, therefore people are now slower etc etc etc.

The fact that several planets are warming is meaningless unless there's a common factor (there isn't) and it conveniently overlooks the fact that more planets are cooling than warming.

You state that there is no warming constant. You might as well have stated that there's no such thing as fairies, the Man in the Moon, unicorns or little green men from Mars. There's a good reason why there's no warming constant - there's no such thing.


"Politics + Money = Bad Science" On the basis that climatologists are rarely political and aren't doing it for the money (they'd switch careers if it were about money) then would you conclude that climatology = good science.

It's the skeptics who ignore the science of the Sun. Speak to any astrophysicists, astronomer or other solar expert and they'll tell you the same thing - the Sun is not the cause of global warming. We know exactly what the Sun is doing, have been monitoring it for decades using very sensitive instruments both on Earth and in space.

Claims that the Earth was the centre of the universe were based on assumptions (largely rooted in religion). It wasn't until scientists began studying the solar system that it became apparent the Sun was the centre of the solar system. Scientists made the observations and arrived at the correct conclusion. Your argument is as pointless as it is desperate.


TO: PUNKER ROCKER

There are a lot of uncertainties about global warming, but one thing that is impossible to refute is the basic science behind it - namely that greenhouse gases retain heat within Earth's atmosphere. Do you ever wonder why no skeptic has ever ventured to refute this? The reason is simple, it can't be refuted; it's a simply law of physics that can be demonstrated in any science lab.

I agree that the media do warp things but by far the greatest warping comes from those sections of the media that seek to refute global warming. About 30% of media articles seek to refute global warming, less than 1% of scientific articles do the same. Who do you think knows more about global warming - journalists or climate scientists?

Gore's movie (which incidentally I don't particularly like) actually mentions the exact concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's not 3%, it's 0.0387% of which the ratio between natural and anthropogenic is 62:38 (about two fifths comes from us, the remainder was there in the first place).

The fact that there's a small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is meaningless. It's what it does that's important. Sarin in the atmosphere at concentrations of one part per 100 million can be fatal.

If the greenhouse gases, even though they exist in small amounts, weren't there at all or didn't have the ability to retain heat then you, I, every living thing on the planet wouldn't exist. It would lose it's heat retaining capacity and be a ball of ice floating around in space, devoid of all life.