tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44986.post-42532904596536729512007-04-29T21:30:00.000-04:002007-04-29T22:10:01.154-04:00i've been seeing more and more articles on the <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece">increase in surface temperature on mars</a> and the implications related to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming">global warming</a> here on earth: <blockquote> "Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake. <br /><br /> Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period. <br /><br /> Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena." </blockquote> innumerable questions come to mind that are never answered in the press, not least of which being: what is the error associated with the measurements on mars ( is the warming on mars <i>exactly</i> 0.5C which just so happens to be the amount of increase here on earth? prolly not.) and given the differences between the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars">martian atmosphere</a> and our own, wouldn't you expect the warming effect of solar rays to be much greater on mars than earth ( due to the lack of a robust atmosphere to buffer the effect)? put another way, if the solar rays are only increasing the surface temperature on mars by 0.5C why wouldn't you conclude that its role in the increase on earth temperatures would actually be less so? even if they're ultimately silly questions, i'm surprised they aren't addressed in the press articles.e3http://www.blogger.com/profile/05735856497737869514noreply@blogger.com