Global Warming is happening...on Mars

[Trakar]

Of course it is, this is the desired outcome from the global left, Trakar.
Just remember...in the end, it will be the consumer that pays those taxes....not the polluter. The poor will be the least able to afford, but I'm sure they will be thought of as collateral damage.

That is your mantra, thus far you have not offered any compelling evidences to support your delusions.

Like I said....I'm not going to jump through your hoops....There are threads where this has already been exploited.

ROFLOL first transference/projection and now freudian slips

"exploited" - Used (a situation or person) in an unfair or selfish way.

If you really want to see the evidence....try doing your own damn research IN THIS FORUM. You have an agenda trakar, it has already shown to be political....by your own words. YOU are the one who is delusional.

you are seeing yourself in other's words and twisting other's words to fit that misperception of reality. you demonstrate it in every post you make. You leave me filled with sadness and pity at the way you have been twisted and warped into the caricature of arrogant ignorance that you seem to be. It is sad to see such a waste of potential.

 

[Old Rocks]

What exactly is your understanding of climate change and the science indicating and supporting such?

I'm far, far from an expert (or even mildly educated). I am a chemical engineer, so at least I understand some of the words.

I'm pretty close to Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth (an overseer), and I respect many people there. I don't know of one Thayer person who denies Global Warming. In fact, it's pretty much assumed, worrisome, and deserving substantial effort. It's one of our three strategic priorities at the school. (They have data and knowledge. I don't.)

While certainly I would not stake my life on Wikipedia, the GW articles there are quite convincing. One of the most interesting facts is that whereas GW largely is acknowledged in most countries, the American public has become surprisingly skeptical (a little over half the population no longer views it as a serious concern). This is a bit dismaying, since apparently scientists by-and-large have a completely different view:

Wikipedia: "The scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring and is mostly the result of human activity. This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not rejected by any scientific body of national or international standing."

I'm sure there are quotable scientists who take the opposite view; although I worry that they may not represent the majority. (I hope that Rush Limbaugh knows what he is talking about, because he is influential.) And again, I do not swear by Wikipedia, although it's usually pretty good in my experience.

One sound-bite that really resonates with me is the story of the Norwest Passage. It's a compelling anecdote:

Wikipedia: "Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but climate change has reduced the pack ice, and this Arctic shrinkage made the waterways more navigable."

The opening of the Northwest Passage (stuff of fables, literally) is pretty scary.

Finally, my friends who live in Alaska (and/or have visited Alaska) are totally convinced about GW, without exception. Admittedly, it's hearsay, but these are by no means dyed-in-the-wool, liberal, tree-hugging idiots. In fact, most of them are ardent republicans!

Sorry, none of this is hard data, but it's the best I've got...

Again, my position is to act as though Global Warming might be true.

Thank you very much for asking!

Chris

Slapshot, this link is to the American Institute of Physics, and has a huge amount of information concerning the history of the study of atmospheric gases and the retention of heat by GHGs.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Here is an hour long lecture presented by Dr. Richard Alley at the 2009 American Geophysical Union Convention, tracing the geological linkage of CO2 and temperatures through geological age.

A23A

And a couple of other revelent lectures from the same source;

C24A

H22A

 

[Meister]

That is your mantra, thus far you have not offered any compelling evidences to support your delusions.

Like I said....I'm not going to jump through your hoops....There are threads where this has already been exploited.

ROFLOL first transference/projection and now freudian slips

"exploited" - Used (a situation or person) in an unfair or selfish way.

If you really want to see the evidence....try doing your own damn research IN THIS FORUM. You have an agenda trakar, it has already shown to be political....by your own words. YOU are the one who is delusional.

you are seeing yourself in other's words and twisting other's words to fit that misperception of reality. you demonstrate it in every post you make. You leave me filled with sadness and pity at the way you have been twisted and warped into the caricature of arrogant ignorance that you seem to be. It is sad to see such a waste of potential.

Don't feel sadness, moron....I haven't been a total waste. You haven't brought anything to this forum, and your one lazy ass not to do a little research. You cannot deny that this is a political with you. You want the government to remedy something Man cannot change.
The one thing that I do know about myself is that I tend to ignore shit except for when I step in it. You have been spreading it on pretty thick in a couple of your Holier than thou posts. Your full of bullshit dude....trust me I know.

 

[daveman]

No I call that "Ginning the Controversy" by a popsci rag uncritically reprinting a UK Tabloid article that I might expect to find accompanying a full page feature on the latest escapades by BatBoy in an American publication of equivilant standing.

Yeah. Too bad for you they interviewed "Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the 2007 IPCC report’s chapter on Asia."

I think it's safe to say that Lal knows more about what he did and why than you do.

What you don't seem to understand, is that even if politicians or one stripe or another manage to slip a couple of tidbits of false or misleading information into a voluminous overall analysis, it doesn't discredit anything other than that information itself. AGW did not critically depend upon whether some few glaciers in the one particular valley of the Himilayans were melting slightly slower than portrayed by some reckless Indian politicos who had input into the nation's contributions to the last IPCC report, and neither does this impact the overall veracity of the IPCC's findings with regards to Climate Change any more than your forgetting to apply special sauce to a single Big Mac is likely to be a significant factor in McDonald's corporate quarterly profits.

If anything this argues for pulling the political component completely out of IPCC process and turning it over entirely to the global scientific community.

You mean like Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the 2007 IPCC report’s chapter on Asia, who knowingly inserted bogus information into the report?

seriously?! I was simply using Reagan to date reference the timing of the IPCC establishment.

Unlikely.

Your protestations and huffiness over the Reagan administration's role in supporting and mandating the methodology and procedures of operation for the IPCC are interesting, however, in a mildly meh manner.

Huffiness? That was mockery, fool.

 

[daveman]

My electricity is produced with a combination of solar, wind and a bio-diesel fuelled back-up generator. Both my car and my plane run on biodiesel mixes (with both, there is some cold weather conditioning necessary to keep the diesel from waxing up), the riding mower is lithium battery powered, and I use chunk charcoal and personally cut hardwood chips to do my outdoor grilling.

Again, probably best not to assume that everyone else does as you do, advocating one thing, while using different rules for yourself.

I'm impressed, bearing in mind that anyone can say anything on the internet.

Is denial a habit you use for every aspect of life you find inconvenient?

You mean like you're doing with Lal's statement, playing "The liberal didn't say what he said!!"?

Hell, you're playing that with your OWN statements.

Yet I can't help but notice you're connected to the internet. Do you know how much carbon that adds to the atmosphere?

Who's internet? The section I'm linked to is sustainably powered, if yours isn't that's a problem you should be concerned about, all I can do is advocate for people to pay more attention to their planet and their pocketbook and choose sustainable practices to advantage both.

A Harvard University physicist says a typical search on a desktop computer generates about 7 grams of carbon dioxide. Thus, performing two searches is comparable to bringing a kettle to boil, according to a report Sunday in The Times of London. While that may not sound like a lot, the report notes that Google handles about 200 million searches daily.

Read more: Measuring your Google search's carbon footprint | Green Tech - CNET News​

I hope you're not Googling talking points. That's egregiously irresponsible, and makes baby Gaea cry.

 

[Old Rocks]

The glaciers of Asia, most of which are in rapid retreat. So says the USGS.

USGS Professional Paper 1386-F: Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World -- Asia

 

[Old Rocks]

Daveboy, same intellectual prowess as Kooky, without the cartoons.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So how come Wamers never have a lab experiment showing how a 60PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature?

 

[Old Rocks]

How come Franky doesn't bother to look at the many places where controlled experiments have done exactly that.

 

[daveman]

The glaciers of Asia, most of which are in rapid retreat. So says the USGS.

USGS Professional Paper 1386-F: Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World -- Asia

So then why did Lal put the bogus information in the IPCC report, damaging its credibility?

Oh, yeah -- because morons like you blindly believe anything they say. Good job, Useful Idiot.

 

[Trakar]

I agree that there is global warming, also. But, I think that's it's been happening all along since the peak of the last iceage. Global warming isn't an inherent issue with just our planet, like some on the left would want us to believe.

Got verifiable, empiric evidences that support the belief (that global warming is a sustained, global trend in extension of the process that instigated the current interglacial epoch) or the assertion (that other planets are undergoing similar and concurrent climate change)?

Are you a moron....do you need proof that the sun rises everyday?
What's happened to the glaciers since the last iceage?

Keep displaying your ignorance, it is doing wonders for your position!!

And you are right ranting and name-calling is so much more compelling that objective evidence and logical reasoned discourse.

Did YOU even bother to look at the original OP? (Global Warming is happening...on Mars)

poorly written popsci blurbs and the partisan rants based upon such without supporting references aren't any better than your numerous unsupported assertions here on this board.

If you are looking to actually understand the science that was misrepresented in the OP you might look at something like these:

"Global Warming on Mars" - Global Warming on Mars

Which explains the mechanisms involved in some short-term warmings and coolings in the Martian climate.

(full letter at: http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/~fenton/pdf/fenton/nature05718.pdf )

Or this later paper "Intense polar temperature inversion in the middle atmosphere on Mars"
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~oa/publications/mccleese_2008_ngs.pdf

Which further clarifies additional climate forcing factors and impacts in the Martian atmosphere.

Mars appears to be undergoing multiple minor episodes of weather and climate shift, both cold and warm over a period of a few Martian years (2-3 Mars years, 4-6 Earth years). Observations and measurements seem to indicate albedo shifts due to martian sand storms and cyclic mid atmosphere shifts over the poles that seem to among other things trigger intensified or reduced sandstorm production. There is no indication of any commonality between the Earth's warming over the last half century and Mars' shifts back and forth every few years between colder and hotter episodes. I am not new to these issues. I am fully aware of almost all the most common rhetorical arguments typically used by the science denier contrarians in their attempts to politicize and confuse the issue, as well as having thoroughly investigated these assertions and having found no supportive scientific basis in these arguments. If you are aware of some scientific standing and support that I have missed or not given proper evaluation, please make your case, nothing could please and releave me more than to be given a compelling, scientifically supported reason to not dread the unfolding of this coming century (or at least what little of it I may see).

Like I said you need to bone up. Try doing some of your own thinking instead of having others do it for you.

like I said, asking someone to support their assertions with solid and compelling evidences and referenced citations, is neither onerous nor unusual among adults in the serious discourse of mature discussion. That you treat it as a dreadful task, in itself, speaks to the nature of your considerations and understandings,...or rather to the lack thereof.

 

[Trakar]

I'm impressed, bearing in mind that anyone can say anything on the internet.

Is denial a habit you use for every aspect of life you find inconvenient?

Yet I can't help but notice you're connected to the internet. Do you know how much carbon that adds to the atmosphere?

Who's internet? The section I'm linked to is sustainably powered, if yours isn't that's a problem you should be concerned about, all I can do is advocate for people to pay more attention to their planet and their pocketbook and choose sustainable practices to advantage both.

Excuse me while I get my boots on....the bullshit is getting deep.

Agreed, looks like it's piling up pretty high over there, I don't think boots are gonna cut it, better look for a cork before you fill that room and drown!

 

[Meister]

Got verifiable, empiric evidences that support the belief (that global warming is a sustained, global trend in extension of the process that instigated the current interglacial epoch) or the assertion (that other planets are undergoing similar and concurrent climate change)?

Are you a moron....do you need proof that the sun rises everyday?
What's happened to the glaciers since the last iceage?

Keep displaying your ignorance, it is doing wonders for your position!!

And you are right ranting and name-calling is so much more compelling that objective evidence and logical reasoned discourse.

Did YOU even bother to look at the original OP? (Global Warming is happening...on Mars)

poorly written popsci blurbs and the partisan rants based upon such without supporting references aren't any better than your numerous unsupported assertions here on this board.

If you are looking to actually understand the science that was misrepresented in the OP you might look at something like these:

"Global Warming on Mars" - Global Warming on Mars

Which explains the mechanisms involved in some short-term warmings and coolings in the Martian climate.

(full letter at: http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/~fenton/pdf/fenton/nature05718.pdf )

Or this later paper "Intense polar temperature inversion in the middle atmosphere on Mars"
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~oa/publications/mccleese_2008_ngs.pdf

Which further clarifies additional climate forcing factors and impacts in the Martian atmosphere.

Mars appears to be undergoing multiple minor episodes of weather and climate shift, both cold and warm over a period of a few Martian years (2-3 Mars years, 4-6 Earth years). Observations and measurements seem to indicate albedo shifts due to martian sand storms and cyclic mid atmosphere shifts over the poles that seem to among other things trigger intensified or reduced sandstorm production. There is no indication of any commonality between the Earth's warming over the last half century and Mars' shifts back and forth every few years between colder and hotter episodes. I am not new to these issues. I am fully aware of almost all the most common rhetorical arguments typically used by the science denier contrarians in their attempts to politicize and confuse the issue, as well as having thoroughly investigated these assertions and having found no supportive scientific basis in these arguments. If you are aware of some scientific standing and support that I have missed or not given proper evaluation, please make your case, nothing could please and releave me more than to be given a compelling, scientifically supported reason to not dread the unfolding of this coming century (or at least what little of it I may see).

Like I said you need to bone up. Try doing some of your own thinking instead of having others do it for you.

like I said, asking someone to support their assertions with solid and compelling evidences and referenced citations, is neither onerous nor unusual among adults in the serious discourse of mature discussion. That you treat it as a dreadful task, in itself, speaks to the nature of your considerations and understandings,...or rather to the lack thereof.

Has anyone ever told you that you talk funny. Geeze, nobody converses like that. I have friends that are doctors and lawyers, much more brilliant than you, and they don't carry a conversation like that. Who are you trying to impress? Get over yourself.

 

[Meister]

Is denial a habit you use for every aspect of life you find inconvenient?



Who's internet? The section I'm linked to is sustainably powered, if yours isn't that's a problem you should be concerned about, all I can do is advocate for people to pay more attention to their planet and their pocketbook and choose sustainable practices to advantage both.

Excuse me while I get my boots on....the bullshit is getting deep.

Agreed, looks like it's piling up pretty high over there, I don't think boots are gonna cut it, better look for a cork before you fill that room and drown!

Dude....I caught you in one of your lies.....yes, YOU lied in at least one of your posts. I won't put it on the open board. But it is YOUR bullshit....no one elses.

 

[Old Rocks]

Are you a moron....do you need proof that the sun rises everyday?
What's happened to the glaciers since the last iceage?

Keep displaying your ignorance, it is doing wonders for your position!!

And you are right ranting and name-calling is so much more compelling that objective evidence and logical reasoned discourse.



poorly written popsci blurbs and the partisan rants based upon such without supporting references aren't any better than your numerous unsupported assertions here on this board.

If you are looking to actually understand the science that was misrepresented in the OP you might look at something like these:

"Global Warming on Mars" - Global Warming on Mars

Which explains the mechanisms involved in some short-term warmings and coolings in the Martian climate.

(full letter at: http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/~fenton/pdf/fenton/nature05718.pdf )

Or this later paper "Intense polar temperature inversion in the middle atmosphere on Mars"
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~oa/publications/mccleese_2008_ngs.pdf

Which further clarifies additional climate forcing factors and impacts in the Martian atmosphere.

Mars appears to be undergoing multiple minor episodes of weather and climate shift, both cold and warm over a period of a few Martian years (2-3 Mars years, 4-6 Earth years). Observations and measurements seem to indicate albedo shifts due to martian sand storms and cyclic mid atmosphere shifts over the poles that seem to among other things trigger intensified or reduced sandstorm production. There is no indication of any commonality between the Earth's warming over the last half century and Mars' shifts back and forth every few years between colder and hotter episodes. I am not new to these issues. I am fully aware of almost all the most common rhetorical arguments typically used by the science denier contrarians in their attempts to politicize and confuse the issue, as well as having thoroughly investigated these assertions and having found no supportive scientific basis in these arguments. If you are aware of some scientific standing and support that I have missed or not given proper evaluation, please make your case, nothing could please and releave me more than to be given a compelling, scientifically supported reason to not dread the unfolding of this coming century (or at least what little of it I may see).

Like I said you need to bone up. Try doing some of your own thinking instead of having others do it for you.

like I said, asking someone to support their assertions with solid and compelling evidences and referenced citations, is neither onerous nor unusual among adults in the serious discourse of mature discussion. That you treat it as a dreadful task, in itself, speaks to the nature of your considerations and understandings,...or rather to the lack thereof.

Has anyone ever told you that you talk funny. Geeze, nobody converses like that. I have friends that are doctors and lawyers, much more brilliant than you, and they don't carry a conversation like that. Who are you trying to impress? Get over yourself.

In other words, you have no answer for Trakar. Expected.

 

[Old Rocks]

Excuse me while I get my boots on....the bullshit is getting deep.

Agreed, looks like it's piling up pretty high over there, I don't think boots are gonna cut it, better look for a cork before you fill that room and drown!

Dude....I caught you in one of your lies.....yes, YOU lied in at least one of your posts. I won't put it on the open board. But it is YOUR bullshit....no one elses.

Aren't you ever so kind. You will accuse someone of lying but not put the accusation on the board.

 

[Meister]

Keep displaying your ignorance, it is doing wonders for your position!!

And you are right ranting and name-calling is so much more compelling that objective evidence and logical reasoned discourse.



poorly written popsci blurbs and the partisan rants based upon such without supporting references aren't any better than your numerous unsupported assertions here on this board.

If you are looking to actually understand the science that was misrepresented in the OP you might look at something like these:

"Global Warming on Mars" - Global Warming on Mars

Which explains the mechanisms involved in some short-term warmings and coolings in the Martian climate.

(full letter at: http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/~fenton/pdf/fenton/nature05718.pdf )

Or this later paper "Intense polar temperature inversion in the middle atmosphere on Mars"
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~oa/publications/mccleese_2008_ngs.pdf

Which further clarifies additional climate forcing factors and impacts in the Martian atmosphere.

Mars appears to be undergoing multiple minor episodes of weather and climate shift, both cold and warm over a period of a few Martian years (2-3 Mars years, 4-6 Earth years). Observations and measurements seem to indicate albedo shifts due to martian sand storms and cyclic mid atmosphere shifts over the poles that seem to among other things trigger intensified or reduced sandstorm production. There is no indication of any commonality between the Earth's warming over the last half century and Mars' shifts back and forth every few years between colder and hotter episodes. I am not new to these issues. I am fully aware of almost all the most common rhetorical arguments typically used by the science denier contrarians in their attempts to politicize and confuse the issue, as well as having thoroughly investigated these assertions and having found no supportive scientific basis in these arguments. If you are aware of some scientific standing and support that I have missed or not given proper evaluation, please make your case, nothing could please and releave me more than to be given a compelling, scientifically supported reason to not dread the unfolding of this coming century (or at least what little of it I may see).



like I said, asking someone to support their assertions with solid and compelling evidences and referenced citations, is neither onerous nor unusual among adults in the serious discourse of mature discussion. That you treat it as a dreadful task, in itself, speaks to the nature of your considerations and understandings,...or rather to the lack thereof.

Has anyone ever told you that you talk funny. Geeze, nobody converses like that. I have friends that are doctors and lawyers, much more brilliant than you, and they don't carry a conversation like that. Who are you trying to impress? Get over yourself.

In other words, you have no answer for Trakar. Expected.

Won't waste my time, rox. I see how you two handle differing science.......

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh, I see. You say someone lies, but you are afraid to state what the lie is.

How we handle science? You mean as in posting reports and articles from scientists? Such lowdown unfair tactics, eh? Introducing science into an scientific discussion.

 

[Meister]

Oh, I see. You say someone lies, but you are afraid to state what the lie is.

How we handle science? You mean as in posting reports and articles from scientists? Such lowdown unfair tactics, eh? Introducing science into an scientific discussion.

I'm not "afraid to state it...it would be unethical. Something you wouldn't know anything about.

 

[Meister]

How we handle science? You mean as in posting reports and articles from scientists? Such lowdown unfair tactics, eh? Introducing science into an scientific discussion.

And when it's handed back to you, you have a meltdown, crying "blasphemy!"
I get it, rox. Now you know why I won't play your silly ass game.