Talk:Martian global warming

Now they are trying to delete Solar system warming too!

Now Raymond Arritt and William M Connolley are trying to eradicate the Solar system warming article. I am sick and tired of this continuing censorship. If you agree with me, go and vote to save this article. Thanks, ~ Rameses 04:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to schedule an interview with Jimbo on the radio show about this kind of behavior. I have run into many people who say they refuse to use Wikipedia because of the totalitarian methods carried out by admins or those who have been on Wikipedia for years (implying that they can never be questioned as a result). The behavior of this cabal on the "I am a member of the Church of Global Warming" is no different than the behavior of similar bullies on other controversial topics.

I want to ask Jimbo basically, "how can a person trust the information on Wikipedia when the administrators and "veterans" are so blatantly displaying an agenda and oppressing all information which contradicts their agenda?"

Looks like that will take place in a few weeks. -- Tony of Race to the Right 22:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

I've cleaned up the text slightly to reflect what I believe to be a more accurate summary of the current situation. The text before my revision could, in my view, be read as implying more than is actually known at this time. Unfortunately, that didn't leave much text left. Someone ought to probably go in and describe the actual MOC data used to make the claims. Jespley 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the Censors Finally Succeeded in Killing off the Martian global warming Page

Yesterday King of Hearts posted the results of the AfD poll, he stated: "This article was nominated for deletion on 18 February 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus."

Less than an hour later Sbandrews arbitrarily killed the article with the single word "redirect" as the only comment. The page is now reduced to a couple of paragraphs at the bottom of the Climate of Mars page where it will never be found or read. When the AfD was "no consensus" how do they have the right to unilaterally destroy hundreds of hours of work and go against the votes???

The documented history of Censorship (23 February 2007):

1. (diff) (hist) . . Martian global warming‎; 21:37 . . (+33) . . Sbandrews (Talk | contribs) (redirect)
2. (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Martian global warming‎; 20:46 . . (+96) . . King of Hearts (Talk | contribs) (Article survived AfD with no consensus)

-- Rameses 05:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This effective killing of the article was predicted by many who protested against this blatant censorship in Wikipedia over the past month. This censorship is being carried out by a group (including some Adminstrators) with a definite POV and agenda.

Unless we stand up and fight for a fair NPOV (Neutral Point of View) and against this insidious censorship, Wikipedia will gradually become controlled by the Tyranny of the most actively vocal and devious Special Interest Groups (SIG). I am willing to fight because I believe Wikipedia is worth fighting for. Who else is willing to take the abuse, which we will inevitably incur from the SIG's, and start a struggle against censorship of Wikipedia? -- Rameses 05:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I included *all* of the material from the MGW page here, about half of which had just been copied from my draft for this page anyway, and which I would have deleted earlier from the MGW page had it not been for the AfD. The result of the AfD was a clear consensus for merge, as such my actions were not arbitrary, though maybe bold. Kind regards sbandrews 09:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You can see what the real consensus was at: Talk:Martian global warming. For your convenience I'll reprint it again here: King of Hearts posted the results of the AfD poll, he stated: "This article was nominated for deletion on 18 February 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus."

Given this clearly posted result, your action to eliminate the article within an hour (and before most people would have had a chance to read what the real result was) cannot be described as "bold" - the description which comes to mind is "sneaky". If you genuinely did not mean to censor hundreds of hours of effort then I suggest that you return the Martian global warming page. Actions speak louder than words - we will wait to see what you do. -- Rameses 15:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Censorship of Wikipedia by Special Interest Groups

I agree with Oren0, he is writing about Martian warming. There appears to be evidence of warming occurring on other planets and this is certainly valid information to reference in this article as it points to a likely possible cause - the Sun. I have checked on the Global Warming article and it appears that William M. Connolley is colluding with others in a concerted effort to revert all changes which reflect any uncertainty regarding the fact of man made global warming. This kind of hijacking of Wikipedia will only discredit it as a source of unbiased, balanced information. -- Censorship Bias 02:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Wikipedia is being hijacked by special interest groups. Mixino1 16:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, contentious issues, such as Global Warming, have been hijacked by vocal biased groups. We need to find a solution to stop this form of censorship. We should remember that scientists had a consensus view based on Newtonian Physics - until Einstein destroyed the consensus with his Theories of Relativity. I also remember the scientific consensus view, among nutritionists and doctors, during the 70's and 80's was that we should all start eating hydrogenated margarine (trans-fats) to prevent heart disease. Now it has been proven that the worst thing for heart disease is trans-fats (hydrogenated margarines). Scientific consensus is not the dependable certainty that it is promoted as being. -- Rameses 18:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt is now proposing this article be merged with the Mars article. I am sickened by this constant manipulation of Wikipedia. Mixino1 01:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's proof of Wikifriends, with an axe to grind on climate change, taking it out of open discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley

I quote:

"SPM

Can we give Summary for policymakers a decent burial? Or even an indecent one? Is there a protocol to follow, or can I just move the (very small amount of) useful information in the article somewhere else? It's been tagged for merger several months now. Raymond Arritt 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Don't forget what links to it... [6] Gack. Is there no automagic way of taking care of such things? Raymond Arritt 22:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Well if you replaced it with a redirect to IPCC it would be transparent. I quite like the existence of a separate SPM page, myself William M. Connolley 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)'"

What have you got against talking in the open? Mixino1 01:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Now they have gutted the article completely - almost everything has been deleted. This is obviously the prelude to deleting it altogether or "merging" it into Mars. This shows how far the Global warming pushers will go to hide any evidence that GW may be due to the obvious cause of the highest level of solar activity in 1,000 years (and probably in the last 8,000 years - according to the Max Planck Institute in Germany, See: The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame.). I expect to see this article and this discussion disappear soon as a result of blatant censorship. -- Rameses 18:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nearly nothing of this is verifiable via any reliable source. I tried. As an example, Solanki (with his co-authors) talks about the solar high, but he also points out that it has not increased in the last 60 or so years (which is longer than the time frame of alleged Martian warming, according to the usual suspects, and also covers the post-WW2 cooling period as well as the current strong increase right here on Earth). Solanki also makes it very clear that "solar variability is unlikely to be the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades", right in the abstract of his Nature paper, and with a reference to a 2003 paper analysing exactly this question. Does anybody of you ever try to read the original sources? Solanki's recent papers are all available via his MPS web page[4]. --Stephan Schulz 18:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rename?

The current title of this page is somewhat awkward as Mars is a noun, not an adjective. I'd prefer to see something like "Global warming on Mars" or "Martian global warming". Comments? MER-C 05:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved. Voortle 18:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the evidence of warming on Mars more than just polar cap retreat? If not, maybe it should be "Retreat of Mars Polar Caps". MarkThomas 10:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Getting silly

This is getting a bit silly. Why link to a GW-on-Pluto article without reading it? It says: Pluto's atmospheric pressure has tripled over the past 14 years, indicating a stark temperature rise, the researchers said. The change is likely a seasonal event, much as seasons on Earth change as the hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun during the planet's annual orbit. So: first off, no observations of temperature at all. Its a proxy. Secondly, its clear that the explanation is *not* a secular trend but a seasonal effect.

Ah, you say, but what about Triton? Yet another failure-to-read-the-article, which says There are two possible explanations for the moon's warmer weather. One is that the frost pattern on Triton's surface may have changed over the years, absorbing more and more of the sun's warmth. The other is that changes in reflectivity of Triton's ice may have caused it to absorb more heat. Errm, but not that the sun has got warmer.

And last of all... we have, for the past 30-odd years, measurements of solar radiation: see solar variation. Its clear there is no increasing trend (there may be a slight decrease), although there is a fair 11-year cycle. If there was a solar effect on Mars, etc, it would have an 11 year cycle.

William M. Connolley 19:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverting out my edits because you don't like them is outside the spirit of Wikipedia. The bottom line is that I linked to verifiable sources stating that warming is occurring on other planets. These sources further claim that solar variation is at least partially to blame for Earth's warming. I've tried to leave the article in a state that's NPOV and states both sides of this. Don't delete the side you disagree with. Also keep in mind that this is an article about Martian global warming, not warming in the Solar System in general. If we want those facts to be presented, maybe a someone should create an article along the lines of Warming in the Solar System and merge this into it. Please don't turn this into an edit war. Oren0 21:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed your edits because they were misleading. The reports about Pluto and Triton warming specifically state its not the sun; implying otherwise is wrong. I notice you removed the direct quote from the Pluto article, presumably because you didn't like what it said. But removing it, then adding Other researchers contend that Mars's warming is unrelated to global warming on Earth[4], as are effects on other planets[citation needed] is rather dishonest, because you've just removed the cite for it! William M. Connolley 21:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We officially have an edit war on our hands. You put back the information about Pluto even though it's an article about Martian warming. I'm reverting back to what I had, because I have cited a source that backs my opinion. You're removing it because you disagree. Before you change it back, be sure to refer to the Three-revert rule. I've also posted the dispute to Third opinion. Neither of us should touch this page from here until other editors make some sort of decision. Oren0 02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You have now descended into blatant dishonesty: Neither of us should touch this page from here until other editors make some sort of decision. Oren0 02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC) followed by 2007-02-13T02:28:51 Oren0 (Talk | contribs | block) (Reverting to my previous version because info is being stripped for no reason.). What you appear to mean is, you think *I* should be obliged to leave it alone while you switch it to your version William M. Connolley 09:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A third opinion

The war is currently regarding the induction of examples of other celestial bodies undergoing warming. This is fine, but they shouldn't go too detailed, since this is about Mars' warming, not of Pluto or Triton's. I believe that only a mention of some of the planets will suffice. Other than that, I think that the biggest problem is the weasel words inside the article, and the need for expansion. bibliomaniac15 03:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC) --Kim D. Petersen 05:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Can I point out that O's original version of this page was littered with references to other planets [5]. It was only when I pointed out (see above re Pluto and Triton) that they were completely misrepresented that O suddenly decided other planets might be a bad idea. Also note that O added in Other researchers contend that Mars's warming is unrelated to global warming on Earth[4], as are effects on other planets with "citation needed", having *removed* the very quote about Pluto that shows this William M. Connolley 09:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, my original version had plenty of references to other planets. I had just expanded to counter the one-sided nature of the article as it was at that time, based on cited sources. For the third time, this is a controversial topic. You can't just take out the side you disagree with. Both points of view need to be presented with appropriate sources. I've tried very hard in all of my edits to present both sides fairly, and you keep removing everything I say and putting back a quote about Pluto's atmosphere to try to prove some point about Mars and other planets. Never mind the fact that Pluto isn't a planet, nor does the article you cite have anything to do with Mars. Write what you want about the evidence that warming on Mars or on other planets is unrelated to the Earth's warming. I've already presented sources that state that solar variation is likely to blame, both on Earth and other planets. That information belongs in this article; stop deleting it! And, as a side note, I agree with Ron that you need a citation for the last sentence. If there's a reference on the solar variation page as you claim, then it should be copied here.Oren0 17:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No... this is not a contraversial topic, as far as the science is concerned. The basic starting point is easy: since its plain to see from the graph at solar variation - we can add in the graph if you like but the link is easy enough to follow - that there is little trend in solar radiation over the past 30 years. What there is, is more likely negative than +ve. And whatever trend is far smaller than the 11 year cycle. If solar variation were affecting Mars, then the first-order signal would be an 11 year cycle. This is not seen... because the variations are too small to matter anyway.

You want to say The cause of Mars's warming is unclear, and some opponents of anthropogenic global warming contend that it is related to warming on Earth and throughout the Solar System as a result of solar variation. and use as refs:

• www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/161106suvjupiter.htm
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

The second ref says nothing at all about Mars. It does talk about solar causing GW (and is nonsense, but thats another matter) but it can't be used as a ref for "is related to mars". The first ref is so obviously not a reliable source I'm surprised you used it. Its first link is to Pluto, which you now don't want included in the article at all. Etc. William M. Connolley 18:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it nonsense to consider that the sun periodically being hotter may be a factor in Global Warming? This appears to be a perfectly reasonable possibility which should receive equal consideration with other possibilities. -- Censorship Bias 02:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you incapable of reading whats above. Let me repeat: The basic starting point is easy: since its plain to see from the graph at solar variation - we can add in the graph if you like but the link is easy enough to follow - that there is little trend in solar radiation over the past 30 years. What there is, is more likely negative than +ve. And whatever trend is far smaller than the 11 year cycle. If solar variation were affecting Mars, then the first-order signal would be an 11 year cycle. This is not seen... because the variations are too small to matter anyway. William M. Connolley 09:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you incapable of looking at other studies, like the Max Planck one referenced? See this link[6]. Oren0 19:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

BEcause you've misread it: He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes as it says. If you read his actual paper, I think the figure was "up to 30%". But thats for earth - so the thermal inertia of the oceans allows you to ignore the absence of the 11-y cycle by arguing that it would be smoothed out. You can't use that on Mars, so the absence of an 11 year cycle is a problem. Note that Solanki has *not* argued anything about Martian warming William M. Connolley 19:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you have certainly mis-quoted (or only partially quoted) it to your benefit. The full quote reads: "He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself." [7] You left out the fact that Dr. Solanki believes that the increased sunshine may have caused the climate changes through effects on ozone and cloud cover. It also seems unavoidable that a hotter sun heating the Earth would have a similar effect on Mars, so your point that Solanki has not argued anything about Martian warming seems to be a red herring. -- Rameses 20:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rameses - please refer to the Sami Solanki page, and more specifically to the Solanki&Krivova(2004) paper - please read the abstract (and possibly the conclusion) its fully linked on the page. You will find that William is actually right - Solanki's research does limit the amount of warming to around 30%. The Telegraph.co.uk is very much out of sync with the actual research, and whether that is from quoting Solanki out of context - or simply by journalistic bias - i cannot say. --Kim D. Petersen 05:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

RealClimate is not useful source

RealClimate.com is the blog of an advocacy group and therefore biased. This is not a legitimate news organization and the opinion of the group should not be considered as meeting the wikipedia requirement for verification. It may be suitable to link to it if the link is to verify the viewpoint of a particular scientist (as long as we can be certain the scientist is himself writing and not an imposter). RonCram 13:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I think you're wrong, but then I'm biased. But why not admit that you're simply unhappy with what the link says (which was actually a guest post in this case anyway). Its more reliable than many of the other dreadful links posted in William M. Connolley 15:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

William, I think you are unhappy with my sources because you do not like the content. For articles, I try to only link to news organizations (both liberal and conservative) and to blogs if the identity of the blogger or poster is clear. If you think I ever violate that, please say so. On the Talk page, I may link to other sources so editors can know something about the background of the issue and will know how to better research it. RonCram 20:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent rewrite with more authoritative source

I've rewritten the article to better reflect both sides of the debate. I'm not as familiar with the argument that warming in the Solar System is unrelated to warming on earth (I'm yet to see a verifiable source state this), so someone can probably expand on that. Please don't remove what's there, though, because it's completely relevant and cited. William, let me remind you that you've used your three reverts here and you can't revert again. Feel free to add to the article, but you can't revert it back to your previous one-sided version. Maybe you should let another editor who's a little less biased (you said it, not me) write your side of the argument. Oren0 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, do you contend that sources like prisonplanet.com/ are "authoritative"? Raymond Arritt 18:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

how we know mars is warming

in the article it just says 'evidence has started to accumulate' and later it mentions the rovers as source for the data '(with the preliminary data available from rovers)'. i dont think it is the data from the rovers, that shows us the climate is changing, it is the mars global surveyor satellite, whose cameras have been documenting receding ice caps for 3(?) years now. 88.74.5.26 19:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that "Evidence has started to accumulate" is accurate. There appears to be one piece of evidence - the ice caps. If there is more, someone should add it. In the meantime, I've replaced that phrase with what the link said was the actual evidence. William M. Connolley 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Classic example of WP:WEASEL. Lunokhod 19:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to add examples of bias by Connelley, Kim, Schultz, et al. at [http: //wiki.racetotheright.com/GW_Bias my page]...I am accumulating all of the evidence for various actions throughout Wikipedia for the pages, users, etc and your help with the footwork is appreciated. -- Tony of Race to the Right 14:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

More cuts

The article said The cause of warming on Mars and throughout the Solar System.... This presupposes a warming. But in fact all we have are 3 data points for the ice caps (?) and no actual T measurements at all. and throughout the Solar System is unjustified by any references in the article or (as far as I know) by reality.

I've also cut the "this is bolstered by..." bit. This is pure original research: the reference makes no links at all to the situation on Mars. If you want to say it, you need a ref for it William M. Connolley 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Solanki reference

This claim is bolstered by a 2004 study at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, which concluded that "the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years" and attributed recent global climate change on earth to the combined effect of greenhouse gases and increase in solar activity.

Removed the above from the page. It is not an accurate description of Sami Solanki's research. The Telegraph.co.uk article is simply not a WP:Reliable source for scientific research. Please provide the references to the science that bolsters the implied claim. --Kim D. Petersen 02:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed it once more - it is still not a reliable source - please stick to scientific data - and not to popular newspaper articles that may or may not accurately reflect scientific research. --Kim D. Petersen 06:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Third removal --Kim D. Petersen 06:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete

After trimming the unverified claims and irrelevant tangents, the article is down to a few sentences and some pretty pictures (one of which is arguably relevant to the article). Anyone for merge or AfD? Raymond Arritt 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am all for people making up their minds based on evidence. The way to do this is to present both sides of the argument and give people detail. You are simply interested in covering up facts in order to support your own agenda. You should learn to accept there are two sides to every argument in science. Mixino1 01:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but both "sides" do not deserve equal discussion at wikipedia. The minority or fringe arguement requires extensive citation, which this article lacks. See WP:NPOV. Lunokhod 19:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Can we give Summary for policymakers a decent burial? Or even an indecent one?" - Says it all about you really. Mixino1 02:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA--70.107.112.158 02:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

How is quoting what someone said a personal attack? If he stands by what he said, it can't possibly be a personal attack can it? He should be proud of it. If he isn't, make up your own mind. Mixino1 02:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the "personal attack" bit was not in reference to your quote of my remarks, but rather in reference the statement you made here, which you have apparently reconsidered. Raymond Arritt 02:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Links

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame.

Evidence has started to accumulate that Mars is currently undergoing a period of warming?

Rameses added this back in. I can see no evidence for it. There appear to be one data point: a 3-martian-summer trend of the ice caps. "Evidence has started to accumulate" must imply more than one such observation; and to justify the "global" tag these would have to be at least quasi-global William M. Connolley 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is dishonest of you to delete 95% of the article on the pretext of objecting to five words. I have deleted these five words - please stop censoring the rest of the article. -- Rameses 21:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, we are making progress. Now lets move on to: Some researchers propose that the apparent Mars warming trend (based on preliminary data available from rovers) is attributable to solar variation. This has no source associated with it. Do please provide one (a proper one, not some disreputable newspaper) if you want to restore it William M. Connolley 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

William, you claim above that you are going to move on to the rest of the article and ask for a source which is now there. But now you have gone back to deleting virtually the whole article and leaving a useless stub to encourage deletion. This makes you appear dishonest & hypocritical. Rameses 18:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That was some time ago, and there has been some massive reverting since. I'd forgotten William M. Connolley 19:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well ok, but let us try to improve the article not delete it wholesale - a lot of contributors worldwide have put their time and effort freely into doing so for the benefit of people searching for information. Even two dissenting sides of a debate presented fairly is very valuable information. -- Rameses 20:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed material unrelated to Mars

Rameses is now reduced to blatant dishonesty. Under "emoved material unrelated to Mars" [8] he removed "Although a recent article in Nature (2006) reported that there was no change in solar radiation in the last 30 years.". Only to replace it with a revert of the Torygraph, which again doesn't mention Mars. So it appears that solar radiation is unrelated to mars if it isn't changing, but very much related if it *is* changing. How curious William M. Connolley 10:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well William, this was some time back but I have gone through the flurry of edits at that time to find out what happened. Originally there was a paragraph which read: "Some researchers propose that the apparent Mars warming trend (based on preliminary data available from rovers) is attributable to solar variation. Although a recent article in Nature (2006) reported that there was no change in solar radiation in the last 30 years." THEN you removed the first sentence but left the second sentence hanging as a separate paragraph of its own: "Although a recent article in Nature (2006) reported that there was no change in solar radiation in the last 30 years." NOW it made no real sense in the article as it was intended to counter-balance and flow on from the first sentence. THEN I removed it and wrote up the change as "Removed material unrelated to Mars" because I was rushing and also felt this sentence was not directly related to Mars. So your statement about blatant dishonesty is an over-reaction to a rushed description of the reason for deletion. Go back and look at the page - I think you will agree with me. -- Rameses 07:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Major rewrite

Sorry to abruptly rewrite the whole thing but I thought it was necessary at this point. Having written what I've written, I also feel that the whole article should be deleted, since, as I've tried to make clear, there is no "Global warming" at Mars. Instead, there is climate change on numerous time scales. --Jespley 20:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Numerous sources, including NASA, have stated that there is indeed climate change occurring on Mars. Oren0 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. That's what I said. Climate change, not "global warming".--Jespley 22:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to be contrarian, but isn't the definition of global warming "climate change resulting in increasing temperatures?" If indeed that's what global warming is, and you agree that there is climate change on Mars leading to warming, how is that not global warming? Oren0 23:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

maybe not all 'climate change' is 'global' climate change, there can be local changes, local climate change. sbandrews 23:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "global warming" = "climate change resulting in increasing temperatures". However, I do not agree that there is evidence of climate change on Mars leading to global warming. Global climate change, yes. Global warming, not necessarily. Localized, short-term warming, yes. --Jespley 23:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on - this is censorship pure and simple. Otherwise why would you have a problem with pictures of Mars and information on the planet??? It is also destructive vandalism - wrecking the hard work of many contributors. Rameses 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There's way more pictures than text, giving the article a cartoonish quality. If you want the article to look credible and be taken seriously, you'll need to get rid of at least half the pictures. Raymond Arritt 01:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to censor or vandalize. My revisions had two goals in mind - 1) Accurately state the science with appropriate references and 2) Present this information in a succinct, clear way. In my opinion, the many pictures and the infobox were distracting for a reader looking for a discussion of the topic (since that information is easily had at other locations (e.g. Mars) with wikipedia). I'm certainly open to the possibility that I erred in this judgment. I am sincerely appreciative of the time that people took to contribute to this article even if it ends up merged or deleted as I suggest.--Jespley 02:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with merge/deletion, for reasons discussed in detail here. The verifiable, credibly sourced information on this topic is already present in Climate of Mars#Evidence for recent climate change Anything lacking can be added there. Mishlai 03:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If we all showed our sincere appreciation of other people's time taken writing wikipedia articles by deleting them..... There would be no more Wikipedia. I am sad to say as a long time contributor that biased censorship is now killing Wikipedia's value and integrity. Rameses 04:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Justification for different versions

All right, lets look at the "previous" version bit by bit and compare it to "my version".

"For three Mars summers in a row, Mars' southern polar cap has shrunk from the previous year's size, leading NASA to suggest a "climate change in progress"[1] on Mars."

The Malin article I cite has only 2 Martian years. Maybe there's been an update since but I don't see it in any of the sources.

The cited reference is to a press release about the gully changes. Nothing about the polar caps.

"Dr. Abdussamatov, the Head of Saint Petersburg's Pulkovo Space Research Observatory, attributes this warming to increased solar activity..."

This is a reference to an opinion section of a newspaper. Furthermore, a search for articles by Dr. Abdussamatov (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&db_key=PRE&qform=AST&sim_query=YES&ned_query=YES&aut_logic=OR&obj_logic=OR&author=Abdussamatov&object=&start_mon=&start_year=&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_logic=OR&title=&txt_logic=OR&text=&nr_to_return=100&start_nr=1&jou_pick=ALL&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&end_entry_day=&end_entry_mon=&end_entry_year=&min_score=&sort=SCORE&data_type=SHORT&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&obj_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1) reveals no peer reviewed articles by him about Mars. The references I cite for saying "climate change" vs. "global warming" are from Science, Nature, and NASA press releases.

"The present level of solar activity is historically high as determined by sunspot activity and other factors..."

Discussions of solar activity as the cause of the regional climate change at Mars does not have a peer reviewed basis and as such constitutes original research (i.e. not allowable on wikipedia).

"Sigurdsson argues that observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition..."

This is an accurate summary of Sigurdsson's statements, which in turn correctly summarize the science. However, the current reading makes it look like it's "Sigurdsson vs. Abdussamatov"; this is a false dichotomy (pun intended for the Mars fans). My inclination is to remove "Sigurdsson argues" and simply state the facts (as found in the peer reviewed articles and NASA press releases).

Picture of sunspots

Irrelevant as discussed above

Picture of the northpole of Mars

Possibly relevant but it is of the northpole

Infobox

Redunant since this info is at the Mars article

"In 1999 the Mars Global Surveyor photographed pits in the layer of frozen carbon dioxide at the martian south pole. In 2001 it photographed the same pits again and found that they had grown slightly larger[2]."

This is an accurate summary of the polar cap melting observations. I took it out in my version simply to be more succint.

References

I reference a Science article, a Nature article, and 2 NASA press releases in "my" version.

My version adddresses (with references) the seasonal and multi-seasonal (i.e. gullies and surface liquid water) cycles observed.

Again, I have no censorship agenda nor am I intentionally trying to waste people's time (including my own). I'm just interested in presenting the most accurate version of the science in the most readable fashion. --Jespley 19:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

One more clarification -- I'm not trying to say "my" version is the "best" version. I understand how wikipedia works and I'm open to suggestions, improvements, etc (also note the history of article -- I have a very early version). I am arguing that "my" version is better than the "previous" version. --Jespley 19:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I accept your point. But let us try to improve upon the work of many contributors rather than deleting it all and starting over. That is the model Wikipedia is based upon. I look forward to seeing more of your contributions - welcome. -- Rameses 22:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Original research

I don't know who put this tag on but it simply is rediculous. The first reference is more than enough to show this is not original research.Mike 21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I put the tag on it. The article engages in OR by synthesis. No scientific journal articles are presented in the article at all to show that any reputable scientific entity has evaluated this, ever. The external links define "crappy." Motive is transparent - let's not beat around the bush. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The first reference mentions "climate change". It mentions neither "global climate change" nor "climate warming" nor, least of all, "global warming". So how does this justify the article? --Stephan Schulz 21:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur, this is original research. Mishlai 22:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How do quotations from leading scientists with respected organisations such as NASA, Saint Petersburg's Pulkovo Space Research Observatory, The Max Planck Institute, Germany and others, constitute OR? No individual contributor has even put in a theory or cause of their own. I agree with Mike - this is ridiculous. And Hipocrite, since all Wikipedia articles are formed by synthesis, by your new definition they must all be OR. -- Rameses 01:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a hint from several leading authorities on moral questions: "Have more sex". Your "sources" do not make the connections you make. Some of them are quoted out of context. Your spin actually contradicts Solankis position. And so on... --Stephan Schulz 01:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What does that prove? Why are all the climate people on here afraid readers make up their own minds? This is an article on Mars warming. Someone has placed an article that is logically linked to it. Some want to censor it in case someone out there adopts free thought and questions Earth's climate change. The truth doesn't need covered up. If you think your belief is the truth then let people read the facts as they stand. Mixino1 04:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well let me put the whole quote here so you can see that this is not OR: "Heading Pulkovo's space research laboratory is Dr. Abdussamatov, one of the world's chief critics of the theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions create a greenhouse effect, leading to global warming.

"Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."

The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.

"It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." -- Rameses 06:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Abdussamatov's article

We've been through this already over in the talk pages at Global warming, but it's a bit of a mess so I'll try to lay out the relevant points here in a readable manner. I'm addressing not just global warming on Mars, but the perceived connection to the global warming on Earth, because that is thrust that is being made here.

The Abdussamatov piece is not credible. Please allow me to explain:

• Abdusamatov contends that:
• There is global warming on Mars.
  • This is pure speculation, an untested hypothesis.
  • We have observed only a regional trend on Mars, which does not mean there is a global trend.
  • Mars is has a highly variable climate compared to ours
  • The trend is short
• Simultaneous warming on Mars and Earth has only one possible explanation - that the sun is responsible for both.
  • This is a ridiculous logical fallacy
  • I'll leave the planetary motion differences between Earth and Mars to someone with a better command of the topic.
• The great increase in earth's atmospheric CO2 is not because of humans, but because the sun's heat has caused the oceans to warm, and they have released CO2 as a result.
  • The oceans have absorbed CO2, and a lot of it. This is measurable.
  • The oceans are projected to absorb less CO2 in the future because higher sea surface temperatures will lead to stratification, which reduces mixing and slows the transfer of atmospheric CO2 into the ocean. (Because the surface waters that have absorbed CO2 don't get replaced as quickly by the deeper waters that could absorb more) "Will absorb less" and "will release" are not the same thing.
• The greenhouse effect does not exist. Infrared radiation does heat the lower atmosphere, but heated air rises, where it's heat is released into space, having no warming effect on the planet.
  • The greenhouse effect is not in question. It was discovered sometime in the 19th century, and Earth would be some 30 or more degrees C colder without this effect - an ice ball.
• Other scientists have it all backwards. The warming isn't here because of man's CO2, the CO2 is here because of the sun's warming.
  • If you accepted the preceding logical fallacies, this would almost follow, except that:
  • We can estimate the amount of CO2 that we've released by burning fuels and making land cover changes with reasonable accuracy.
  • We've emitted more than the amount that has been added to the atmosphere. A lot more. The rest has been re-absorbed - much of it by the oceans.
• The ocean's surface layers are cooling, and this means that global warming has stopped.
  • The ocean's surface layers are not cooling, they are measurably warmer.
• Further drops in solar irradiance will put us into a mini-ice age by mid-century.

I'll withhold the adjectives and just say that these are Exceptional claims, and require exceptional sources. Anyone of these assertions could be the subject of a peer-reviewed paper that would gather a great deal of attention. Those papers have not been written for a good reason - this stuff is unsupportable nonsense.

This entire line of reasoning is dead end anyway. We already understand that solar activity is unusally high, and that this is having some warming effect upon Earth.

If we were to demonstrate (and we haven't) that:

• There is global warming on Mars
• This warming is due to the changes in the sun's warming effect on Mars
• That these changes are of a nature that would effect Earth also (not just changes because of the planetary motion of Mars, which would not effect Earth)

We would still know nothing that we do not know already about climate change on Earth.

Mars will only shed light upon global warming on Earth if we can analyze Mars in a quantitative fashion, and if this analysis leads us to an increased understanding of greenhouse gases, climate feedbacks, or solar changes in a way that applies, quantitatively, to the climate conditions on Earth. Terrestrial climate and Martian climate are very different animals.

This isn't an attempt to censor, but to provide a reality check on this article. WP:NPOV does not provide cover for baseless assertions, and it isn't POV warring, or censorship, or an insidious plot to silence your views. There are guidelines for sourcing - WP:RS

The other sources cited speculate that regional changes could indicate a global climate change taking place on Mars, but not that the climate is presently warming. Nor do any of them connect changes on Mars to any cause. Certainly none of them suggest that this has anything to do with global warming on Earth. Please link if you think I've missed something.

In the absence of a credible source to make these connections, the assertion is WP:OR.

All that can be said without WP:OR is that there are regional changes that have been taking place on one pole of Mars for a short time, and that this might indicate global changes. That sentence fits easily into the climate section of Mars, and there isn't much else to be said. I don't believe that this warrants a Martian global warming article. Certainly a Martian climate article, which has been suggested, might be a good thing. That would provide some more real estate for future additions, and a more thorough description of the climate itself. Mishlai 08:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Curious, you make a few assertions here on your own ("This is a ridiculous logical fallacy" for example). May I ask what your qualifications are to dismiss text based on your own interpretations, original research (aka, if it comes from you it is OR) and expertise? Or, can you provide scientifically reviewed and sound sources for each of the bullet points listed above? Just want to treat both sides equally (though I'm not deleting text like is done by the Global Warming Theologians). -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require me to suspend common sense, Tony. I am not inserting OR into an article. We're discussing the credibility of content on a talk page, and I am applying my knowledge, common sense and judgement to the discussion. The claims being made are exceptional, and the source is not. It's very simple really.

As far as the logical fallacy: Assuming that we even knew that Mars is warming, which is not the case - you cannot assert that their cause *must* be the same because - get this - their causes could be different. We'll have to actually study it to know.

Regardless of all of that, the burden of proof is on the author who is adding a statement to the article to show that it meets WP:V. All of those statements are indeed supportable with credible sources. I'm not going spend any time chasing them down for you, because I suspect it would not be time well spent. If you can't see at this point in our discussion that Abdussamtov is peddling snake oil, then I doubt I can convince you of it. When you find that I've made such a statement in an article without providing a source, you call me out on it and I'll provide one or remove the offending text. Mishlai 01:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ready to remove Original Research tag?

In the current version, there is a reputable, verifiable citation which calls the current climate change on Mars global warming and attributes it to solar variation. Is that good enough to remove the tag? If not, what more do you guys feel is necessary? Oren0 05:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It would need a reliable source, which neither the National Post nor (assuming the Post got it right this time - no trivial assumption [9][10]) Abdussamatov's personal, unrefereed opinion is.--Stephan Schulz 08:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

He also got Nir Shariv Shaviv :-) wrong ([11] [12]) - thats 20% of the series (so far). --Kim D. Petersen 18:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did the Post get their information? Are you saying they fabricated the quote? What was the original? If someone here quotes someone precisely and the quoted person refines their words it is only an idiot that would blame the quoter. Just want to make certain that is not the case here. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

See above for discussion of National Post story on Abdussamatov. There have been a great many accusations flying about - too many, in fact. The rhetoric level is getting pretty high. This despite time consuming, frustrating and patient efforts to reach a consensus. There are limits though. If you're going to argue that Abdussamatov is a reliable source, then I must ask you to re-examine your own neutrality on this matter. If you are inclined to become frustrated because this kind of claim isn't taken seriously, then I might suggest that you are in for a lot of frustration. WP:NPOV does not stand alone as a guideline. It shares prominence with WP:V and WP:OR Mishlai 19:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

How about Dr. Nir Shaviv? He is an Astrophysicist and one of Israel's top young scientists. Here is what he found:

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."([13]) -- Rameses 19:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Rameses - and you didn't notice that Shaviv actually savaged the article for being wrong on several points - including his name? - i think Shaviv nailed it pretty correctly with this quote (about the article):

Well, the moral in this is case is that if you're a science reporter, consider running parts of your articles by your interviewees just to make sure you don't write rubbish, which is a smart thing to do, if you don't want to end up looking stupid. It is of course also a descent thing to do if you respect your readers.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk • contribs) 19:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Parallel warming

Mars, according to the proponents of this theory, has a "parallel" warming to earth, over the last 3 martian years - which would be about the past 6-8 earth years, I think. The problem is that the earth *hasn't* got warmer since 2001: see for example Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png. Is this a problem for the Mars theory? The theory is so vague its hard to get any info to test it, though. The article should, as a bare minimum, list those data points (times) where the "warming" is measured from William M. Connolley 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't even have a graph of globally averaged Martian temperatures to make that comparison with. I don't know how it is on Mars, but here on Earth not only can regional changes be very different from global climate, but the poles are particularly troublesome. Even truly parallel warming would just be a correlation, and it would only be an interesting one if it were statistically significant. Short trends on noisy graphs are often not trends at all. We can only speculate at this point. Mishlai 15:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Page resurrection

This talk page has been resurrected at my request in preparation for a new Martian global warming page focusing on the political implications. We have at least one US presidential candidate who has signed on to the theory so it's a topic that's worth discussing (he's currently running a strong 2nd in the Republican primary). Any thoughts out there on the best way to proceed? TMLutas 01:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Forget the whole damn thing and write about something useful. Unless this is a major plank in the idiot's platform, it's not worth a whole article. Raymond Arritt 02:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you RA, now I *know* you're following my contributions page. What else would have led you here? TMLutas (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You know wrong. Redlinked articles still show up on one's watchlist until they're specifically removed from the watchlist, so that's how I got here. But in any case you're welcome to follow my contributions, or Jimbo Wales' contribs, or whomever's you like. Wikipedia is founded on collaboration, so if you want to keep your contributions secret from the rest of the community then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the project for you. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You mistake being flattered by the attention for being annoyed. I think the fact you're writing things like "Forget the whole damn thing and write about something useful" is so sweet. It cracks me up. So what's *your* interest in this page that you watchlisted it? TMLutas (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

sandbox created

Here it is, the socio-political martian global warming page I mentioned some time ago. Contributions welcome. When it's ready, it's ready. TMLutas (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)