Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

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 the 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.

Solar Cycles

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.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Planets' Wobbles

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. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

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.

No Greenhouse

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...tml?source=rss

__________________
FREE THE SHEEPLE!

wow, does this mean that all the enviromentalists are wrong?

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

Yep! They put the 'mental' in environMENTAL.

OR, I am not so sure that mental means smart or intelligence.

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

I thought it might be intersting to read the entire article not just part of it so I copied the part that was left off the first post so we could view the entire article.


Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
<< Back to Page 1 Page 2 of 2
"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)




Enlarge Photo



Email to a Friend

RELATED
Photo Gallery: Global Warming
New Mars Pictures Show Signs of Watery "Aquifers" (February 16, 2007)
Climate Change Predictions Not Exaggerated, Analysis Says (February 1, 2007)

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Planets' Wobbles

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. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

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.

No Greenhouse

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

Free Email News Updates

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...l-warming.html


I admire National Geographic because they publish all scientific views. However I think no other scientific theory has ever had such a consensus as global warming. If you think that immigration is an issue now...just wait until we have a shortage of fresh drinking water in some parts of the world that are heavily populated and ice packs are disappearing. Fortunately for us the debate is over except for maybe Exxon Mobile executives and a few who cling to the belief it is a partisan issue and refuse to read and understand science. Leaders in the Energy industry/Scientists and Democratic and Republican contenders for president understand this issue and are brave enough to face it.

Although I do love all the posters who refute the science by posting about a local snowstorm as being scientific evidence as to why CO2 global warming is not true.I think one poster started 6 threads on it in different forum topics in one week. That did make me LOL literally!

Grim Climate Predictions Not Exaggerated, Analysis Says
John Roach
for National Geographic News

February 1, 2007
Tomorrow the United Nations-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will release a major report with grim predictions about global warming for the coming decades, according to journalists who have seen draft versions of the paper.

If the IPCC's recent track record is any indication, the predictions will be no exaggeration, an analysis posted today on the Web site of the Science.

The Science study compared actual climate measurements with the computer models from a 2001 IPCC report.

In recent years actual concentrations of carbon dioxide—a greenhouse gas linked to global warming—have followed almost exactly the projections of the 2001 IPCC report.

If anything, the IPCC may have underestimated some climate threats in 2001. For example, actual temperatures were at the high end of the predicted range. And sea levels have actually risen faster than predicted.

"The real climate system is changing as fast or in some components even faster than expected by [the] IPCC," Stefan Rahmstorf, an ocean physicist at Potsdam University in Germany, said by email.

Rahmstorf is the Science study's lead author. He is also among the scientists gathered in Paris to finalize the IPCC's 2007 assessment report.

Friday's study will be the fourth report compiled by the IPCC since the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization established the panel in 1988. Hundreds of scientists contribute to each report.

Richard Alley is a glaciologist at Pennsylvania State University who was not involved in the Science study but is an IPCC report author.

The study vindicating the 2001 report is "great and important," Alley said in an email from Paris.

"There has long been a muttering, out in the blogosphere and other places, that the scientists have been exaggerating and trying to scare people so as to generate more research money," he said.

"If you wish to accuse scientists of systematic error, Rahmstorf et al show that we have been a bit conservative, and clearly not alarmist," Alley added.

Neither... they need mental help.

Sam, since you like to read scientfic views, why is it that we can get 100% agreement on global warming? I really beleive that we are in a cycle of weather changes.

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

Makes me LOL , literally, that someone has no opinions of their own and has to post links to convey its own thoughts. Much as she did with one of the first posts I remember seeing from this Medical Professional was that the Oregon suicide law had only been used about 10 times. Of course, a simple google search showed this to be a very inaccurate number. And I will admit she did later admit she was wrong. It just struck me that someone in the medical profession would have a little more insight into such a major thing. Oh well.
Now we are to accept that since global warming has a "consensus", the causes are no longer up for debate. How "tolerant" and scientific.
Yet, once again, a simple google search shows that many scientist, including some from MIT, which is usually regarded a little higher than the University of Phoenix, do not agree at all.
So once again it seems that only findings that agree with her view are legitimate. How refreshing.