Green Myth-Busting: Martian Warming
Myth: Mars is warming primarily due to the Sun and therefore, Earth's recent changes in climate are also due to solar activity.
Fact: This theory is based on satellite images that show that the ice caps at the Martian south pole are retreating. According to the theory, Mars has very little atmosphere, so a greenhouse effect can be ruled out. Therefore, the Sun must be causing warming on Mars. If that's true, then it must also be causing warming on Earth:
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said. Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories. "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.
There are several problems with Abdussamatov's theory, but I'll just point out the two biggest holes I've found. The first problem is that it is controversial. The mainstream theory is that Mars' warming can be explained by changes in its orbit and tilt, much like Earth's Milankovitch Cycles:
The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun. "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years. These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth. Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now. "Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.
The second problem with this theory is that there is an overwhelming amount of scientific research that supports the mainstream theory that increased greenhouse gas concentrations are the primary drivers of our climate. On page 4 of SPM1 for the IPCC's latest report, there is a chart that lists each of the components that affect our climate, including their corresponding values, which quantify their contributions. The components are called radiative forcings, and each forcing's effect is measured in watts per meter squared (W/m^2). According to the chart, carbon dioxide is the dominant forcing at 1.66 W/m^2, while the Sun's effect, called solar irradiance, is much smaller at only 0.12 W/m^2. The latter can also be verified by a simple calculation.
The funny thing about this myth is that it is hypocritical. Many skeptics do not trust or appreciate the massive amounts of data that we have collected here on our planet via land, sea, weather balloon, satellite, and proxy measurements, and yet three photos of one secton of Mars convince them that the Sun is warming not only Mars but also Earth.
Tags: Climate Change, Green Myth-Busting, Science and Tech
- Uncategorized
July 4th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Thank you for this! My mechanic recently told me this myth, amongst others, and now I have a good response it!
July 4th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Mechanics…
I’m glad you’ve found it useful. There are plenty more myths out there, so there’ll be much more of this to come.
July 4th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Under “Natural” all that is listed is solar which in this case is only accounts for the variation in solar output since 1970, not overall. The Sun actually deposits 342 Watts of energy into every square meter of the Earth.
Where’s the “Natural” Water Vapor, CO2, Methane, etc. in the graph?
In the new second order draft comments by IPCC’s own participating scientists, they acknowledge that solor, cosmic ray, cloud formation in climate change was understated.
In the SPM1 graph, anthropogenic CO2, could double to a Radiant Force of 3.2 but wouldn’t make much of a difference as anthropogenic CO2 is only 000.117% of overall greenhouse gases. Anthorpogenic CO2 is even dwarfed by Natural CO2 which is 3.502 of greenhouse gases.
This graph and you are trying to draw a correlation on tiny variations of a small subset of the overall picture.
July 4th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Jbristor, I don't want to answer in too much detail, because you've just given me fodder for my next myth-buster post.
I'm not sure where you're getting 342 W/m^2 from. The Sun's total energy output is 1366 W/m^2. However, that's TOTAL energy. To calculate its role in climate CHANGE, we'd need to see how much that value changes over time. Over each 11-year solar cycle, it only fluctuates by about 1 W/m^2. This combined with the fact that the cycles are, well, cycles, makes the Sun's forcing very small.
Water vapor is indeed natural, but it is a feedback and not a forcing. I'll explain this in a later post if you don't already know what I'm talking about. Natural CO2 emissions are canceled out by the natural carbon sink, which is the negative (intake) portion of the carbon cycle. The total net CO2 emissions in our planet are of human origin.
You'll have to provide a link to the IPCC statements you're talking about. The only thing I've seen on the IPCC addressing cosmic ray cloud theory is that they weren't including it because there is too much uncertainty involved with it.
Your next paragraph demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the carbon cycle. You're referring to the myth that has been propagated by Monte Hieb, which states that water vapor is actually the most abundant greenhouse gas and that human CO2 emissions are dwarfed by natural emissions. These are true, but extremely misleading. Water vapor is very abundant, but is only a feedback due to its short residence time in the atmosphere (about one week, versus over 100 years for CO2). And again, to claim that human CO2 emissions are dwarfed by natural emissions, one must completely ignore the carbon sink, which is not advised. I recommend you Google "carbon cycle" for starters.
You've demonstrated exactly what it is that I intend to combat here at Green Options. Thank you for the myths. You'll see them thoroughly debunked over the coming weeks.
July 4th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
I’m quite familiar with the carbon cycle thank you. It doens’t matter what the length of time is for water vapor as it is constantly replenished and always accounts for more than 95% of all green house gases.
{My comment} Sun - First Paragraph
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Oven/
Second Draft Comments to the IPCC
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html
Please address my questions in a scientific manner before claiming “Myth” that you will address at some later time.
More on Solar
Global Cooling is Upon Us: Read The Sunspots
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f…4068db11f4&p=4
Sun’s direct role in global warming may be underestimated
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-49939.html
Solar Cycles not CO2 determines Climate
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:1fdAsyGrduwJ:www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%25202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf+Jaworowski+ice+cores&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9
SUV’s On Jupiter?
Are humans responsible for climate change on the outer reaches of the solar system, or is it the sun?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/161106suvjupiter.htm
Global Warming on Mars
http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2004/11/global_warming_.html
Precession of the Equinoxes
http://www.crystalinks.com/precession.html
Planet wobbles and axial heat
Not All Habitable Zones Are Created Equal
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/extrasolar-99m.html
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0
Baffled Scientists Say Less Sunlight Reaching Earth
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060124_earth_albedo.html
Politics
Cosmic rays blamed for global warming
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml
AN EXCERPT FROM GLOBAL WARMING: CO2, SUNSPOTS, OR POLITICS? BY PHIL N. BALDWIN, JR.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/56/7135/mercer.asp?wid=56&nid=7135
GLOBAL WARMING: THE GREAT DELUSION
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ab73da654c9.htm
Global warming: Fact, fiction, or we’re not sure?
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=7666
UN Climate Summary Designed to Dupe, Critics Say
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200702/CUL20070202a.html
July 4th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Ugh…
I didn't want to have to spoil the fun for everyone in comments on this post, but I guess I'll go there since you insist. The residence time for greenhouse gases is definitely important when determining their importance in terms of climate change. You see, since water vapor's residence time is so short, its concentration in the atmosphere fluctuates as temperature in the atmosphere changes. If it gets warmer, more water evaporates, and if it gets cooler, more water vapor condenses. It does replenish itself, but the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere fluctuates as a reaction to temperature. Therefore, it is classified as a feedback, since it cannot possibly initiate a change in temperature. It can only amplify the effect of other forcings, such as carbon dioxide.
How on Earth are you claiming I didn't address your arguments in a scientific manner? Just because you've regurgitated some figures from a misleading website, it does not mean that you were any more "scientific" than me.
I see where you've gotten 342 W/m^2 now. It's the energy from the Sun averaged over the year and the Earth. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that the total amount of solar irradiance is a constant. It only fluctuates by about 1 W/^2 over solar cycles, making any changes in such cycles result in even less net energy.
In the second draft comments you linked to, I only found one comment about cosmic rays from Vincent Gray, which was rejected. Is that what you were referring to?
Your first solar link is broken. The second could not be found. You've provided information overload here, which I'm honestly not going to have time to sift through.
One of the main pieces of evidence against solar forcing causing global warming is that the stratosphere is currently cooling while the troposphere is warming, indicating a warming due to greenhouse gases, not the Sun.
If you have a succinct, coherent argument you'd like to present, please do so. Tons of links to non-scientific sources won't prove anything. You've got to be able to read it yourself and then explain it to me with links for back up. I don't have the time to do your homework in addition to my own. I look forward to your next argument in your own words, preferably.
July 4th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Oh yeah. I forgot about the carbon cycle issue. If you understand it so well, why are you claiming that natural CO2 emissions trump anthropogenic emissions when the sink negates natural emissions? Is there something I’m missing?
July 4th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
>>”If you understand it so well, why are you claiming that natural CO2 emissions trump anthropogenic emissions when the sink negates natural emissions? Is there something I’m missing?”<<
Where did I use the word “sink”? How can the sink negate natural emissions but not touch antrhopogenic missions? Atmospheric CO2 is CO2.. Please show me a scientific study that where sink only negates natural emissions and not anthropogenic.
Based on your little graph apparently we need to pump more Sulfer Dioxide in the air (actually there is a nobel prize winner talking about sulfer cannons). Since aerosols have a cooling effect, how much does our reducing of Sulfer Dioxide emissions in the last 3 decades compare to the incemental rise of anthropogenic CO2 in that same time span?
You’ll have to do your own research, which you have failed to do to this point. Misreading and misrepresenting a couple of graphs to follow some political agenda does not a climatologist make.
As Dr. Reid Bryson, the father of scientific climatology, recently said about man-made global warming, “Don’t make me throw up,” he said. “It is not science. It is not true.”
July 4th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Lively debate on your first post. It’s great to see these issues being actively addressed. Welcome aboard, Jason!
David
Founder and CEO
Green Options, LLC
July 4th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
I recommend you take a good look at this carbon cycle diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_cycle_diagram.jpg
You'll see that the ocean emits 90 GtC and subsequently absorbs 92 GtC. The total emission from vegetation is 121.6 GtC, while its absorption is 121.8 GtC. So, the natural process is generally a wash, if not slightly negative. Then, we have the human emissions, which are adding more CO2 into the system than the natural system can absorb. The result is that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. You were claiming that human CO2 emissions were far less than natural emissions. My point is that, while true, this is very misleading, because it does not consider the fact that there is also a natural carbon sink, which removes all of the natural emissions. You must reconcile the entire natural cycle and then see where the man-made emissions fall. In this case, some of it is absorbed into the oceans and other sources, but there is still some leftover, which ends up lingering in the atmosphere.
I'm not sure which "little graph" you're talking about. Putting sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere only masks the problem. Besides, aerosols were banned due to problems with the ozone layer and with acid rain. Aerosols were mainly to blame for the cooling of the 40's and 50's, and they only masked the continued warming that would've occurred as a result of CO2 and other GHGs.
Dr. Reid Bryson was the main climatologist quoted in the infamous 70's Newsweek article that skeptics love to bring up in an effort to cast doubt upon mainstream climate scientists. Maybe you should question what he says a bit more heavily. After all, he predicted a coming ice age in the 70's! Besides, the argument you've provided from him is non-scientific.