Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
gazela
Boulder climber
Albuquerque, NM
|
|
|
May 11, 2009 - 11:15pm PT
|
So if, by definition, any scientist disagreeing with the whole notion of anthropogenic global warming is a hack and an ideologue, just what sort of evidence could possibly convince its proponents to the contrary? ("I don't know anyone who disagrees"--sounds an awful lot like Pauline Kael's famous statement to the effect that she couldn't understand how Richard Nixon had won the presidency, given that she didn't know anyone who voted for him.)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 11, 2009 - 11:25pm PT
|
I'll break it down for you...
"...albedo variations are a necessary component of future atmospheric and climate studies."
No one I know disagrees.
The surface of Mars lacks large bodies of water, and the atmosphere is rather thin... the energy balance is dominated by how much sun light is absorbed by the surface. It doesn't move around, like in a fluid... thus albedo, the reflection of that energy, is going to be an important component to the Martian climate.
Now note that the article is about the Martian climate, not the Earth's, the Martian warming can be explained by the observed change in albedo, they didn't need to change the solar power output.
I think the argument might be made that these changes happen. We know they do. In this case, the exact same methodology is used to understand the Martian climate as the Earth's. The Earth's, however, is much more complex.
Here are clouds on Mars from the Mars Pathfinder mission
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
May 12, 2009 - 01:55pm PT
|
"So if, by definition, any scientist disagreeing with the whole notion of anthropogenic global warming is a hack and an ideologue, just what sort of evidence could possibly convince its proponents to the contrary?"
gazela,
If I found a scientist who stated that smoking does not cause cancer (and, hey, what do you know, he just happens to get funding from the Truth in Science foundation that just happens to be 99% funded by Big Tobacco), can I reasonably call him a "hack"?
Global warming is at the same stage smoking/cancer was in the 60's. The deniers were paid hacks. I don't think anybody can reasonably look back on that period and say otherwise.
20 years from now, all reasonable people will look back on this decade the same way.
|
|
onthefence
Boulder climber
Fresno
|
|
|
May 13, 2009 - 02:24am PT
|
I enjoyed the Fenton article on Mars. I am assuming that your main point is that solar output really is a small factor at best on Martian climate and that comparing Martian warming to Earth warming is sort of silly.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 13, 2009 - 11:07am PT
|
I think the comparison is fine, the same physical models are used to explain observations. The physical parameters which are input to the models work independent of the specific initial conditions. Mars and Earth are not the same in detail, but the same physics and chemistry work, the hydrodynamics, the thermodynamics...
...using the same tools to describe two very different planets builds confidence that the models are not finely tuned to a specific planet.
The knowledge of Martian climate, were it to be as well measured as the Earth's, would help to understand the role of solar energy forcing, since that is a common energy source for both planets. I don't think we can claim to understand Martian climate well enough, yet.
The other point, however, is that some of the science is expensive enough to be subject to politics. This is as it should be, however, it is important to put it all in perspective. While $100M seems like a lot of money, it represents a small fraction of the resources of the US. As a society we do provide resources through our taxes, to embark on societal projects. My guess is that if you went out and asked for $1 from everyone in the US to build such a project, you might be able to raise the $100M, after all, a place like Starbucks makes a bucket full of money charging $2.80 for two shots of 'spro.... The total wealth of the country far exceeds the cost of such a project. But still, Congress takes its responsibilities to oversee the budget seriously.
The problem for Triana was that it was viewed as a political stunt, rather than a serious science project. The fact that it would have been the first satellite to fly to the L1 point added to its oddness, even in science circles, as we don't actually know what to expect from that particular vantage point. In fact, this new point-of-view was the central scientific objective of the mission. Learning to fly at the Lagrange points of various objects in the solar system might be important in the future for special observatories, such as those that might look for Near Earth Objects (NEOs).
We will probably have such a mission, while other, worthy, missions will be differed due to budget constraints. There is not an infinite budget to do all the good things that could be done.
That is heartening. The current progress of science is probably limited by availability of budget.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!