Mars Global Warming Without SUV's

After reading this National Geographic article

I'm still looking into the Russian guy's work. Likely some of the things he's said (they say he "denies" a "greenhouse effect" -- which, if true, would make him a quack in my book. (update: the man is no quack). But somehow I think he was misinterpreted or taken out of context). The National Geographic article I read started out citing the guy's work, then spent the second half of the article on rubuttals and rebukes.

When it's a pro-AGW article, you're lucky if you get a sentence or two addressing skepticism.

Some other things that have come to light

When the IPCC says "concensus" that man is causing global warming, it turns out that they base that on 928* scientists (and I think there were 933 or 935, so I guess they "conveniently" threw a few out) who "wouldn't deny" that man is contributing to the warming ( a little over 1 degree farenheit over 100 years) we've seen. I mean, I wouldn't deny it, either. I guess that would make me a part of the so-called "concensus". But a reputable scientist knows you can't disprove that we've had anything to do with it any more than he could say right now that you can prove it. So of course they would never say "nope, I'm 100% sure we're not contributing to it".

There have been studies (I've mostly been pointed to them by freinds of science and junkscience that point to a correlation between increased solar radiation and the warming we've seen. Paralell warming on Mars would support this theory. Apparently this russian scientist is one of the scientists that have studied this.

Here's what we do know:

• The earth is a little over 1 degree F warmer than it was 100 years ago to the best of our ability to measure it in 1900.


• Industry and energy generation, as well as fires -- release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.


• There appears to have been a substantial increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmostphere in the last 100 years.


• There is a theory based on blackbody radiation theory equations that suggests that more C02 in the atmosphere would lead to warmer surface temperatures


• There appears to have been an increase in solar activity over the last 150 years.
  
• We have climate models based on assumptions and theories about physical processes in the earth's dynamic climate system. These models have been used to guess what might happen if we double the amount of C02 in the atmosphere.


• Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have varied widely over time throughout history

Take away from that what you think you can.

Going down that list of facts above:

• Anyone who has studied climate would not be alarmed at a 1.2F degree average global temperature increase over 100 years.


• We really don't know what all is involved in the Earth's "carbon cycle". So we really can't say what happens to that carbon dioxide over time. We can guess it's due to the CO2 we're emitting. But it's just a guess. An educated guess. But much less educated than some would like you to believe.


• There are ice core studies that suggest that increases in CO2 levels actually lag behind average global temperature increases.


• Mathematical models are models we make up based on our understanding of a system, and believe me, we don't really understand the Earth's climate system anywhere near completely. All kinds of assumptions about the significance of other factors in the earth's surface temperature. The validness of a theory is directly proportional to our understanding of the processes involved. A model based on those theories is at least as limited. None of these models are capable of predicting future climate, or replicating current climate from past climate data.


• Models used to predict average global temperatures for today back in the 1980's predicted higher temperatures than we have seen.


• Increased solar radiation means that more energy from the sun is reaching the planets. Presumably, that would cause them to warm. Earth has apparently warmed slightly. So has Mars.

Now... what do YOU think?

* Incidentally, how many of those scientists were actually climatologists? AGW proponents are content to let you believe they all were.