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 11:30 pm
Thanks, David. I’m glad to be aboard. If the rest of my posts attract this kind of attention, I’ll need to find some help for handling the comments.
July 5th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
The other issue that I have with the “Mars Warming Theory” that no one seems to look at is, Mars has only seen THREE YEARS of warming!
According to data from the IPCC, we’ve seen ~90 years of steady warming. Shouldn’t Mars have experienced the same thing?!?!?
Hmmm…
July 5th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
So, it is all down to a Martian Malankovitz cycle.
Not a plausible explanation at all.
The timescales of a martian cycle are long.
The warming changes on mars are short scale.
Almost conclusive proof that short term warming events cannot be associated with orbital mechanics.
You also have to explain away research by Hammel and Lockwood that show Neptune’s brightness varies in line with GW on earth, but with a 10 year lag. The lag being put down to the time it takes to warm up the planet.
All needs explaining since the planets are isolated from each other.
Now this isn’t proof that GW is completely solar. That’s an alarmist argument that is clearly wrong. It is strong evidence for a solar effect that the IPCC have omitted from their reasons. ie. The statistical correlation is higher. The IPCC mechanism of solar radiation doesn’t explain it all.
The IPCC goes wrong when it is says, if it doesn’t explain it all, the solar cannot be significant. It is if you have missed a mechanism. Missing out a cause of GW from your models is an obvious mistake.
July 5th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Nick,
How do you know how short the time of Mars’ warming is? Have we had any conclusive evidence that it is over?
If the Sun is primarily responsible or our increased warming, how do you explain the stratosphere cooling while the troposphere is warming? That is a clear indicator that our warming is primarily from an increased greenhouse effect as opposed to increased solar activity.
There’s always cosmic ray flux/cloud formation theory, but from what I’ve read, that has to do with decreased clouds, and therefore decreased cloud albedo, not actual increased energy output from the Sun directly heating our planet.
As I explained to you at my blog, it has been my understanding that solar activity has actually waned in recent decades (Damon and Laut, 2004). Where is the increased solar activity you’re talking about? Do you have any sources you can provide?
July 6th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Came across Nuclear news stories that may be of interest
Gordon Brown backs nuclear now and for the future.
In his first Prime Minister’s Question Time Gordon Brown knocked back an attack on nuclear power from Liberal Democrat Leader Menzies Campbell. The Prime Minister said that the security of our future energy supply is best safeguarded by building new nuclear power stations.
click here for more information
Uranium price dips slightly after staggering rise
The spot price of uranium fell back $3 on Wednesday, but this was the first significant dip after steady gains for nearly four years. Increasing speculation that a resurgence in nuclear energy and concerns over supplies has see the price of uranium rise almost tenfold to $135/lb. Though there may be a small correction, no major reduction is expected. Despite these increases in the price of uranium the cost of nuclear power has hardly been affected, because nuclear power stations use so little fuel the cost of uranium is only a small part of overall generation costs.
here for more information
Nuclear Report’s Arguments “Fatuous”
The conclusions of the Oxford Research Group “Too Hot to Handle? The Future of Civil Nuclear Power” report has been described as ‘fatuous’ by a senior industry expert. The report suggested that the fact that France ‘only’ built around 3-4 reactors a year during its peak build phase meant that the world couldn’t build 4 a month, which would be needed if nuclear energy were to supply a third of electricity by 2075. However, that’s comparing the build rate in one country France to the potential build rate across the world. If you consider the larger population of OECD countries the reactor build rate could be easily achieved.
here for more information
July 6th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
That's a good point, brenton. As I pointed out in my post, there are plenty of problems with this myth. I was trying to keep it somewhat short by pointing out the major ones.
What is most important here is that an increase in solar activity is not causing climate change here on Earth, which is what this myth implies. First of all, there is no increase in solar activity to cause such change. Secondly, we know that because of the physical properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, when there are more of them in the atmosphere, they will cause more warming. This is very simplified, obviously, but there is no question that CO2 absorb longwave infrared radiation that is emitted from Earth, preventing it from escaping into space. When we top this off with the inescapable fact that the stratosphere is cooling at the same time that the troposphere is warming, we have nearly definitive proof that it is an increased greenhouse effect, rather than increased solar activity, that is causing our planet to warm.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Unregistered User (with nuclear articles),
I would just like to point out that your links do not address many of the problems I and many others have with nuclear power. Yes, it is very clean, but there are too many other unresolved issues for it to be the solution to our climate change woes, such as:
1. Plant safety
Chernobyl anyone? Granted, that’s an extreme example, but no matter the chances of it happening, the nuclear industry must be able to win over the minds of the people, settling such fears with assurances of some kind.
2. Disposal of spent fuel
There are already questions about safe disposal of spent fuel and even transportation of fuel. If we add many new plants around the world, we have several times the problem. What do we do with it?
3. Extremely high start-up costs
On top of all other concerns, to build a nuclear reactor correctly is very expensive. This seems to be the nail in the coffin to me. Why would anyone pursue something that is not only extremely unpopular and controversial, and also breaks the bank in order to get started?
July 25th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Your exchange with Jbristor basically descended into a “my scientists are smarter than your scientists” school yard fight. Fortunately for your side, you have the liberty of writing off his references with terms like debunked, non-scientific, and denier (although I did not see “denier” used in this specific exchange). Using such techniques is well within your right as a blog host, however, berating the work of those outside the circle of the global warming consensus does not wash with everyone. You see, even though the gloom-and-doomers have had the bully pulpit regarding the environment for decades, the silent masses are starting to wake up and smell the organic coffee. Regardless of the science that supports or negates the argument, when everyday people begin to see the green movement as a threat to their livelihood, they will push back. Most people do not want to see the amount of money taken from their pockets increased in the form of taxes, tariffs, penalties, etc. for the sake of the greening their lives. Those that see this as both an environmental and an economic issue are willing to look at both the pro-GW and anti-GW arguments and weigh their worth against what the real dollars and cents costs will be.
As far as nuclear energy goes, it is a viable option that needs to be explored and expanded. Plant safety is an issue for all industrial facilities. Products are made everyday at non-nuclear plants that could have very large kill radii if improperly managed. Ever heard of Bhopal? Additionally, the navies of the world have been operating nuclear-powered vessels with relatively few incidents for decades. Disposal of spent fuel is probably not as big a deal as we think. The oil industry has found uses for the bi-products (previously wastes) of refining. A little creativity could do the same for nuclear wastes. The high start-up costs of a nuclear facility (like most industrial facilities) is largely due to the costs of obtaining permits and licenses from the various regulatory agencies. These fees extend the ROI, which makes investors nervous. This also explains the number of oil refineries that have been built in the US since the late 70’s, which I believe stands at zero.
August 25th, 2007 at 12:47 am
One of the biggest myths is that any of the current models has enough confirmed data to be accurate enough. Now don’t get me wrong the Earth is warming and we need to do many things to reduce our impact on this planet. I believe that many folks get the wrong idea since the global warming folks are so sure of themselves and insist on a drastic change in our style of life immedeatly. If they would concentrate more on incremental improvements and less on unattainable stuff folks would have more reason to believe them and act appropriately.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
I don’t get your point about the CO2, but I think you mean Mars’ CO2 is contributing to its warming. If that is what you mean, you are wrong. This is no CO2 on Mars, except what is in the ice caps. You see the Earth and Mars have increased about the same amount since 1970. Mars was slightly more of an increase because of the lack of a thick atmosphere to block some solar radiation. Speaking of another “myth”, How do you explain the warming that occurred so many times before on Earth. Another is if you zoom in on CO2 vs. Temperature charts you’ll see that the temperature increase precedes the CO2 increase, meaning CO2 doesn’t make the temperature rise, but temperature increases makes more CO2. There’s a reason for the 31,000 climate, meteorology, etc. scientists have signed a petition of against man-made climate change. It is natural. I would admit Gore did a great job with his liberal propaganda, but a lot of people are starting to see through him, finally. How bout them apples.