quote:

Originally posted by papertiger0:
Someone tell me how it is that the temperature of Jupiter's cloud deck rose 150 degrees or more between Pioneer 10 and Cassini?

National Geographic got their figures wrong maybe?

quote:

How is it that the Second Great Red Spot is never mentioned?

Red Spot Jnr is often mentioned. I don't see your point.

I'm glad you bought up Jupiter though as it is one of the funnier global-warming denial stories. Apparently - according to global-warming denial websites, there is global warming going on there too. The real story is that many of the vortexes on Jupiter are calming (though two famously merged to form Red Spot Jnr) and this is causing the equator to warm and the poles to cool. But hey, science deniers generally aren't too bright, so its no surprise that the global-warming deniers got all confused.

quote:

Originally posted by Arcana69:
Science can never be a closed book.

I agree. And scepticism is a cornerstone of science. However when the evidence becomes overwhelming - as in the case of human-caused global warming - that scepticism too often turns into an unhealthy denial.

quote:

Perhaps you would care to share some of the evidence then. All the global warming denial sites simply harp on about a few pictures from the last decade showing changes to the Martian south pole. Hardly "well studied".

Not me saying it. NASA is saying it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Mars
Plenty of links and supporting articles on that site.

Evidence for recent climatic change

Pits in south polar ice cap, MGS 1999, NASAIn 1999 the Mars Global Surveyor photographed pits in the layer of frozen carbon dioxide at the Martian south pole. Because of their striking shape and orientation these pits have become known as swiss cheese features. In 2001 the craft photographed the same pits again and found that they had grown slightly larger [19].

More recent observations indicate that Mars' south pole is continuing to melt. "It's evaporating right now at a prodigious rate," says Michael Malin, principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) [20]. The pits in the ice are growing by about 3 meters per year. Malin states that conditions on Mars are not currently conductive to the formation of new ice. NASA has suggested that this indicates a "climate change in progress"[21] on Mars.


[edit] Attribution
Calculations with the Mars General Circulation Model show that the local climate around the Martian south pole is currently in an unstable period. This instability is rooted in the geography of the region, leading Colaprete et al. to speculate that the melting of the polar ice is a local phenomenon rather than a global one[22]. The researchers showed that even with a constant solar luminosity the poles were capable of jumping between states of depositing or losing ice - the trigger for a change of states could be either due to increased dust loading in the atmosphere or an albedo change due to a deposition of water ice on the polar cap[23].

K.I. Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Observatory has attributed the changes to increased levels of solar activity, asserting that "parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."[24] Abdusamatov's hypothesis has not been accepted by other scientists (see Global Warming controversy). Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, stated that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations." Other scientists have proposed that the observed variations are caused by irregularities in the orbit of Mars. [25]

In recent decades solar activity has however been relatively stable, though researchers at the Max Planck Institute have inferred that solar activity over the past 60 to 70 years may have been at its highest level in 8,000 years [26]. Others have suggested that comparably high levels of activity have occurred several times in the last few thousand years.[27] Alternatively, it has been argued that "observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing."[16]

quote:

Originally posted by tjlyerly:

quote:

Perhaps you would care to share some of the evidence then. All the global warming denial sites simply harp on about a few pictures from the last decade showing changes to the Martian south pole. Hardly "well studied".

Not me saying it. NASA is saying it...

No NASA quite clearly is saying that they have observed changes to the south pole which are likely due to changes in the climate around the south pole. They do not claim it is a sign of global warming. If fact your quoted piece ends '...Alternatively, it has been argued that "observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing."'

You reject the mountains of evidence for human caused global warming on Earth, yet consider global warming a done deal on Mars with no global evidence. This is ridiculous.

quote:

I agree. And scepticism is a cornerstone of science. However when the evidence becomes overwhelming - as in the case of human-caused global warming - that scepticism too often turns into an unhealthy denial.

It seems to me that the scepticism is only regarded as 'unhealthy' when it's an important issue. Some scientists still believe in the steady state theory. Nobody calls their scepticism of the big bang 'unhealthy'. Conversely, nobody says that the scientists who still believe in psychic phenomenon despite much evidence it is non-existent are being 'unhealthy'. It is all the perfectly natural mix of views in science......and very often it is those who hold the minority view who give the science a thorough scrutiny that makes it all the more convincing. Without the sceptics ( or believers, in cases where it is reversed ) it simply would not be science.

I would consider the TRUE unhealthy state to be one where everyone just automatically accepted 'overwhelming' evidence without question.

quote:

Originally posted by Ape Man:
I agree. And scepticism is a cornerstone of science. However when the evidence becomes overwhelming - as in the case of human-caused global warming - that scepticism too often turns into an unhealthy denial.

Because there is an opposing view that is not convinced there is overwhelming evidence regarding GW and voice their opinions, the GW lobby then labels them 'deniers'. This is not scientifically or morally justifiable.

quote:

Originally posted by Ape Man:

quote:

Originally posted by Arcana69:
When did humans populate these planets and what are we going to do about it?

Expose your claim as a lie. Let's have some evidence or admit you made it up please.

Rats! l missed this! ... l can't stop laughing.

quote:

It seems to me that the scepticism is only regarded as 'unhealthy' when it's an important issue. Some scientists still believe in the steady state theory. Nobody calls their scepticism of the big bang 'unhealthy'. Conversely, nobody says that the scientists who still believe in psychic phenomenon despite much evidence it is non-existent are being 'unhealthy'. It is all the perfectly natural mix of views in science..

I always thought it was pretty unhealthy as they twisted and turned as cosmic background radiation came along, redshift calculations got better. Admittedly, their continued scepticism possibly made the scientists try harder. I don't think the sceptics arguments now help the scientists because they mostly aren't very constructive.

Incidentally, has anyone mentioned that Jupiter is still cooling down - much of its heat in its upper atmosphere is from internal heat.

quote:

No NASA quite clearly is saying that they have observed changes to the south pole which are likely due to changes in the climate around the south pole. They do not claim it is a sign of global warming. If fact your quoted piece ends '...Alternatively, it has been argued that "observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing."'

You reject the mountains of evidence for human caused global warming on Earth, yet consider global warming a done deal on Mars with no global evidence. This is ridiculous.

No, I'm saying quite clearly that the climate is changing on Earth and the cause has yet to be determined. There is much speculation on this subject but no definitive proof of any cause. Further, there is no evidence that the recent decadal changes on Earth are anything outside of the normal variations, and there are many, that have occured during this interglacial period. Over the past several thousand years that have been at least 2 periods of warming that are greater than what we are now experiencing.

As for Mars, the consensus is that the climate there is in flux. There is disagreement as to whether this is a global or regional variation - but isn't that true on Earth as well? There is very little warming occuring in the south polar region. Nearly all the warming and glacial melt is occuring in the far northern latitudes. The South Pole has been fairly stable for decades.

By the way, here's a link to the temperature records for Antartica since 1955

http://www.unis.no/research/geology/Geo_research/Ole/An...mperatureChanges.htm

quote:

Over the past several thousand years that have been at least 2 periods of warming that are greater than what we are now experiencing.

Oh my God !....a 'denier'!

It's good to see another person here who recognizes proper scientific methodology.

quote:

It's good to see another person here who recognizes proper scientific methodology.

And me please.

All I've heard so far is a hypothesis that increases in anthropogenic CO2 are causing significant and leading to dangerous global warming (or Climate Change if you prefer).

I've then heard that models have been set up to predict what this hypothesis will lead to in measurable terms.

The testing can only happen if the predictions can be measured. So far I've seen no evidence of significant and leading to dangerous global warming actually happening.

Also as you'll have seen in my other postings I don't believe we're anywhere near being able to produce the models that are holistically credible (the whole is greater than the sum of the parts).

So in terms of scientific method we've a long way to go.

Most of the ping-pong analysis and argument I've seen is about whether individual scraps of evidence are evidence of significant or global warming, or about strengths and weaknesses in climate science that inputs to the models. This is all based on feeling and/or political motivations.

So it's outside what I call science except for the fact there is a hypothesis and people are trying to make credible measurable predictions.

And because of what I'm currently seeing ie a plateau of global average temperature for 9 years (since 1998) I'm not going to be convinced by some argument that says it's all too important we can't wait for better science before embarking on major socioligical engineering.

quote:

Originally posted by Chi Squared:
[QUOTE]It seems to me that the scepticism is only regarded as 'unhealthy' when it's an important issue. Some scientists still believe in the steady state theory. Nobody calls their scepticism of the big bang 'unhealthy'.

The "steady state" people possibly also fit the "unhealthy" bracket. The evidence for the "big bang" is slim, but there is no evidence to support the "steady state" model. When anyone rejects even slim evidence to hang on to a belief based on no evidence then they are in denial.

quote:

Conversely, nobody says that the scientists who still believe in psychic phenomenon despite much evidence it is non-existent are being 'unhealthy'.

Rubbish; they are nutters.

quote:

I would consider the TRUE unhealthy state to be one where everyone just automatically accepted 'overwhelming' evidence without question.

An odd view, but if that is the way you see it, so be it. I don't have time to check every bit of scientific evidence, so I accept the consensus, especially when based on genuine overwhelming evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by tjlyerly:
No, I'm saying quite clearly that the climate is changing on Earth and the cause has yet to be determined. There is much speculation on this subject but no definitive proof of any cause.

There will never be definitive proof. Science doesn't do definitive proof. But the cause of the current spell of warming has been determined beyond all rational doubt: it's human generated CO2. Only the reality deniers say otherwise.

quote:

Further, there is no evidence that the recent decadal changes on Earth are anything outside of the normal variations...

There is plenty f evidence. You are simply in denial about it.

quote:

..., and there are many, that have occured during this interglacial period. Over the past several thousand years that have been at least 2 periods of warming that are greater than what we are now experiencing.

Evidence please.

quote:

As for Mars, the consensus is that the climate there is in flux. There is disagreement as to whether this is a global or regional variation - but isn't that true on Earth as well?

No. The warming on Earth is global. This has been demonstrated to be the case beyond all rational doubt. There is no disageement, just acceptance or denial of reality.

quote:

There is very little warming occuring in the south polar region. Nearly all the warming and glacial melt is occuring in the far northern latitudes. The South Pole has been fairly stable for decades.

The south pole's ice sheets are also shrinking. It's unclear why as it is so bitterly cold there that even the warming t has experienced so far ought not to be enough to cause the shrinkage through melting.

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:

quote:

It's good to see another person here who recognizes proper scientific methodology.

And me please.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the three of you wouldn't understand the scientific method even if it made a null hypothesis of you.

Ape Man

Have you ever thought of being a scientist of bovine excrement ? You are clearly an expert on the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by Chi Squared:
Ape Man

Have you ever thought of being a scientist of bovine excrement ? You are clearly an expert on the subject.

A sure sign that a person has utterly lost the argument is when they cut the pretence and go for a pure ad hominem.

quote:

A sure sign that a person has utterly lost the argument is when they cut the pretence and go for a pure ad hominem

I entirely agree. So perhaps you might wish to review this thread and see who went for the ad hominem first.......eh ????

quote:

Originally posted by Arcana69:

quote:

Originally posted by Ape Man:

quote:

Originally posted by Arcana69:
When did humans populate these planets and what are we going to do about it?

Expose your claim as a lie. Let's have some evidence or admit you made it up please.

Rats! l missed this! ... l can't stop laughing.

I agree it doesn't make much sense. Not sure if I did a poor proof-read job or if it was edited by the mods.

quote:

Originally posted by Chi Squared:

quote:

A sure sign that a person has utterly lost the argument is when they cut the pretence and go for a pure ad hominem

I entirely agree. So perhaps you might wish to review this thread and see who went for the ad hominem first.......eh ????

"pure ad homimen" I said. I use ad hominems scattered within my replies all the time. But when a post is purely ad hominem, then they have lost.

quote:

"pure ad homimen"

Is that ad hominem with a 90% confidence level......or genuine pure Columbian Ad Hominem ?

quote:

There is very little warming occuring in the south polar region. Nearly all the warming and glacial melt is occuring in the far northern latitudes. The South Pole has been fairly stable for decades.
The south pole's ice sheets are also shrinking. It's unclear why as it is so bitterly cold there that even the warming t has experienced so far ought not to be enough to cause the shrinkage through melting.

Gees Ape Man, did you read the link about the temperature reading from the various Antarctic stations for the past 50 years. Here's the link again, please read it this time.
http://www.unis.no/research/geology/Geo_research/Ole/An...mperatureChanges.htm

Direct link to the temperature data:
http://www.unis.no/research/geology/Geo_research/Ole/An...peratureExamples.gif

Here's another link, to RealClimate which puts a rather bias spin on the data.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/antarctica-snowfall/
Even the author there states that there has been cooling over most of the continent since 1980, and warming from 1950 to 1980 (which is opposite of the global data which is interesting) only exception is a bit of the West Antarctic Ice sheet, which has lost some mass. Recent studies have shown an acceleration of inland mass to the West because of this loss, despite colder temperatures in the interior. Consensus opinion in the scientific community is that the Antarctic ice sheet will gain mass due to a global warming trend, not lose mass due to increased precipitation.

For the record, I do believe there is a warming trend globally on Earth as shown in the data, even though the south polar region is a notable exception. My point here, relating to the title of the thread, is that people tend to fit their data and conclusiions based on their biased assumptions of the underlying cause. i.e. AGW proponents say that Earth's warming is global (due to CO2) despite regioinal variations, but Mars' warming is regional given a similar set of data. AGW detractors say that both are global due to a common cause (solar forcing).

The jury is still out on both cases in my mind.