This is an interesting theory and answers a lot of questions.
I don’t know enough about it to know one way or another. As I am very fond of telling people, I am not a scientist.
:eek:MARS ATTACKS :eek:
I’m not sure if the Mars impact is new, but I know scientists have always known at least since Milankovitch posited in the 1920s that orbital changes are initiating causes of climate change – see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
There are also some internal (to earth system) causes of climate change as well. For a rundown of all the various internal and external factors involved in CC, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
What happens in these orbital/wobble initiated climate change episodes is that the initial warming causes melting of permafrost and ocean hydrates, which release greenhouse gases, causing more warming, causing more release, causing more warming, and so on.
And the warming causes ice and snow cover to melt, revealing darker oceans and land, causing more heat to be absorbed than reflected back out of the earth system, causing more melting, causing more warming, causing more melting, and so on. Some of the great warming events of the past have cause mass extinctions – 251 mill yrs ago nearly 95% of life died out.
The reverse also happens if the orbit/wobble causes initial cooling – then more GHGs are trapped in ice (permafrost, ocean hydrates), causing more cooling, causing more GHGs to be trapped in ice, causing more cooling and so on. And initial cooling causes more snow and ice to cover the earth, causing more cooling (heat being reflected back out of the earth system), causing more snow and ice cover, causing more cooling and so on. In fact earth may have almost became lifeless when it is hypothesized to have gone into a “snowball earth” condition 650 mill yrs ago - see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
RE the article about the impact of Mars, it was about a warming period some 87 million years ago.
As for our current situation of climate change (for which orbital/wobble factors have been ruled out since they are not happening, at least not rapidly enough) the initial cause is our industrial emissions of GHGs. And the initial warming from that is beginning to cause ice to melt and GHGs trapped in it to be released, and also melting of ice and snow cover, causing more warming. That’s one reason the Arctic is warming faster than the low-latitudes.
So, we still need to focus on what we can do about it and reduce our GHG emissions as much as possible, and luckily we can do so down to a 60% or more reduction, without net cost to us, even with net savings and without lowering our living standards (which is what my husband and I have done over the past 27 years since we started mitigating CC).
Methane hydrates remain frozen due to pressure. Some of them are found beneath tropical oceans. They exude from the land and shallow oceans, too, not just into the deep oceans.
Before I worry too much about decreased reflection of sunlight from melted ice, I think it reasonable to worry even more about the effect of manmade desertification, which is massive. Before telling people in the Dakotas that they need to freeze in the winter, I think it would be wise for people to assess the effects of the ongoing destruction of vegetation. MMGW is theoretical, desertification is visibly real.
Mars is Terraphopic!
Where’s the leftist outrage??!
Speechless…will pray for charity, go to confession, pray for more charity…
But we all know thats not a face or artifically built structure on Mars, right?
It’s cheese. People have been wrong all along about the moon being made of green cheese. It’s Mars and it’s red cheese.
Lest anybody get the wrong impression, it’s not gouda. It’s port wine that causes it to be red.
Re methane release from ice (the Clathrate gun hypothesis - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis ) I was mainly referring to past great warmings, such as the PETM 55 mill yrs ago and the end-Permian 251 mill yrs ago.
However, this could happen again with the warming we are causing. Prudence requires (and JPII, BXVI, and Pope Francis admonishes) us to do the needful in mitigating CC by reducing our GHGs, even if we are not sure about it.
We wouldn’t want to do an “experiment” on earth and create the conditions for this life-annihilating situation to happen. Best to do what we can to halt this “experiment.” And working against desertification certainly has a place in this project of halting CC.
Mars needs guitars. We send probes.
It’s not a theory. It’s a hypothesis.
This is more evidence of Marsophobia. If only Obama was around to write an executive order forcing all people to end such blatant discrimination.
If this is cis-Earth, then is Mars “trans-Earth???”
If AGW is a theory, then this is a theory. Otherwise they are both hypothesis.
Have the scientists consulted Al Gore?
You dairy farmers are so busted. Even Richie Branson is on the dark side of themoon over this.
It seems the Mars impact on Earth’s climate is more than a hypothesis since there is one study (as mentioned in the OP) with actual findings that support the hypothesis of it happening at least once, 87 mill yrs ago. So it is a theory (verified science) barely supported by one study. Which does not imply in any way that it applies to the warming of today. One would first have to prove that Mars did its “impact thing” vis-à-vis Earth in our current times, and no one is claiming that.
OTOH, the AGW of today is also a theory, except supported by the laws of physics and 1000s of studies from various angles pointing to our GHG emissions as a cause or the main cause. IOW, it is a “robust” theory, supported by the laws of physics and much observations and evidence.
Like most of this genre, it seems pretty thin soup to me. Its persuasiveness really does seem to require a significant preexisting acceptance and concern about the most commonly advertised versions of MMGW theory. Indeed, to my knowledge, Pope Benedict was dubious about the whole MMGW theory.
But no matter what, even Papal concerns about MMGW are still based on the factual assertions that global warming is a reality; that it’s caused by fossil fuel emissions, that it will inevitably result in adverse consequences, and that only reduction of fossil fuel use will ameliorate it. That proposition is not a certainty in any of its elements. To me, the most seriously unpersuasive is the second term. And it’s particularly unpersuasive because virtually nobody takes disruptions in the carbon cycle into account; disruptions that are impossible to deny and as obvious as mine tailings outside a gold mine.
The fixation on fossil fuels is distressing because the political advocates of the theory posit “fixes” that a) won’t fix it and b) promise to make life harder, particularly for the poor.