This is more like it. This is the way to carry on the debate. Seth Jarvis wrote:
Mars' shrinking southern ice cap is thought to be a regional phenomenon, not necessarily a sign of planet-wide climate change. Moreover, Mars' climate is tremendously more dependent on solar influences than Earth's due to its eccentric orbit and the role that continent-sized dust clouds play in heat retention and albido.
Jupiter's heat output from internal sources is vastly greater than the heat input from external sources. Of course there will be new features in the Jovian atmosphere. Again, is the little red spot an indication of a Jovian "climate" change, or a regional change arising from internal mechanisms? No one knows at the moment.
Triton and Pluto have been studied for far too short a period of time to start drawing conclusions about terrestrial climate from what's happening on those remote worlds. That said, there is an interesting hypothesis floating around that Pluto, recently past its perihelion, is showing elevated temperatures in the same way that the hottest months of the year on earth come some weeks following summer solstice - a sort of thermal momentum. Others argue that the "warmer" conditions Pluto experiences during its perihelion causes the planet's thin methane-rich atmosphere sublimate from a frozen solid state into a gasseous state and thus the planet undergos a genuine greenhouse effect that delays the planet's cooling as a result of its orbital movement further from the sun. Others think Pluto may have volcanic activity that is injecting additional methane into its atmoshphere. We'll probably have to wait for New Horizons to arrive at Pluto (mark your calendars, July 14, 2015) for better data.
Regarding the credibility of sources, I'm only pointing out that it should be of serious concern to any of us looking for objectivity in public policy decisions that so much of the global warming denial lobby has financial connections to the industries that have the most to lose from a truthful presentation of the science. If Senator Inhofe or CanadaFreePress.com wanted to cite their own library of credible and objective research on the subject, that'd be interesting to review. Unfortunately, they don't. Instead, they circulate the same highly-spun cherry-picked data offered by people and organizations whose conflicts of interest or lack of qualifications give good reason to be suspicious of their conclusions.
In terms of "both sides do it" (spin scientific research to support a political agenda) I agree with you that it's wrong. However, I disagree that there is anything resembling an "agenda" that climate researchers have that is the equivalent opposite to the agenda of the industry-sponsored "skeptics."
Seth
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Lockman Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:51 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Response to Seth Jarvis
I have to apologize for posting my response in this way, but it's a lot of writing to have to redo if I have the same problem with replies posting as I did yesterday.
Seth Jarvis asked, "What science did Don post?"
He posted findings in the research he was citing. He posted:
"Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm.
The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.
Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser.
Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer.""
Then he posted the references.
If some of these things are countered in the literature you find to be more credible, you should, as you did with the medieval period of warming, so state it. Also, as you have done, it is appropriate to call into question the validity of his sources. From a personal perspective, using the arguments that since the literature is from conservatives or that it's from industry lobbyists it is wrong is no more valid than if it were to be pointed out that most Universities have been under liberal control for decades, therefore most of the scientists publishing global warming papers are liberals and since they are liberals their main agenda is to further the liberal cause that global warming is man made. so anything published by them is suspicious. Both sides do this and it's wrong.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com