Ice caps diminishing by 3 meters each year!!!

[MassDebation.com]

"..Some of the planet's most dramatic terrain alteration is happening at its south polar residual cap. The residual ice cap is the portion that remains bright and retains ice throughout the austral summer. The ice is frozen carbon dioxide (CO2) — dry ice — and is sculpted into broad mesas, buttes, and small circular pits that, in some places, resemble stacks of thinly sliced Swiss cheese. But the ice cap is disappearing.

"It's evaporating right now at a prodigious rate," says Michael Malin, principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) that took the images. "We're losing about 3 meters [10 feet] of escarpment each Mars year." Over time, the polar pits merge into plains, mesas shrink into buttes, and buttes vanish forever..." ~ more on this story from astronomy.com

Perhaps the Mars Global Surveyor is causing this? Maybe the old Viking landers of '76 too?

[Richard]

It's those pesky martians!

[reality]

Are you joking MD?

[MassDebation.com]

The object of this post is to ask the question: Is it possible that, without our influence, our ice-caps may be melting nevertheless?

Clearly, it is alleged from the report, that this is happening on Mars - and apparently without us being the direct and supreme cause. Therefore, there exists the possibility that the Earth's ice-caps would nevertheless be melting now even if we had never existed on this planet.

Does this possibility exist? Or is it solely dependent on our influence?

[blackfoxtrade]

you may have seen it, but it's still worth the visit

[Hayduke]

Originally Posted by MassDebation.com

The object of this post is to ask the question: Is it possible that, without our influence, our ice-caps may be melting nevertheless?

Clearly, it is alleged from the report, that this is happening on Mars - and apparently without us being the direct and supreme cause. Therefore, there exists the possibility that the Earth's ice-caps would nevertheless be melting now even if we had never existed on this planet.

Does this possibility exist? Or is it solely dependent on our influence?

Of course the possibility exists. No scientist who proclaims the validity of a human-contribution model of climate change would argue that. (Conversely, those scientists funded by big business will vehemently deny the plausibility of a human-contribution model.)

This possibility should be considered largely irrelevant by right-thinking policy makers.

It is possible humans have no effect, and it is possible they have a large effect. Either way, the environment is showing signs of crippling stress.

So consider the case where unstoppable environmental consequences are the culprit. If we do nothing, we're buggered. If, on the other hand, this is the case yet we try to stop human factors that (as it would turn out, were non-factors), then we're buggered anyway. Thus, if the degradation of the climate is natural, we nontheless have nothing to lose by trying to stop it, since we're buggered either way.

Conversely, consider the case where human factors DO turn out to be the culprit. If we do nothing, again, we're buggered. But this time, if we take prophylactic measures to stop human influence, perhaps we can stop the collapse of the environment BEFORE we're buggered. Thus, if the degradation of the climate is human in origin, we're buggered one way, and have hope the other.

Assuming human vs natural causes are equally likely (and "equally likely" seems a kind assessment to the natural causes side, considering the growing consensus among independent scientists that humans are at least contributing significantly), the only logical thing to do is to give stemming the possible human causes a shot. It's the only plausible scenario that gives civilization a shot. All other roads lead to destruction.

[MassDebation.com]

Originally Posted by Hayduke

Of course the possibility exists. No scientist who proclaims the validity of a human-contribution model of climate change would argue that. (Conversely, those scientists funded by big business will vehemently deny the plausibility of a human-contribution model.)

This possibility should be considered largely irrelevant by right-thinking policy makers.

It is possible humans have no effect, and it is possible they have a large effect. Either way, the environment is showing signs of crippling stress.

So consider the case where unstoppable environmental consequences are the culprit. If we do nothing, we're buggered. If, on the other hand, this is the case yet we try to stop human factors that (as it would turn out, were non-factors), then we're buggered anyway. Thus, if the degradation of the climate is natural, we nontheless have nothing to lose by trying to stop it, since we're buggered either way.

Conversely, consider the case where human factors DO turn out to be the culprit. If we do nothing, again, we're buggered. But this time, if we take prophylactic measures to stop human influence, perhaps we can stop the collapse of the environment BEFORE we're buggered. Thus, if the degradation of the climate is human in origin, we're buggered one way, and have hope the other.

Assuming human vs natural causes are equally likely (and "equally likely" seems a kind assessment to the natural causes side, considering the growing consensus among independent scientists that humans are at least contributing significantly), the only logical thing to do is to give stemming the possible human causes a shot. It's the only plausible scenario that gives civilization a shot. All other roads lead to destruction.

I like your reasoning here. It should be common sense to "keep our big house clean & tidy", and I do agree that we should try to look after our Earth.

But "We're destroying the Earth and we're all buggered" I won't agree with just yet... for example, in the case that our influence is not the biggest factor, ie if it turns out that we're going to be buggered because of forces beyond our control, then shouldn't we, in that case, be trying to find ourselves an alternative place to live?

Just seems strange that there are other planets in our solar system experiencing similar changes to ours... perhaps "they're" just not telling us the whole story & distracting us with blaming humans for all the changes - I suppose it would be quite a panic & mayhem state of affairs if it turned out to be that we're all going to be buggered by natural changes in our entire solar system!

mmm... okay, maybe then I wouldn't REALLY want to know after all!

[mgopilot]

Cool website. When I was young I had hoped to go to Mars as a geologist-astronaut. They don't know, they say, but I would say it has to do with the planet's ellipticity changes. This is how Earth goes into ice ages about every 100,000 years, with variability caused by tilt/wobble. Except on Mars it is dry ice ages. Could be, but with the present climate change or global warming on Earth we have some known data. One is the variation of CO2 over the past 400,000 years from various core samples. 180 to 280 ppm (and there were 4 ice ages). In the past 50 years or so it has jumped to 380 ppm. This increase is known from experimentation to cause a greenhouse effect. Volcanism accounts for 1/150th of the average, so it is obvious that it is man's burning and increase in population by over double that is the cause. If it were increased solar output causing both planets to warm, then we would be worse off, and it would have been noted in measurements. The likelyhood of our Mars landers heating up the entire planet is nill. There is the possibility that the meteorite in the preceeding article had something to do with it. Again, nice site!

[MassDebation.com]

I see some talk about Jupiter's "Great Red Spot" dwindling a bit after all this time... perhaps to become the "not-so-Great Red Spot" one day.
It would be interesting to see investigations into what all changes are occurring on all our planets, and where there may be similar changes.
The sun's surface is supposed to start cooling as its core shrinks, isn't it?

Very nice site, it is - I wish it was mine!!!

[mgopilot]

Originally Posted by MassDebation.com

I see some talk about Jupiter's "Great Red Spot" dwindling a bit after all this time... perhaps to become the "not-so-Great Red Spot" one day.
It would be interesting to see investigations into what all changes are occurring on all our planets, and where there may be similar changes.
The sun's surface is supposed to start cooling as its core shrinks, isn't it?

Very nice site, it is - I wish it was mine!!!

In 4.5 billion years or so, our sun will expand into the red giant phase, out to just past Earth's orbit, melting the entire planet. Then it will shrink and cool to a white dwarf, then gradually to a brown dwarf, then cinder. It is too small (below the Chandreshenkar limit) to have the reflective supernova explosion.
In the brown dwarf and cinder stage of many billions of years, it could get shattered in a collision, return to space dust, and part of another budding solar system's accretion disc, to form another Earth-like planet 25 billion years or more from now. The ultimate recycling of which we are already a part, our star being of the 3rd generation. We are stardust.