Mars Also Undergoing Climate Change as Ice Age Retreats, Study Shows

1. 90

   Kenna McHughposted 4 years ago

   The Sun actually has something to do with the Climate Change
   https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016 … ge-retrea/

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Rock_njposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, the sun's radiant energy has been decreasing since the 1980s, and over the same period of time, the Earth's atmosphere has been warming pretty significantly. So it's not the sun that has been causing global warming on Earth in recent decades. As is well known, the sunspot cycle has been on a downtrend for many decades with lower peaks in activity, which is the reason why the sun is sending less energy out to the planets like Earth recently.  Source:  https://skepticalscience.com/solar-acti … arming.htm

      replyreport
   2. 0

      promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It's safe to say we don't live on Mars.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         Kenna McHughposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         We don't live on Mars yet!

         replyreport
   3. 0

      RTalloniposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Now you've done it...

      replyreport
   4. 83

      Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly!
      
      The sun is also hot. It's literally burning up. Are they going to tell us that fumes from our cars are making the sun burn up too?!!!!
      
      It's ridiculous. These "scientists" don't know anything. If it's a choice between trusting the so-called worldwide scientific community's conclusions on climate change, and a student's mid term paper, then I'd choose the student's paper! THAT'S JUST OBVIOUS COMMON SENSE!!!! MAGA!

      replyreport
      1. 0

         promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Are you being sarcastic? I sense subtle sarcasm ...

         replyreport
2. 52

   BHolcombposted 4 years ago

   I suppose “man made” climate change is our fault on Mars?  How about worrying about something there IS PROOF OF?!!!!
   
   Yellowstone Volcano
   The Poles reversing
   Meteor impacts
   
   All you are doing is empowering government(s)!!!  STOP IT AND GET RELEVANT!!!!

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Kenna McHughposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      My daughter wrote a mid-term paper on the climate change reports being false. It's an eye opener at who is making money off this falsehood.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         RTalloniposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         What a great read that should be. Would she let you print it?

         replyreport
         1. 90

            Kenna McHughposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I should ask her. It's pretty darn good. She got A++ (means extra credit.)

            replyreport
            1. 90

               Rock_njposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Considering the fact that the Earth was naturally slipping into its next ice age right on time per the geologic record and that slide suddenly reversed about 100 years ago and the warming has continued strongly over the past 40 years despite the sun's radiant energy weakening over that same time period, I'd say the science is not on the sun being the cause of recent global warming on Earth.  I deal with facts and science, not made up stuff.  I wrote about it all here:  https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/Evi … -By-Humans

               replyreport
3. 61

   Live to Learnposted 4 years ago

   This is the part that scares me. We understand quite a bit less than we think. I'm afraid the earth's symbiotic relationship keeps the delicate balance it needs for life, taking into account all the things we don't understand.
   
   I'm afraid, in our ignorance, we'll come up with some grand scheme to counterbalance what we think we've done and screw the entire system. Which would be quite ironic. To cause our own extinction trying to avoid our own extinction.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Good point. At the same time, we might already have started the process of our own extinction by letting carbon emissions run amok.
      
      To your point, either way we have to tread carefully.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Hxprofposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      What I want to know is this: what are climate scientists missing?  Do climate scientists have all of their ducks in a row,  or are there some unknown factors they've not considered?
      
      Also a concern is mindset.  Everyone has mindset, which influences how we see things, how we make connections, etc.  Mindsets also color on scientific data.
      
      Bottom line for me is this: prove to me that humans are the primary cause for global climate change (or warming) - demonstrate it so that it's so clear that it simply can't be viewed else wise.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         Kenna McHughposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I agree. But, we still need to safeguard and protect our environment. That is obvious and easy to see with our senses.

         replyreport
4. 90

   Kenna McHughposted 4 years ago

   The "experts" who researched climate change fabricated the documentation of the study.  Decisions or policies written based on these kinds of studies eschew our thinking process in making the logical choices for our planet.  We need to safeguard and improve our environment based on facts. It begins in our front yards or holding our garbage in our cars and throwing it away when we get home not out our car window. We can recycle our oil, prescription drugs, and other poisons instead of dumping them into our water systems. We can avoid using plastic and recycle whenever possible.  I am sure we can think of other actions that will protect our planet.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Rock_njposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Care to expand on how the "experts" who researched climate change fabricated the documentation of the study?  You have already claimed that there is some connection between Earth's and Mars' global warming by claiming the sun's energy is to blame for both.  A coincidence is not akin to a connection.  Claiming it's the sun causing the warming in recent decades, you are ignoring the scientific measurements that indicate that the sun's radiation has been decreasing for 40 years (which is supported by the decreasing sunspot activity over this same time period during the solar cycle).  This decrease in solar radiation reaching Earth should be causing cooling of Earth, but that's not what's happening.  It's not just the urban heat island effect or some other theories thrown out there to debunk the reality that the Earth has been warming since the 1980s.  We know Earth has been warming over this time period because sea levels have been rising due to ice melt and the fact that oceans expand due to higher heat content.  We are just in the early innnings of global warming.  It's going to get a whole lot more evident as the decades pass.
      
      That said, I agree that any manmade solution, like trying to dim sunlight by throwing things up into the atmosphere that block sunlight would be misguided.  Probably wouldn't happen anyway since humans can't agree on much of anything.  We'll just have to adjust to a world with higher average temps and much higher sea levels.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
      
      "The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations."
      
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ … ontroversy

      replyreport
      1. 90

         Kenna McHughposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Wikipedia? Are you serious?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, why? Look at the citations at the bottom of the article. Do you have better sources?
            
            The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel Archived 9 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel Archived 25 September 2010 at the Wayback Machine and second panel Archived 30 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US).
            
            Biello, David (Feb 2010). "Negating 'Climategate'". Scientific American. (302):2. 16. ISSN 0036-8733. "In fact, nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame";
            
            See also: Lubchenco, Jane (2 December 2009) House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming (House Select Committee). "The Administration's View on the State of Climate Science". House Hearing, 111 Congress. U.S. Government Printing Office. "...the e-mails really do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus and the independent scientific analyses of thousands of scientists around the world that tell us that the Earth is warming and that the warming is largely a result of human activities." As quoted in the report published by Office of Inspector General.
            
            And many more.

            replyreport
5. 90

   Kenna McHughposted 4 years ago

   Here are sound reports. Still, we must take care of our planet.
   
   https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/env … -the-world
   "Global surface temperatures have remained stable for 20 years, even as man-made CO2 has continued to increase, defying the predictions of the alarmists. Climate realists (whom the alarmists vilify as “deniers”) are winning the debate with real science and real evidence."
   
   The Environment: A True Story - https://youtu.be/HDdB2wXzyvo The documentary provides historical evidence and interviews fro Climate Scientists that show humans cannot be the cause of the fluctuating temperatures on Earth.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think "The New American" has quite the same credibility as 32 international science organizations and every government on the planet (except our current one).
      
      Any response yet to our postings about the "fake" climate research? Just curious.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         Kenna McHughposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Watch the documentary and read the article.  The documentary scientific sources are quite extensive.

         replyreport
   2. 90

      Rock_njposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Global surface temperatures haven't remained stable for 20 years.  That is not an accurate statement.  The hottest years ever recorded were 2015 and 2016. The Earth has continued to warm, as evidenced by rising sea levels (they rise when the planet is warming and drop when the planet is cooling for obvious reasons). It ebbs and flows, but the trend is clearly upwards.
      
      But really that's not important.  The problem with global warming deniers is that they have no vision.  What is happening now is just a prelude to what is to come once feedback loops like liberating methane from the frozen polar regions kicks in and kicks global warming into high gear, like 1 C warming over 20 years rather than the 100 years it has taken to rise 1 C.
      
      It's like when we were waiting for hurricane Sandy to hit NY and NJ and the dolts are like this is no big deal when the storm was still 300 miles out at sea and conditions were not too stormy. Yeah, it was just another storm until it made landfall in the evening and brought with it unprecedented storm surge and winds that did massive damage to people and property.  We are just waiting for the worst of global warming.  Just because it isn't here now, doesn't mean it's not going to arrive in future decades.  One of the falsehoods that deniers use is that scientists claim global warming should be really bad by now, which isn't true at all. Any scientist worth his/her salt knows the Earth has only warmed 1C since the early 20th century and this whole thing is just getting started.  It will not be no big deal if the Earth warms 4, 5, or 6C over the next century or two.  It will have a major impact on humans and any living thing.
      
      Here's an article I wrote that give perspective on the science behind global warming research and how scientists have reached their conclusions.  Interestingly, global warming has always been controlversial since the beginning of the scientific debate over 100 years ago. 
      
      
      Here is a site that tracks what's going on with the global climate:  http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/

      replyreport
      1. 90

         Kenna McHughposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         FYI: You've been posting your articles here, which is considered spam.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            Rock_njposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            They are about the topic being discussed and actual scientific facts and background to it.  I didn’t join this conversation to post my articles.  I joined it because I read something you posted that is clearly inaccurate in regards to the data we have regarding the sun’s radiance strength and connection to global warming on Earth and Mars.  The fact is that nobody that looks at the data can deny us that the sun’s strength and therefore impact on global temperatures has diminished over the past 40 years. You can’t claim that recent warming on Earth during this time period is due to a weaker sun. It’s not the sun causing global warming over the past 40 years. The sun cycle of sunspots is at a natural ebb right now, which should cool the Earth like the mini ice age of Medieval times, but to a lesser extent since they haven’t diminished as much as back then.  Sorry, but claiming the sun is responsible for recent global warming is not grounded in physical reality or scientific data regarding the sun’s relationship to Earth’s climate.

            replyreport
6. 90

   Kenna McHughposted 4 years ago

   I am not claiming it. I am posting the facts from articles that are not mine, which I don't think you have yet to look at and study.
   The main point is we need to take care of our planet.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Rock_njposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I read the articles.  The "facts" in them are not facts at all, but rather falsehoods put forth by people who either don't understand the science or have an agenda and want to muddy the waters.  These so-called "facts" just confuse people.  It's really simple:  when less of the Sun's radiant energy is reaching Earth it has a cooling effect on Earth and when there's more radiant energy from the Sun reaching the Earth it has a warming effect.  The actual fact that anyone can look up and verify for themselves regarding observations taken of the Sun's radiant energy is that it has been diminishing at the same time as the Earth's temperature has been increasing over the past 40 years. A rational observer who looks at the actual facts and data (look up the Sun Cycle) cannot conclude that it is the Sun that has been driving the recent warming on Earth since the Sun Cycle has been weakening over the past 40 years, which has resulted in less of the Sun's radiant energy from reaching Earth. There is something else driving the recent warming we have observed through temperature measurements and secondary observations such as species habitat migrations and rising sea levels.
      
      I agree that we have to take care of our planet, but taking articles that seriously propose the global warming we've experienced in recent decades is due to the Sun's effect on our climate are not a good place to start. It's factually wrong and easily proven as factually inaccurate and should be discounted as such. If we were living during a time when the Sun Cycle was in such a state that it was increasing the Sun's radiant energy reaching the Earth, then such articles would have to be taken into serious consideration as an explanation for the recent warming, but we aren't living in such a time.  The Sun's current activity is having a cooling effect on Earth's climate, which is being overridden by other drivers of climate.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Posting and praising it is claiming it.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         Kenna McHughposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         What I find interesting in the video I posted, the report that the data entered into the scientific computerized models is not reliable because they fed information rather than track it down. Historically, the evidence is overlooked. Over the centuries, the Earth's temperature is naturally going up and down.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I agree with you that the Earth's temperature naturally goes up and down.
            
            That said, scientists and governments worldwide are frightened about how quickly the Earth's temperature is rising, the harmful impact it is having on climate and weather, and how much of it is the result of human carbon emissions.

            replyreport
7. 90

   Kenna McHughposted 4 years ago

   Multiple NASA Studies Confirm Bedrock Heat Flow Behind Melting Polar Ice, Not Global Warming
   https://climatechangedispatch.com/nasa- … olar-melt/

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Kenna McHughposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      +1

      replyreport
   2. 83

      Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      +2
      
      Right on Kenna. Rock solid sources. Foolish people will ask why you would trust a site that Media Bias Fact Check has reviewed as:
      
      "Conspiracy Level: Moderate
      Pseudo-science Level: Quackery"(1)
      
      Just ignore them Kenna. They don't know anything.
      
      The silly climate alarmists will also point out that
      climatechangedispatch.com is edited by James Taylor, a senior Fellow at the Heartland Institute, which is funded by the oil and gas industry(2), and the tobacco industries(3).
      
      But is that meant to be a bad thing? I trust the oil and gas industry 110% to tell the truth about climate change. Why wouldn't they?!!!
      
      And we all know how trustworthy the tobacco industry is when it comes to telling the truth about harm. The fact that site is funded by those industries is a PLUS in my book!!!!
      
      So keep on truckin Kenna, preferably with good ol' American freedom fossil fuel!!
      
      MAGA!!
      
      (1) https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/climate-change-dispatch/
      (2) https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?t … te#Funding
      (3) https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?t … nd_tobacco

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         It seems lately more of these right wing sites are appearing on the net. I get weary of trying to convince folks to check out the site and its owners before posting a link from it
         
         I suppose many simply like what the site reports more than they care for the authenticity of what they're reporting.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Don's SourceWatch link shows that a handful of radical right and Libertarian billionaires are funding these propaganda sites with a huge amount of money.
            
            The biggest ones have family connections with the John Birch Society. It's the far right group that was so radical back in the '60s and '70 that even mainstream conservatives condemned it.
            
            Coincidentally, it now owns The New American, the magazine that Kenna linked.
            
            Kenna, are you a member?
            
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

            replyreport
            1. 90

               Kenna McHughposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Discrediting sources doesn't win the prudence.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  The source is biased political group with a far right political agenda. It's even farther to the right than Fox News.
                  
                  Are you a member?

                  replyreport
                  1. 90

                     Kenna McHughposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     If I was a member, it wouldn't matter. That is just a distraction from the issue.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        Not at all. It goes to the possibility that you have a hidden motive for what you post on HP.
                        
                        Are you a member?

                        replyreport
                        1. 90

                           Kenna McHughposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           As I said before, I am not a member. If I was, it would not matter because it is a distraction from the issue. There are no hidden motives in my posts. Though now, I think you are the one with hidden motives because you are twisting my comments.
                           Please keep to the issue of the original post. We need to take care of our planet and use proper sources to do so.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              You didn't say you are not a member. You said, "If I was a member, it wouldn't matter." Clearly evasive.
                              
                              I am sticking to the issue. The issue is the subject of the link YOU posted.

                              replyreport
                              1. 90

                                 Kenna McHughposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                 You are splitting hairs. "If I was"...doesn't mean I am.
                                 
                                 Do you care about the condition of the planet?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                    No, you are playing word games. "If I was" doesn't mean you are or aren't a member of JBS.
                                    
                                    I care about the planet enough that I don't want to see anti-science propaganda from the John Birch Society posted on HP.
                                    
                                    If you want to have a serious debate about climate change, I'm happy to have one with you despite differences of opinion. But don't expect us to look the other way with links to JBS.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 90

                                       Kenna McHughposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                       Good. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                          You're welcome and likewise.

                                          report
                           2. 58

                              Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              Did you vote for Trump, Kenna?

                              replyreport
               2. 83

                  Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  True! What does it matter if the information that forms the basis of our argument is literally described as "pseudo-science" and "propaganda" by a fact-checking site? Who cares?
                  
                  The main thing is that it says what we think it should say. Reliable sources are overrated. We have our own facts!!!!
                  
                  Climate change is not mainly caused by humans, because Mars! Fact. Smoking doesn't cause cancer! Fact. Vaccines cause autism! Fact. Zygotes are people! Fact. The British royal family and the Pope are lizards! Fact. They found a WWII bomber on the moon! Fact. You're right Kenna, discrediting the sources doesn't change these facts. It's not important how we know them, it's just important that we spread them!!! MAGA!

                  replyreport
                  1. 90

                     Kenna McHughposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     Don W.
                     You are a member of the John Birch Society, FACT!
                     You voted for Trump, FACT!

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm not just a member. I'm a co-founder.
                        
                        On my 67th birthday, back in 1958, I hit upon the idea with my good friend and confidant Bob Welch. We wanted to start an organization that stands for truth, justice and the American way, and we did.
                        
                        So it makes my heart bleed today seeing all these "liberals" spouting their facts about climate change. We never had facts when we were fighting the commies. All we had was good old red, white and blue propaganda!
                        
                        That's why I'm so encouraged by your comments kenna. Takes me back to the good old days. Back then if we needed a fact, we'd just make one up! Life was so much easier then. Like you, I long for the days when no one cared about "sources" of information. People just bought whatever you told them.
                        
                        But please, I must insist you don't mention my name in the same sentence as President Trump. I'm not worthy of such a distinction. Mr Trump has made this country . . . Forgive me, I'm getting teary-eyed. It'll pass in a minute. It's just that he's like the son I always wanted.
                        
                        He's kind and courteous to people, respectful to women, cares deeply about the rule of law. Is not impressed by dictators, can't be bribed with trinkets and shiny things. Just an all-round wonderful man. Now I need to take a minute to compose myself. MAGA!

                        replyreport
                        1. 90

                           Kenna McHughposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           I thought you'd like my last comment. See you at the next Be In.

                           replyreport