Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

Re : Martian Polar Ice Caps.... which have always shown seasonal variation... and have only been observed closely for about two decades...

In 1966, two Caltech scientists---physicists Robert Leighton and geologist Bruce Murray---published a paper describing a theoretical framework for an important observation made by the Mariner 4 spacecraft during its flyby of Mars in 1965.

That measurement had shown that the atmospheric pressure of Mars was very low, only about a few thousandths of the pressure on Earth (4-5 millibar). Leighton and Murray had known from telescopic observations that Mars was very cold, and recognized that the low pressure and low temperature together could be explained if the atmosphere was composed mostly of carbon dioxide that was in equilibrium with dry ice on the surface.

If the temperature rose just a little bit, the solid CO2 on the surface would evaporate and raise the pressure a little bit; if the temperature fell, so would the atmospheric pressure. Leighton and Murray developed a computational model--one of the first of its kind--to study the range of pressures, temperatures, and other conditions that might occur on Mars.

Their paper included a number of specific predictions, including that the atmospheric pressure of Mars would vary cyclically every year by as much as 25% of the total pressure (by comparison, the largest hurricanes on the Earth represent variations about one-half that percentage), and that solid CO2 must exist somewhere on the planet, presumably in the polar caps.

Most of Leighton and Murray's predictions have been confirmed by later measurements. The CO2 composition of the very topmost material (the "white stuff") on the permanent south polar cap was surmised based on Viking Orbiter measurements of its temperature, and both Viking Landers measured large, cyclic seasonal pressure variations.

The natural orbit of Mars means that periodically it is closer to the sun... and as such "warms"... particularly with a very thin "atmosphere"...

Yep. Earth has the same mechanisms - the difference on Mars is, as pointed our above, the swings and extremes are a hell of a lot greater than they are on Earth due to the much lower atmospheric pressure. That makes sense.

However, it is still based on naturally occuring climate change occuring on Mars. Greater changes, same process. We get closer to, and then further away, from the sun as well. It's just that we think of the climate as a yearly cycle, and that's it. What we really need to look at is that yearly cycle is part of a larger multi-decade (or multi-century) pattern. It's why we have had multiple ice-ages over the millenia.


http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/dec/HQ_03415_ice_age.html

Forgot to add... Mars also has a very elliptical solar orbit (compared to Earth)... and a quite marked polar tilt...

At this time, the Martian north pole is pointed towards the sun, and at the present (Martian) season -- late northern spring -- there is a nearly uniform distribution of water vapor over the low latitude regions of Mars best observed from Earth. The atmospheric inventory of water should continue to increase for several months as water sublimes off the permanent northern polar ice cap. ....

While.... an extensive carbon dioxide frost cap is growing in the southern hemisphere.


http://www-mgcm.arc.nasa.gov/

Earth too has an elliptical orbit and a tilted axis - but not to the same degree as Mars - that's why we see the greater extremes there. So, the mechanisms for climate change are the same, just more accentuated on Mars. Fine.

The point I'm making Chilli... is that nobody disputes that there are, and always have been "cyclic" changes to climate... (even on other palnets)... whether short-term seasonal... or longer term orbital/polar inclination... magnetic pole reversal etc...

And that's not what the science is currently arguing... rather the science is proposing that there is evidence to show that humankind has exercerbated/accelerated... perhaps dangerously... the rate of cliamte change...

To seize upon longterm historical records of climatic change... doesn't negate the current premise or concern regarding accelerated climate change and the possible affect of humans as a course....

It just deliberately (IMO)... confuses the core issue... and deflects the necessary concern and action that might lead to a change in the way we approach our planet... for NO gain...

RupertofOZ wrote:
And that's not what the science is currently arguing... rather the science is proposing that there is evidence to show that humankind has exercerbated/accelerated... perhaps dangerously... the rate of cliamte change...


First off - it is only science if based on observable fact. The numbers HAVE been manipulated to support the outcome the pseudo-scientist want to reach. That is not science! Not even close - just hypothesis.

RupertofOZ wrote:
It just deliberately (IMO)... confuses the core issue... and deflects the necessary concern and action that might lead to a change in the way we approach our planet... for NO gain...


I do agree - both sides manipulate the facts. And the reason they do so (on both side) is for money. Plain and simple. If there was "NO gain" then they would not bother looking into it. Someone is making a profit off of all of this. Unfortunately it is you, I and our kids that are paying for it. I for one just cannot hands down except that we have caused hurricanes and tornadoes let alone droughts and floods and ice ages etc. Man may have a big ego, but not I. Those things are the work of something greater then us.

Certainly we are on an unsustainable path, and that needs to be rectified. But it has to be a world effort also. That cannot be legislated.

Ooops, theres some glitch here, somehow when I responded it's changed your post, sorry, dunno how that happened....

That was me posting above..... I think I may have fixed it..... phew

Indeed... the reporting bodies involved are "peer reviewed" at least three times during the process... and that includes people with dissenting opinions...

Most dissenters are bloggers, or represent vested interest business lobbies.... few are actual climate scientists...

Conservation is plenty enough reason for individual power supply. Just as wildlife conservation makes sense, works and is a testimate of what individuals can collectively do, so we also collectively conserve our fossel fuels, all the while reducing pollutants, the whole global warming arguement aside. I certainly wouldn't consider it based on personal research on global warming and not just believeing the talking heads on both sides of that arguement. I have ordered 32 of the 60watt thin film solar panels. I missed the $.98 per watt sale and ended up paying $1.20 per watt. plus the cords for 8 - 4panel strings. Almost 2 kw. or 25% needed to offset my consumption. I hope to get more in June. If I believed in global warming I would probably feel better about it, But I still feel pretty good just being a conservationist. And thats reason enough for me.

+1

Well said - I guess that sums me up pretty well too.

Mark

Happy to agree with that - but this is where we get to the crux - we don't actually know what "accelerated" is.

That the past changes occured is in the various fossil/palaeoclimate records, but that record lacks fine detail. We don't know what slow, fast, and faster actually is.

We don't know what the normal speed is as we have nothing to compare to, except the last couple of hundred years, which is statistically insignificant. Even if we had observations for the last 1,000 years it's still a tiny % of the duration of these changes.
We have people projecting graphs out to 2050 telling us what the temperature is going to be, based on no precedent at all. We still can't accurately predict the average temperature in a month or a year, let alone 40 years.


We have governments around the world salivating at the chance to bring in more rules and more taxes because of this theory - I don't think that's no gain.

Tony they are already doing it, the message just isnt, getting out.
http://www.dsireusa.org/
Of the $2,500 bucks I'm spending on these new panels works like this:
30% tax credit federal: $750.00
50% tax credit state: $1,250.00
Total cost for my little 2 kw system...$500.00
I'm not sure if I can claim the used inverter I bought off ebay last year.

That's a pretty good deal ! Is it income assessed ? Ours is which means they offer me nothing to do it.

I meant no gain... for the planet/environment...

Sadly, you're right.... governements are going down a path that not only will probably result in any meaningful gains in pollution reduction... but will both cost the taxpayer... and financially reward both the polluters and financial blood sucking parasites who practice virtual monopoly all day long for zero productive capacity...

Neither of our "parties" have seriously addressedthe issue IMO... and Abbott's plan is just a bloody lunatic idea that throws money toward farmers, leaves industry to pollute... and charges the taxpayer unknown amounts.... a "big fat...unknown tax"....

FFS... lets get rid of the rest of the dinosaur Howardics next election... so that at least we might have a chance at some real, pertinent alternative ideas...

Shhhhhhh. not only for the really rich or really poor so far But the corporations still get the better deal. Like a lot of the polititions do try to help the poor but the poor can't make the initial investment and so the corporations usually lobby up the better deals.