Talk:Climate of Mars

Global warming on Mars cannot be caused by humanity and observable warming there does serve to cast doubt on current theories put out by anthropogenic global warming activists as there is a natural presumption against coincidence.

I first tried to improve it to:

Global warming on Mars cannot be caused by humanity and observable warming there is used to cast doubt on current theories by using the presumption that the correlation proves the Sun is warming up — despite all solar measurements suggesting otherwise.

However, I realized that was redundant. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If there is a (global) temperature series for Mars, this article doesn't ref it. Without that, you cannot possibly say "observable warming" William M. Connolley 20:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take that up with NASA which seems to have put out some releases to that effect. TMLutas 20:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to report as truth palpably false claims (the EPA talks some trash about greenhouses, for example). Without a global time series, how can you claim global warming? Press releases are not the same as papers William M. Connolley 20:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reports palpably false claims all the time and it should if it's to keep faith with its charter as an encyclopedia. The page I keep a watch on before I head over to this one is Alger Hiss. You should see the nonsense that was over there a few months back. Yet though Hiss' coram nobis petition was judicially rejected and is essentially a lower GI excretion in several respects, reporting on its contents is a reasonable inclusion in the article and one that I haven't seriously tried to kill. NASA found the ice pit changes, NASA has been pretty careful about not going beyond the bare requirements of the current data. Politicians and media types have though and all the notable instances of it are acceptable for inclusion in wikipedia. TMLutas 13:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not dance around reality please. The politics "back on earth" include intra-wikipedia politics so it's likely to make for difficult edits. It's important to explain *why* the existence or inexistence of global warming on mars (as well as its attribution) is important. You can explain it any way you like, just be fair to the subject and I'll go along with that.

My perspective (but certainly not only my perspective) is that if global warming is demonstrated on Mars, the idea that similar rises in temperature on Earth have to be anthropogenic is weakened. If the cause of the warming is identified as solar, we have an even greater upset of the current consensus which currently puts little weight on solar warming in its models. There are a lot of people who think that the planet is dying and quickly. They tend to have little patience with explorations of alternative causes and can be unfair. I'm not talking about the science per se but rather the social and political movements associated with AGW. Of course the two overlap which makes things even more fun.

On another aspect of this, I thought that the usual progression was to put a citation needed tag, wait a reasonable amount of time for a citation to be provided, and then strike out an unsourced statement. This isn't a case where the unsourced statement is offensive, I hope. The idea that the political global warming movement is in trouble if there's an identified solar cause for Mars global warming is pretty easy to source but I'll give you a fair shot at taking a better whack at it than I did.

"This isn't a case where the unsourced statement is offensive, I hope." Not offensive as much as inaccurate. (a) Many scientists are speculating that there could be a solar cause — Mars' orbit changing. (b) When reworded to be more accurate, it was redundant, because the same thing was already been said in one of the subsections. (c) Even if the Sun is getting slightly warmer, that would still not negate the research that demonstrates that humans are primarily responsible for global warming. The IPCC has acknowledged (I believe - William will tell me if I'm wrong on this) that the Sun might play a very small role in the Earth's temperature rise. However, they are as certain as scientists get that anthropomorphic causes are dominant. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The presumption that solar forcing is ignored or unfairly minimized in climate research is wholly unfounded. Some good people are working on it, and it's the subject of sessions at international conferences. The fact that it doesn't play a role in current warming doesn't mean that it's been overlooked. Oh, and even if warming on Mars was attributable to solar variation, that wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with climate on Earth -- which has oceans, transpiring vegetation, significant water vapor in its atmosphere, an atmospheric mass about 150x larger than that of Mars, etc. etc. etc. Raymond Arritt 20:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate gets a cn tag usually which alerts that things may not be as stated. I think William Connolly just put one on the article elsewhere. I would expect that Mars' orbit would be fairly easy to spot. Have there been any observations over the past 3-4 rotations that it's been changing? I wouldn't expect orbital changes to be speculative for long in this day and age and certainly not on a scale of multiple years. If there's still controversy past a year or two, I think it's safe to say that it's probably not orbital change. If you want to put that up as an alternative though, feel free. We seem to be moving in a different direction. Importance should probably be its own section and some time I'll write it up, probably not today. TMLutas 20:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're trying to say. Where does Another issue is that the more local the phenomena, the less likely the Mars General Circulation Model would measure and predict accurately... come from? Is it "obvious"? William M. Connolley 20:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably shouldn't respond at this hour of the morning but my recollection is that I was surprised how large the cell sizes were on the Mars GCM with some runs using 300km cells, though this is being driven down as more computing power becomes available. How small the cells were in the "the change is local" study is unclear. TMLutas 08:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So where did the text come from? William M. Connolley 08:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that models don't "measure" things suggests that whoever wrote that material was a little confused. Raymond Arritt 20:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dry ice submlimates, its doesn't evaporate William M. Connolley 20:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from: http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/resu_body.html

live links in the original.

Solar Variability of Possible Relevance for Planetary Climates (S.K. Solanki & N.A. Krivova 2006, Sp. Sci. Rev., vol. 125, 25-37) Modelling of irradiance variations through atmosphere models (N.A. Krivova & S.K. Solanki 2005, Mem. Soc. Astron. It., vol. 76, 834-841)

Solar irradiance variations: From current measurements to long-term estimates (S.K. Solanki & N.A. Krivova 2004, Sol. Phys., vol. 224, 197-208)

Solar total and spectral irradiance: Modelling and a possible impact on climate (N.A. Krivova & S.K. Solanki 2003, ESA SP-535, 275-284)

Reconstruction of solar irradiance variations in cycle 23: Is solar surface magnetism the cause? (N.A. Krivova, S.K. Solanki, M. Fligge & Y.C. Unruh 2003, A&A 399, L1-L4)

Harold Jeffreys Lecture: Solar variability and climate change: is there a link? (S.K. Solanki 2002, Astronomy & Geophysics, vol. 43, issue 5, 5.09-5.13)

Klimaveraenderung - Treibhauseffekt oder Sonnenaktivitaet? ( D. Schmitt & M. Schuessler 2002, Astronomie + Raumfahrt im Unterricht 39, 5, 31-35, in German)

Evolution of the Sun's large-scale magnetic field since the Maunder minimum (S.K. Solanki, M.Schuessler & M. Fligge 2000, Nature 408, 445-447) TMLutas 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC) (sig added later)[reply]

Can you (a) please stop spamming us with irrelevant undigested paper links and (b) sign your name? William M. Connolley 20:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Testy, testy, aren't we? I'm not spamming you because this is not on your user page. You don't own this page (nor do I). I thought the papers relevant as they are talking about solar causes of planetary temperature change, commonly known as global warming and martian warming would be a data point in their favor. There's warming on Mars, the data is sparse but growing every day, and such peer reviewed scientific theorizing deserves a more prominent place in the attribution part of the climate change section than the current, more fringe stuff that is the *only* evidence currently in the article supporting the solar theory. I thought I'd be nice and share data up front before I went around and added a big chunk to the article. Are you sure that you'd prefer to be surprised? I do regret the oversight on signing. TMLutas 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those do not appear to be relevant to the warming on Mars. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true only in the sense that an article on the theory of gravity can be said to be not relevant to an article on Earth. Just try to explain earth's orbit without referring back to gravity. These are general scientific papers, peer reviewed, talking about linkage between solar variability and climate change. Apparently, climate change tracks pretty well with certain solar variability measures (sunspots for example) which by conventional theory shouldn't matter at all as they are local solar phenomena. In my internet wanderings today, I believe I saw some solanki statements that were much more directly on point but I think that the general papers will be of use and thus deserve their place in the talk page. TMLutas 21:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we were allowed to perform

synthesis, you'd have a point. However, we're not allowed to do so. Also note that how the Earth's climate responds to solar output is going to be very different than how Mars' climate responds. (Our atmosphere is a much bigger thermal sink/reservoir, for one thing.) Also, the first source you posted was much better than all of the other sources since it had live links. Alternatively, you could have posted a Scirus or Google scholar search. It would have been much prettier. (Also, I doubt that William will complain if you fix it up now to make it look better. I know I won't.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, classic

WP:SYN, straight out of the book: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C." Raymond Arritt 22:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Spell it out please. What is A, B, and C in this case that makes it synthesis and also does not fall under the exception ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." Remember, I haven't actually written any synthesis comments, merely uttered the opinion that these papers might be relevant and put the links up as a sort of source board to get some better material in the solar output section. Without an actual comment, aren't both of you jumping the gun on a charge of synthesis? That's not necessarily bad. I can now formulate an actual comment that doesn't engage in this since I've been warned. Any other traps you want to help me out of? TMLutas 22:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, appreciate that you're sounding it out first. However, unless there's a source that actually says that there is evidence of modern solar variability and that this has an influence on the observed changes in Martian climate, I don't see how this information can be included. (A=Climate change on Earth tracks in a certain way with solar variability — which itself falls into the

WP:WEIGHT. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

As far as fringe goes, we seem to have a fringe problem that Solanki's solar observations which are not fringe got recently wiped around the time that Mr. Connolley showed up while the more fringe opinion (which differs from Solanki's in that he seems to be talking about TSI instead of Solanki's magnetic fields theory) got left untouched. That's about as subtle as the old pol tactic of paying drunks to distribute your opponents campaign literature. I'm looking to put forward the best case on all theories, not the worst. That's NPOV and we seem to be straying from that here. TMLutas 21:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fringe statement was not meant to be directed towards Solanki, but to the idea that a significant portion of Earth's climate change can be linked to solar variability. In re-reading what I wrote, I see that it definitely comes off as an implied attack on Solanki, however. I just want to be clear that it was not my intent. I have not read any of Solanki's work in detail — I only skimmed the highlights — which seemed to be looking at the long-term trends as opposed to the warming in the last century that most climatologists discussing AGW are interested in. (Sure, there are several who also think that humans have contributed to global climate change for the last several thousand years, but I don't think that is as uniform a position.) That said, to the degree that he/she is supporting the idea mentioned above, it is definitely not the mainstream belief.

As for the synthesis part, it depends on whether there is a referenced B or not that Earth and Mars are somehow related in climatic responses. If there is, then C is synthesis (although B by itself would not be). If not, then it's original research. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere along the way recently we seem to have lost this: ^ S. K. Solanki (2004). "Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years". Nature 431: 1084-1087. DOI:10.1038/nature02995. Retrieved on 2007-02-26. Is there really any reason why this is not considered relevant as part of an examination of why Mars might be getting warmer? Keep the solar theorist fringer in but let's wipe out the peer reviewed stuff is not good behavior. Perhaps a mistake? TMLutas 23:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We only have history over a very short period of time for Mars. Anything going over 11,000 years is unlikely to be relevant to the current warming trend since satellite measurements have shown very little solar variability in recent times. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I understand the Solanki papers as saying is that they've reconstructed solar activity over the past 11,000 years and solar activity over the past 6 or 7 decades is very unusually high, the highest it's been in 8,000 years. In discussing solar theories observations of both Mars and the Sun are relevant, wouldn't you think? TMLutas 19:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can people possibly be talking about global warming on mars in the absence of a time series for its temperature? Is there one? If so, why aren't we referring to it? Ab vapours on about "parrallel warmings" without telling us: what period; what the change is on Mars; indeed anything at all really William M. Connolley 20:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for them in the past and have been unable to find them. However, I think there are some time series data for the two rovers, now that I think about it. Obviously, however, these are both (a) local, and (b) for a relatively short period of time. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. It's worse than that. Not only is it local, it's a different "local" as the rovers rove. Anyways, here is some information on that, as useless as it is for the article. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the ice pits at the southern pole were the original evidence. I believe that we've started getting more data recently. Maybe somebody needs to fill out the

Mars climate sounder article to point out where its data is posted. This seems a good source page. I think (as speculation) the data is out there, though only the receding ice pit pictures have enough time to them to be relevant at this point. One can reasonably deduce temperature changes without having an actual thermometer on site. TMLutas 21:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The pits are seasonally and spatially variable. MCS gets you nothing on that front. Michaelbusch 23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if I hadn't actually seen the photographs, I might have swallowed your explanation. But I have seen the photographs and there's a pretty clear progression to the pits getting larger. The photos in the NASA supplied series were taken at the same time of year every year so seasonal variability doesn't seem to be a factor. What does "spatially variable" mean in this context (timed photographs of the same spot taken a year apart)? I tried to google it but the usage that's out there doesn't seem to match what I think you're saying. Please explain. TMLutas 23:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he's referring to the idea that where you take your picture will determine how many pits you see — just like how places at the same latitude can have different climates. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since what is happening is that the same pits are being imaged at the same time of year at the same angle the argument just doesn't fly in this case. I do concede that this is an objection that might be relevant somewhere else, but what's it doing here? TMLutas 21:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but take what I said with a grain of salt. It was just a guess about what I thought he meant by the term. I haven't read up on the

Mars climate sounder, so I'm not stating an opinion about the actual validity of any argument either way. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

End the above threads, please. This nonsense remains nonsense, and has already been purged from Wikipedia at least three times. See the discussions for deletion on 'solar system warming' and 'martian global warming'. I was involved in the debunking, which was thorough. For the last time: there is no censorship of Wikipedia. I'll still be branded part of a non-existent conspiracy, since I predict that the fanatics will not accept any denial. My lack of patience with such is why I've largely ceased editing. Michaelbusch 23:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can there not be an article about the debunking? It seems to me that it would be a useful article that could be very well sourced. That's what I had in mind. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's not been much debunking. One of the problems with absurd "theories" such as this is that nobody with any sense takes them seriously, so there's little or no attempt to refute them. So far as I know there's been not been any published refutation of the hypothesis that witches are made of wood.Raymond Arritt 00:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When NASA starts issuing press releases talking about balancing a prospective witch against a duck, I suspect the "witches are made of wood" theory will get a quick debunking because somebody in a scientific body actually seems to be taking it seriously. NASA has, however been talking about martian climate change for about 6 years now. Everything that I'm seeing from them is fairly careful to leave the door open on whether it's local or global. That tells me that we're in an entirely different circumstance than your rather strained example and simply hand waving it away is not going to cut it. TMLutas 07:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The absurd theory that we're referring to, however, is that Martian climate change is somehow related to Terran climate change. NASA is not claiming that. As far as I know, there is one astronomer who is claiming that, although there might be more. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there's data enough to be definitive on martian warming locality, causation, or interplanetary relationship unless you have access to a great bag of data that I haven't seen yet. What you refer to is currently a popular press view that's been seized on by a number of figures though and thus is notable in itself and deserving of coverage. The honest answer, I think, is we don't know. The Solanki stuff I posted as a set of sources seems relevant for a possible mechanism. Solanki himself seems to be wisely sticking to his knitting and not going too far in speculation. I haven't found any direct martian comments yet of his pro or con. Then again, I am doing this in snatches in my day job. TMLutas 21:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that we don't have a long enough data series even to say what the Martian climate is, much less whether it is changing. The standard length of record required for reasonably stable statistics is 30 years (as specified e.g., by the World Meteorological Organization). To define climate in any meaningful way we'd need at least 30 Martian years of reasonably good data -- which puts us in the pre-Sputnik era. Raymond Arritt 22:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it puts us about 2029, 22 years from now when we'll be have ice pit pictures that long and then 2036 when the climate sounder data will be about that long. Let's look forward, not back. So we should maintain neutrality on martian warming until then in your opinion? TMLutas 13:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, maintaining neutrality means not mentioning it at all. After all, Wikipedia is not a

crystal ball. ;) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

That's not tenable because we've got plenty of reputable sources talking about it. The facts, at least as far as the pictures are concerned, are incontrovertible. There's no crystal ball needed to say that some sort of warming is going on. TMLutas 07:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martian global warming was not deleted at least not in its latest incarnation. It was merged/moved here after it survived an attempted debunking. Some debunking that was (my recollection was no consensus as the result). I can't speak to solar system warming. I wasn't around for that discussion. It sounds like a fun topic and from what I'm reading above, those solenki papers might fit in better over there. I'm not particularly calling conspiracy here but a case for "poor memory" seems rock solid to me. B-) TMLutas 23:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Connolly seems to be intent on an edit war. I'm not up for that childishness so I just NPOV'd the section and would like to talk it out here. I think that it is a reasonable position to state that warming is being detected, lay out the facts as they exist today, and give the various theories as to extent and causation. Mr Connolly seems to disagree, repeatedly changing what's been the approach to this section for quite some time. So please justify your edits, I didn't remove them yet. TMLutas 21:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify which parts are bothering you? I'll admit to most likely sharing his POV, but I consider myself quite fair (who doesn't, I guess). Is it something that can be solved by using {{

cn}}, followed by William providing better citations? I'm reasonably certain he could find them. I don't know how his knowledge of Mars stacks up against mine — I'm just a layperson in that regard (though I do have an MS in Astronomy/Physics), but my impression is that he is too — but his knowledge on climates is definitely far superior to my own. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The structure up to now was a neutral description of what's been found, (the growing ice pits) followed by a section on attribution and the various theories battling it out there as to scope and cause. This seemed a reasonable approache for a phenomena that is not fully understood.

Eventually when Climate gets too big, this section is going to be nominated to get broken back out and Mr. Connolley has an established viewpoint on that. He worked quite hard to try to kill the article mars global warming (eventually martian global warming) and eventually to merge it in here. He has a viewpoint on climate change issues and apparently is associated with realclimate.org, an advocacy site which does not play fairly (which is why I don't post there anymore). I hope that he can maintain a more appropriate neutrality on Wikipedia befitting his position as an admin. I so far am not impressed. He seems to have attracted all sorts of enmity on the issue. No doubt some of it is overheated (I read a portion of the protests, and some of it *was* overheated) but only some as he seems to be recently under pressure from fellow admins for what they consider unjustified user blocks. See his talk page for the gory details. TMLutas 22:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments will carry more weight if you stick to the facts, without essays on your personal opinion regarding some of the editors. The material ultimately must be judged on its own merits. Raymond Arritt 23:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed the material needs to stand on its own weight and that I was venting a bit, speculating as to the reasons behind Connolly's tactics. That sort of thing doesn't need to be done more than once and maybe you're right, not even once. Getting back to the material, do you agree that we understand the ice pit observations sufficiently that we can unequivocally say they're local (Connolly's position) or do you think that it's too early to say definitively how large the scope of the warming is and what's causing it (my own position)?

A final point which I got after I hit save page. I don't think it's proper to put a cn tag in a section heading and that's where most of the mischief is. The section titles should be evidence based or a neutral description of the subsequent opinion. Other than an edit war with an admin or an NPOV tag, I don't know what *can* be done. TMLutas 22:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one thing we can try is a sandbox. I'll work a little on trying to fish out the contentions and get back to you. I think we might be able to achieve consensus yet as you both seem fairly level-headed to me. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I said I'd get back to you, but I didn't. Take a look at what I have in that sandbox. Is this the main region in dispute, or am I missing something else? (I think a good start is to focus on what both of you think is the ideal version.) TMLutas (or editors in general agreement with TMLutas): feel free to edit version A, and William M. Connolley, Raymond Arritt, and Michaelbusch (if there are any significant conflicts between the 3 we can always create version C, but I don't think that'll be necessary) should feel free to edit version B. After we're comfortable that we've got the two versions straight, we can work towards consensus. I'll be happy to try to help in that regard. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well TML can *almost* spell my name and I don't usually insist on Dr, so we're not too far adrift. "I think that it is a reasonable position to state that warming is being detected" - is it really? In which case... by how much has Mars warmed over the last... whenever. Silly question really, because we all know that you don't know. I see no evidence at all that anyone has a global time series for Martian temperature, and without that there is nothing but local proxy evidence. I'm happy to be proved wrong, and would be very interested to see it if there is one. To clarify, try these questions: (1) have you seen a global or hemispheric time series for Mars? (2) do you have reason to believe that one exists? (3) do you have any evidence for change anywhere outside the south polar region? William M. Connolley 08:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'd say it's been warming enough for those ice pits to lose 3 meters a martian year or are you making a sudden change in policy about temperature proxies when the evidence turns inconvenient? I apologize for the lack of "bristle-cone pines" but they don't seem to do so well on Mars so we're going to have to stick with ice, at least for now. So much of the case for AGW rests on temperature proxies that I wonder at your attempt to sabotage the AGW world-view here. As for time series, I already wrote my response on that in the time series section of this very page, look up a bit. In short, the data's coming and when the data arrives it would be appropriate to talk definitively about local or global warming on mars in a scientific context but that's not what you've done, is it? TMLutas 12:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have 140+ years of intrumental temperatures for the earth; very little AGW rests on T proxies. But at least those are calibrated against T; clearly the martian proxies aren't, since there is no T to calibrate them against William M. Connolley 19:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could have sworn we just started talking about martian average temperature (I remember doing an edit there tonight) and I remember reading a recent addition about how Mars weather is much less variable than Earth weather. If you've got a 7 (Earth) year record of receding ice pits against the backdrop off very steady weather, something is changing and Mars' regularity works against the idea of random variability. TMLutas 07:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The steady stuff is for 60N-60S (if I read that paper right). Mars's regularity, as observed, works against the idea that any major changes can be occurring. All you have is the SP stuff, and we already have evidence that this changes may be purely local William M. Connolley 09:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the sandbox, the south pole stuff is not the only evidence and "may be purely local" does not justify the title changes you've done. TMLutas 17:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my earlier comment. But also: the article titles have to be justified by the *current* content of the article, not by hypothetical future content William M. Connolley 17:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RA modded the text to There are presently no time series of Martian data long enough to establish "climate" in a statistically meaningful sense. - this is true, but carries the implication that there are at least some data points... are there? William M. Connolley 08:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see above, though nobody editing this page (including yours truly) has dug out the instrument results yet and summarized in a way appropriate for wikipedia. If only somebody were paying me to do this... TMLutas 12:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, your answer is that there is nothing but the ice pits evidence, though there may be more in the future. Since (obviously) we don't base this page on future evidence, you have nothing but the ice pits. So you have nothing but the local south pole changes. So I'm not sure why you think the npov tags are needed William M. Connolley 19:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering we haven't incorporated the major climate instrument running today on Mars, I think it's a little early yet to say that there's nothing else. I'm content to use the formulation NASA is using, leaving off the adjective local. Why aren't you? TMLutas 07:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a press release, which itself quotes nothing except the SP? No thanks. Press releases have a long history of playing up little things to make them more exciting William M. Connolley 09:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's additional evidence in the sandbox. You don't seem to be contributing there. TMLutas 21:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why put it in there? I'm not watching it, especially since there seem to be two, which is confusing. If you have new evidence, wonderful, put it into the article William M. Connolley 08:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea behind the sandbox was to allow you (et al.) and Lutas to expand your ideas more fully without having to worry about any edit wars. Version A is essentially his version (et al. of a similar mind), and Version B is essentially your version (although that might have changed some recently). It can be difficult to compare old versions when they get reverted half-formed. My opinion is that both you and Lutas are polite individuals, and that it's entirely possible that y'all can reach a consensus on this point if you are both able to understand the other one's point-of-view. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the most tendentious paragraph. It seems you are trying to use this article to further your argument about terrestrial global warming. As there is no reason to believe they are correlated, it was certainly undue weight. The way, the truth, and the light 18:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, of course, since Nature is always a RS. In the light of your comment, I don't understand your removal of the para. I agree that there is no demonstrated correlation between earths warming and martian warming - how could there be any such correlation, because (all together now) we have no idea if mars is warming globally or not William M. Connolley 19:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nature is an RS but I don't think the realclimate blog is, nor do I think its conclusion is well-supported. The Nature article actually is about the dust/albedo effect, which is covered in the previous paragraph, not in that one, so the citation is in the wrong place anyway. The way, the truth, and the light 19:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A prerequistite for discussing climate change should be some knowledge of the climate. This article oddly lacks a "temperature" section. We should add one, summarising what is known William M. Connolley 19:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have some data points from the Martian landers, and "Climate of Mars" doesn't necessarily mean that we can only talk about global climate. I suppose local climate is relevant, too. Agree? (Obviously, I don't feel too strongly about this.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting in what is known from the landers would be a good start William M. Connolley 19:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start. Note that the martian atmosphere is very thin - 1/100 of earth - and a radiosonde at 10 mb in the sunlight on earth would be in need of radiation corrections. Mind you the sunlight is weaker there. I wonder if they designed this into the sensors? William M. Connolley 19:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC) This [2] is an interesting paper - frustratingly lacking the figs! I haven't found any useful data ain it yet, though... Unfortunately, the record of air temperature from the Viking IRTM instrument was evidently contaminated, making the extended, multispacecraft air temperature record the most tainted (relative to the dust and water ice records). suggests there may be problems William M. Connolley 19:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the work you're doing. Once you're finished (or a couple hours from now, whichever comes last, I'm working on some other stuff for a while), I'll go back and clean up the refs and possibly look towards adding info from the current rovers. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm probably done from now. The Liu paper had what I wanted, in fact a bit more than, in a certain sense: it says that T variation (at least at some seasons and some times of day) is less than the measurement error. That was in 2003; but would preclude any assertion of "global" warming unless its been superceeded William M. Connolley 20:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Always a good idea idea to go back to the literature. Raymond Arritt 20:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be much agreement on average temperature [3] with various figures being presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TMLutas (talk • contribs) 05:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The temperatures are sometimes listed in celsius and fahrenheit and sometimes listed in kelvin in this section. Now to my mind using kelvin makes much more sense in a scientific context. Any thoughts? (I'm new. if this is incredibly stupid my apologies)Jekowl (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would be nice to homologate temp notation. Although kelvin is used in science, we can make it so much more comprehensible to the non-scientist reader if we write them all in C (and F). Cheers,

talk) 13:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, all of the uses of kelvin where relative temperatures so the numbers are the same but I have altered the units to ⁰C. I think adding fahrenheit value would create too much clutter here so I left it there. Jekowl (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The changes referred to are local, of course, but I don't see that we have proof that the causes are local. This is as I said in my last edit summary.

The fact that you reverted all my changes - including the correction of the degree symbol - can only be intended as an insult. It is likely that you are doing this because you think I am a global warming 'sceptic' (I am not) and that you believe such should be harassed as much as possible.

The paragraph I had removed was likely intended to bash 'sceptics' and as such can not be appropriate for this article, which is about Mars, not Earth. In addition it incorrectly uses the Nature source, as I explained above. The way, the truth, and the light 21:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The headings only say that the changes are local. They imply nothing about the causes. My reversion was based on the material as written; I don't know or care whether you're a global warming 'sceptic.' Raymond Arritt 21:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Its best not to mix up changes you know full well to be controversial - like the local change - with typos corrections. For the obvious reasons. And the section is headed Evidence for recent (local) climatic change. Not about causes (though its hard to see a global cause having a purely local effect) William M. Connolley 22:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in e-mail contact with The way, the truth, and the light (my e-mail is pretty easy to discover for anyone interested, but I won't post it here -- I get enough spam as it is), and I'd just like to clear up one thing on his behalf. He did, in fact, make these edits separately. Unfortunately, some reversion tools (if not all) combine all changes made by a common editor when doing a reversion, so when you reverted the change you intended to revert, you also reverted his other changes — an easy mistake to make, if not an unavoidable one. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changes may or may not be local. We don't actually know and that's been the thrust of the text prior to WMC's relatively recent changes. We started off 3 or 4 decades ago with a vision of a dead, lifeless, largely unchanging planet. We're getting more and more evidence that there's plenty of change going on. c, some that causation is local to Mars, others that causation is a solar system effect that is interplanetary (not all the theories are covered in the article yet). I have yet to get a decent explanation why jumping beyond the evidence is warranted. I've seen a lot of trash talk though. TMLutas 05:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changes may or may not be local. We don't actually know - this article should be about what we *know*. All we seem to know is that there have been some local changes near the south pole. We're getting more and more evidence that there's plenty of change going on - really? then why isn't it in the article? I have yet to get a decent explanation why jumping beyond the evidence is warranted - precisely. Which is why we should be talking about local changes, because thats all we have William M. Connolley 09:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added by TML. No source for it, clearly a leading statement. Might be acceptable if qualified by "there is no evidence for a trend" William M. Connolley 09:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all statements must be sourced. Are you challenging it? Why? TMLutas 19:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm challenging it as proper in that place. The next para discusses the measurements. What we appear to have is data showing that there are no trends, to within measurement error. You can't use that to add in text about any-dep-more-sig. BTW, "error" is about +/- 1K, so the trends on earth would be within this error. Ie, the measurement system for Mars isn't very good. We can't rule out global trends... but we have no evidence for them William M. Connolley 20:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: we have over 20 years of ground-based global temperature measurements for Mars (VLA radio observations, starting with Don Rudy's thesis, Caltech 1987). They're flat to within +-0.5 K. Michaelbusch 20:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... interesting. Would you have any pointers to these? William M. Connolley 20:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy's thesis isn't online, but the reference is "Mars: High Resolution VLA Observations at Wavelengths of 2 and 6cm and Derived Properties", 1987, PhD thesis, Caltech. He also had a paper in Icarus: Icarus 71, 159-177 (1987), which may be available through ScienceDirect ([4]]). Since then, Mars has been used as a calibrator source for radio and millimeter observations (CARMA looks at it every two days). Michaelbusch 20:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TML added this to the sandox - at least I presume thats what he means. Interesting ref, good quotes ""Odyssey is giving us indications of recent global climate change in Mars," said Jeffrey Plaut, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.", how to explain it away :-?

Firstly, there are no time scales. Does "recent" mean years, decades, millenia? Second its just a web site, and the quote is from 2003, so anything useable there should have got into the literature by now. This looks like the source, but its just a meeting talk.

Icarus is a journal, but the text there is more cautious. The only timescale mentioned is 10 kyr

William M. Connolley 17:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WMC for being so explicit about your POV. Just a web site is not a wikipedia term. Are you saying that it's not a reliable source? If it is a reliable source, there's no reason not to include it. You can balance with other sources if you like. I believe that you may be conflating other geological evidence that's being dated by lack of crater impacts with the ice melt that Plaut was talking about. TMLutas 19:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying its not a RS. Its just a web page. I am saying that if what was said at that conf in 2003 had any real basis, it would now be in print. Is it? I don't known. You need to find it. Conflation: the 10kyr is in the source I cited. I may well be basically the same thing as [5] which you've just given. The point I was making about timescales is that your neutron source gives none (other than 10 kyr) William M. Connolley 20:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think I'll go along with rewriting wikipedia policy here. You can come up with a more recent debunking that's credible and I'll withdraw the point or find a better non-debunked source to replace it with but the idea that anything in 2003 that had a real basis must have been published elsewhere is simply not a wiki policy and if you insist on enforcing your personal standards on article quality in opposition to wikipedia's actual standards, you're going to find yourself strongly challenged up to and including mediation/arbitration. Let's stick to the actual rules of this venue, shall we? TMLutas 21:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flinging around non-credible threats of arbitration will get you nowhere, as will insisting on trying to add non-RS's William M. Connolley 21:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to take a look at

WP:GAME specifically the 7th example in the example list. Having the idea subsequently appear in peer reviewed work is not necessary for something to be a reliable source. Or is there a WMC codicil to that? Please do not game the system. This, by itself, is not worth going to arbitration about. A pattern of pulling this sort of thing over a long period of time would be. I'm not promising. I'm attempting to avoid having to do the work to prove that pattern. I'm sure everybody would rather not have to go through that. TMLutas 22:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

More flinging. But the main point: if someone had an idea, and talked about it in 2003 at a conf, and the idea was any good, it would be in a journal by now. If it *isn't* in a journal then the idea was no good William M. Connolley 08:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read

WP:GAME

at all before you wrote that last bit? Your position has been explicitly rejected by the guideline. Just in case you're not following the link, here's the relevant pull quote:

not every notable view on scientific topics is documented in science journals. Reliability is determined neutrally, using WP:RS and evidence of the community's view. The primary purpose of WP:RS is to clarify and guide communal views on the reliability of different sources, not to support unilateral demands for an unreasonably narrow personal definition of "reliable" as a means to exclude appropriate sources that document notable opposing views.

And reading it in a wider context (please do) is consistent with the part I pulled. Please do not make up rules and standards. You can go off and try to modify WP:GAME and create a different consensus. That's up to you. I'm playing by the rules as they exist now and if the rules change, will change my behavior then. Why do you feel you're exempt? TMLutas 14:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's indeed doing

WP:GAME here, but it isn't William. Raymond Arritt 14:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Talk about flinging, do you have any comment as to the actual controversy, WMC's assertion that non-peer reviewed stuff should not be included past some time limit (which limit he hasn't laid out at all) unless the idea has subsequently appeared in peer reviewed journals? Handwaving at rules is not sufficient here, RA. If you think I'm gaming the system on this point, please tell me how. TMLutas 00:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recent quote is more cautious and is framed in more scientific terms: "There is a hypothesis that Mars' climate is changing, perhaps rapidly. The combination of instruments from different orbiters strengthens our ability to study that possibility."[6]. Raymond Arritt 17:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a reasonably held hypothesis, it should be mentioned in neutral terms as one of the possibilities for what's going on after a general listing of the physical evidence found. This seems to be objectionable to some who insist on slapping local, local, local everywhere there's a mention of climate change that's non-fringe and even slightly ambiguous. Let the data emerge and keep an open mind in the meantime is, I believe, a much more responsible position. TMLutas 19:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we need an RS. Following RA's link leads me to a domain-for-sale page. Please stop complaining about the "local", which is justified by the evidence presently on the page. "data" don't emerge from non-RS William M. Connolley 20:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to, and subsequent to, your reply I clicked on that link and found a legitimate page that maeks the point RA claims it does. You may have a problem with your technical setup. The whois record for that domain is below:

Spaceflight Now Ltd
56 Avebury Avenue
Tonbridge, Kent TN9 1TQ
GB

Domain Name: SPACEFLIGHTNOW.COM

Administrative Contact , Technical Contact :
Spaceflight Now Ltd
[email protected]
56 Avebury Avenue
Tonbridge, Kent TN9 1TQ
GB
Phone: +44-1732-350129
Fax: 442087281223

Record expires on 07-Sep-2012
Record created on 07-Sep-1999
Database last updated on 13-Sep-2007

It's a legitimate domain. TMLutas 21:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is up again now. But it wasn't just WMC - since i saw the same domain ad-page, last i checked. So it wasn't just a local technical error - but a rather large one (both sites in .dk and .uk affected). Strange. --Kim D. Petersen 21:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes odd, and now that I look at the whois record a bit more carefully, the explanation leaps out at me. The poor fellow forgot to renew his domain, or his renewal didn't go through properly. Look at the database last updated date. TMLutas 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds quite plausible - albeith unprofessional. --Kim D. Petersen 22:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft.com was temporarily out of service on a similar error. A random tech guy was annoyed at this, whipped out his credit card, and renewed it over the weekend. MS lawyers had a cow the following Monday. He cheerfully handed the domain back and was eventually refunded the renewal fee by MS if I recall. In other words, this sort of thing happens even to gargantuan mega-corps. This doesn't change the fact that the original source noted by RA is a reliable source by the definition of

WP:RS TMLutas 22:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't say that it couldn't happen - i said it was unprofessional. And it still is - especially for a company that lives by the internet. Its just as unprofessional, as to forget to pay your rent. --Kim D. Petersen 15:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think everyone involved in the disputes above needs to remember Wikipedia:No original research. Connelley is quite right to insist on reliable sourcing, but that is not enough. Michaelbusch 21:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is the relevant guideline and I don't particularly see how WMC's standards are in accord with those. Enlighten me. TMLutas 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I should be clear, I don't have a problem with

WP:NOR and that's why the Solanki stuff hasn't gotten out of the sandbox yet, nor the orbital variation theory first forwarded above. In the limited amount of time I have to devote to wikipedia/climate stuff I haven't yet found supporting sources that I find to be of sufficient quality. My first reaction dealt with my opinion that WMC isn't actually following guidelines here with his unilateral raising of the bar. TMLutas 21:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Which Solanki stuff? Is there another sandbox? And why Solanki? He doesn't say that the last decade is unusual. (actually quite the opposite). --Kim D. Petersen 22:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solanki seemed to have some papers talking about solar warming this century that weren't considered fringe and mars global warming at the appropriate times would be a proof of what he's talking about. There's only one sandbox going on that I know about. I haven't checked today but I'm the only one working in it apparently. A shame since it makes the article weaker by giving good cause for that NPOV tag to hang around. TMLutas 21:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should read some more

WP:OR to take unrelated results and speculate about effects. --Kim D. Petersen 15:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Other than myself, nobody ever used Ben Hocking's sandbox so what's the point of contributing there in good faith trying to avoid an edit war? I'll do a review as I can to get all my changes in the main article. After that, I'd kill the subpage. TMLutas 18:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be going unused (except by you, of course). If no one objects, I'll ask WMC (or some other admin) to kill it when you state you're done with it. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TMLutas' edits to the article were unacceptable and I have reverted them. I'm afraid they read like nothing other weasel-worded mis-direction with the intent to give the Mars global warming bollocks incorrect appearance of legitimacy. So kill the sandbox, since this is all unilateral action on TMLutas' part. Michaelbusch 19:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In good faith I've been holding off on my edits, working in the sandbox where you were also invited to play but obviously declined. You're unilaterally reversing edits, and do not seem to have engaged in any significant attempts at reaching consensus after a legitimate NPOV tag was in place. That seems to be rather high handed activity about the matter. I added legitimate content to the article. You could have challenged the new material with {{More sources}} or {{Refimprove}} but instead you decided to wholesale reverts but not, I notice, revert my removal of the NPOV tag. That seems rather rude when I was truly willing to work towards consensus and demonstrated so by editing in the sandbox that Ben Hocking provided. Since the "Mars can't be warming" brigade didn't want to compromise, I'm not left with much choice other than to edit in the article directly and let the chips fall where they may. TMLutas 02:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First point: THERE IS NO MARS CAN'T BE WARMING BRIGADE. All editors who have contested your edits have done so on their own initiative and without pressure from others. When you are outnumbered and do not have consensus or actual

reliable sources

for your statements, claims of conspiracy are understandable, but here they are baseless.

THERE IS NO MARS CAN'T BE WARMING BRIGADE is shouting. Did you do that by accident or are you intentional in your rudeness? I'm not asserting conspiracy, merely a commonality of viewpoint. TMLutas 19:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second point: I removed the NPOV tag on the grounds that only you are currently contesting the article, and this does not constitute widespread dis-satisfaction with the article.

NPOV does not depend on contestation. You can have a consensus that is still NPOV. I think you are slightly unclear on the concept. TMLutas 19:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third point: I personally have lost patience with this bollocks. This at a minimum the fourth time 'global warming caused by Sun' has been revived. I've debunked it twice, and it remains debunked. You have not accepted the debunkings. Fine. But don't try to add back stuff that

consensus

has removed before.

Since RA just said the Plaut quote was good, and he is not my biggest fan, I think your assertion of a universal consensus that I'm personally bucking is a bit premature. I'm not actually saying that mars global warming is a scientific fact. I'm saying that Mars has some odd data that some people are calling local warming, others global warming, and others seem to be somewhat vague on the scope of it all. I believe that the whole scientific, political, and tribal phenomenon of it is worth putting into wikipedia. The science should probably come first and a (weak) consensus developed that this is the spot to put it. So here I am. You seem to be confused as to what I'm asserting and what I'm trying to do. I hope this clarifies things TMLutas 19:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth point: you have a very easy choice: accept the article as it is. Michaelbusch 03:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a choice. It's an invitation for an uncivil replay formed as an ultimatum. Well, fill in the blank ________________ TMLutas 19:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From RA's recent edit explanation "Replaced problematic interpretation with a direct quote from one of the cited scientists". I thought the replaced sentence "The observed trend so far is a warming one though nobody is currently asserting an airtight case has been established for any particular theory." was a straightforward summary of the facts we have so far. I'd even go so far as "the observed trend, where there is a trend, is a warming one though nobody is currently asserting an airtight case has been established for any particular theory."

I would like some sort of summary of the evidence that tries to make sense of it all, not just a grab-bag of evidence. I'm just not interested in doing so to a cry of "original research, original research". I'm looking for a structure of here's evidence of something going on, this is the trend we've got based on incomplete data, and here is a grab bag of contending theories that try to explain it all. Ideally we'd eventually sort them as to weight but I'm not sure we can do that honestly other than put the direct solar warming stuff at the end (due to the TSI measurements that contradict the theory).

So I'm opening the floor to better ideas to the end of the week. If Monday rolls around and nobody has a better idea, I'll put something back in. TMLutas 19:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that leaves any implication of global climate change on Mars is unacceptable on grounds of the ArbCom decision on pseudoscience. The current article describes the local changes well enough, in my opinion. Michaelbusch 19:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, if you're going to refer to an arbcom decision, it would be useful to link to it. I'll withhold comment until I've got the link and understand your objection better. I suspect that we will disagree because premature (which I believe a firm assertion of Martian global warming would be) does not equal pseudoscience. If it did, Galileo was a pseudoscientist. I do note that you don't come up with an alternative yourself. Would you care to supply a proposed text? TMLutas 20:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I think the article is fine as it is. The ArbCom decision is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience. Consult the final decisions section, under 'Principles'. The pseudoscience here is any claim of global climate change on Mars: there is no evidence for such, and decades of data against. Don't reference Galileo here (see my user page). Michaelbusch 20:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the decision and paid particular attention to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#principles and find your assertion unjustified. Certainly if *I* start claiming martian global warming is scientifically demonstrated without at least two reliable sources to back me up, I'd be both a fool and unjustified. That's not what's going on so your appeal to the pseudoscience findings is just a straw man attack. The evidence is the evidence and it will lead where it will lead but we're not bound to just a dry recitation of cases. Beyond just a laundry list of assertions, there should be some sort of text tying all the evidence up before we move on to theories on attribution. I'm repeatedly inviting you to put together a text. Given the current constellation of active editors here, it may very well be the end text or the foundation of the end text. You so far seem to not be interested in actually furthering the article other than excercising some sort of vague veto that the text shouldn't say X.

Until you have those sources - then its rather futile to discuss. A collection of data and/or articles, that have no coordinating reference to guide, in assessing

WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen 21:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

As for my referring to Galileo, why not? He's the classic case of a real scientist prone to running ahead of the actual evidence. He was just as vehement about his theory of comets as he was about his heliocentrism but he was only right about the latter. Had he been willing to limit himself to the actual evidence, he'd have fared much better at his trial. As soon as the heliocentrists drew in their horns enough to live within the evidence, they were published in Rome without much further ado. The most durable objection to heliocentrism, the lack of detectable stellar parallax was only resolved in 1838. I think that we're very early days in determining Martian climate and any detected change summary statements should make that clear though not to the point where such statements undermine the data we actually have. TMLutas 21:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading "Galileo Gambit". --Kim D. Petersen 21:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might be on point if I were using Galileo as the 'alties' do in the article you reference. The Galileo reference I am using is of a different nature, one that should be unobjectionable. Galileo was a man of very strong opinions and he sometimes ran ahead of the available data. Sometimes, as in the case of his heliocentrism advocacy, he ended up being proven right. Sometimes, as in the case of his theory of comets, he ended up being wrong. I'm making the point that one should present the evidence as it stands today, update the article as new evidence comes in and as old evidence comes to editors' attention and leave conclusions open on the article so long as there might be reasonable doubt. This is NPOV, fully consistent with scientific principles, and advocates no particular theory, "mainstream" or "alternate". This also seems to rile up some people.

I actually come at the Galileo case from a somewhat different perspective. It first attracted itself to my attention when JP II ordered the Catholic Church to do a penance to make up for its behavior in the affair. The nature of the penance was very small compared to the monstrous injustice the popular version of the affair holds was done to Galileo. So I read, and came to the conclusion that JP II was right. Galileo was wronged, but only tangentially, and on the main points the Church largely had the right of it. The problem with the myth so prevalant in the science community is that most scientists think that Galileo was tried for his scientific views. He was not. He was tried for his theological views, that it was appropriate to insist that the Church *must* teach heliocentrist Bible interpretations even in advance of final proof that heliocentrism is, in fact, true. In that, he was dead guilty and the Church let him off rather easy by the standard of the day. His abrasive personality and manner seems to have led several churchmen to be insufficiently charitable during his trial and that lack of charity was the reason for the penance.

Yet Galileo's unscientific insistence that heliocentrism had been proven does not make him a pseudo-scientist. It made him premature. And the difference between the two is very much on point, I believe, in the approach we're taking to the climate change section of this article. TMLutas 17:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the Astronomy on Mars article has an interesting NASA pic speculating what Mars looked like during an ice age. Any objection to eventually putting it up in the article? Here's the pic. TMLutas 21:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the more I think Abdusamatov's claims aren't relevant to the article. Given the lack of reputability he currently enjoys, I don't see them as

Disagree. It's something that got a lot of press so people interested in the topic are likely to be aware of it. Better to keep it here with a full discussion of its, um, "merits." Raymond Arritt 22:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you run Abdumsamtov through Google, you get ~15000 hits. Coupling that with Mars drops it down to <1000, none of which are news sources indexed by Google and many of which were a relic of my keyword choice. The only news outlet that covered him talking about Mars was a series in the Canada National Post, which seems to have been a general assemblage of all manner of dubious, and sometimes mutually contradicting, claims of the Sun causing global warming. The National Post is known for publishing such, apparently. One story only, which has been copied to a few hundred pages. Of these, very many are critical and many are Wikipedia mirrors. By comparison, there are several hundred thousand references to the climate of Mars. Michaelbusch 22:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It helps if you spell his name correctly (ot at least differently): "Abdussamatov Mars" gets 10000+ hits, including the US senate and several news sources. This National Geographic article has been widely circulated - unfortunately it is a two page article, with Abdu on page one and the rebuttal on the not very obvious page two. That does not make him right, but it does make him notable. --Stephan Schulz 00:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I curse non-unique conversions between Cyrillic and Roman. Michaelbusch 01:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you ;-) --Stephan Schulz 01:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this section on the talk page at all justifies removing the Abdusamatov section from the article. "See talk" is hardly a meaningful reason when there's no talk page consensus at all. Why was the section removed? Oren0 02:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the time stamps (after correction for time zones). Michael removed it and explained why. Then we explained why he was wrong. As a consequence, I have restored the section now (I hadn't even noticed that it had vanished). --Stephan Schulz 02:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still of the opinion that Abdusamtov's actions are not relevant here. They have very little to do with this article, or anything other than the eccentricities he is prone to. He has made a fool of himself loudly and in public. This does not relate to the climate of Mars. Michaelbusch 03:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even accounting for variant spellings, there are only 5 Google News items on Adbusamtov and Mars, roughly 1% the climate of Mars citations (estimated). The number of hits on a web-wide search is bumped up considerably by blogs, but is still less than 1000 (need to remove relic pages). Michaelbusch 03:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even 5 news items is huge for such a theory. This should go back in. TMLutas 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solar-variation stuff needs to be in here. But its a mistake to focus on A. I think we should have a section on assertions that martian warming shows that earth warming is natural, and why there is no real evidence for this. A is only a minor part; he is in because, weak as he is, its the only ref with a shred of credibility. We have filtered out the nonsense too well William M. Connolley 09:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by filtering out nonsense you mean filtering out reliable sources that push notable views you feel are not correct and have not passed peer review, I would agree. Verifiability, not truth is at issue here and you seem to be coming around to something more like my view. Keep it up TMLutas 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources, or if there are no-one has found them. Its all trash. We need to say so William M. Connolley 20:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what was that definition of reliable sources? Is it the wikipedia one or your personal version? Really, I don't even agree with the viewpoint being discussed here but I'm certainly not going to hang about while you casually twist the reliable sources standard without saying something. A scientist has an opinion. It's reported in multiple spots by sources usually considered reliable by the Wikipedia community. It meets all the standard definitions of notable. You are striking down these sources (even as you admit the opinion's notability) as reliable because... I don't know.

This becomes even more relevant when you notice that Malin, the guy in charge of the camera that found the retreating ice at the south pole seems to be of the opinion that nobody knows yet why it's warming. I'm keeping an eye out for some more statements in order to piece together enough material for its own section but it's hardly likely that journals are going to publish "we don't know yet" by anybody no matter how notable the source and verifiable the statement. Yes, a literature review could be done but the lack of one doesn't make non-peer reviewed statements any less worthy of inclusion in the article. Face it, the standard you're advocating isn't the wikipedia standard and worse, isn't even sustainable for an encyclopedic project of this nature. TMLutas 14:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify the nature of your point? This thread is about Abdusamatov; given that Abdusamatov's statement is in the article, I'm having trouble seeing what are you arguing about. Raymond Arritt 14:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TMLutas, don't put words in Mike Malin's mouth. He said that nobody knows why that region of the south pole is warming. He said exactly that and nothing else. We don't know the exact cause. This has been widely reported in the journals (check the JGR papers cited for the original report). That is not the same as advocating every piece of non-sensical ranting. If you were to claim Abdusamatov had any validity to Mike, he would likely become insulting. Connolley, I see your point. This is a perpetual problem with covering pseudoscience: by mentioning anything here, we run the risk of giving it false importance. Michaelbusch 17:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atmosphere of Mars seems intimately related to Climate of Mars, especially with regards to the low atmospheric pressure section. There doesn't seem to be any formal link other than a "see also" link at the bottom. I propose reorganizing things so that atmosphere features that impact climate be demoted underneath an atmosphere section and grouped together with an in section "see main article" link be made back to atmosphere of Mars. Any objections? TMLutas 18:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

better polar scarps pictures available here that show the length of the evidence available. Since the camera taking this recently died, it's likely not going to get better than this. It's credited as a NASA/JPL photo so there should be no copyright issues. TMLutas 13:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MRO has better cameras, I'm afraid. Michaelbusch 17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the ice age section again:

"One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," says William Feldman of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. "Those areas are like the patches of snow you sometimes see persisting in protected spots long after the last snowfall of the winter." NASA scientists have recently suggested that ice age "pacemakers" are more extreme on Mars than more familiar Earth style ice ages.

Its (a) non-notable and (b) very speculative (indeed [7] has Feldman "speculating" not "saying". It was said in 2003, after one year of Mars obs; you cannot deduce a trend from one year.

Also, the pacemakers stuff has no clear connection. Indeed, the pacemaker article says In contrast to Earth's ice ages, a Martian ice age waxes when the poles warm, and water vapor is transported toward lower latitudes. Martian ice ages wane when the poles cool and lock water into polar icecaps... so if an ice age has just ended, the poles are cooling, not warming William M. Connolley 16:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're deleting far too fast in my opinion. There's a progression to dealing with weakly sourced material that you ought to follow. I'm not wedded to the concept that Mars. RA first introduced it. If you think the citation is inapt, there's

Template:Fact and all the permutations within. I think that within a week it's reasonable to expect that it either improves to the point where it will satisfy even the finicky among the editors or this truly is something that doesn't deserve a section. In any case, it takes away an excuse for an edit war. It started as a quote and this latest delete is two separate points and a cite. As long as it keeps improving, I think it's fair to tag it as needing more improvement, until it doesn't at which point leave it alone entirely. I'd suggest a sandbox as a middle ground but you don't seem to like to play in those. TMLutas 22:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmm, I don't think you've read what I wrote, or at the least you aren't answering what I wrote. The entire thing is NN. Third, no clear connection (yes you've added a second point but it appears to be irrelevant). And, of course, the odd nature of Martian ice ages doesn't help you William M. Connolley 18:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I don't think that you're addressing my point either which is that slash and burn deletes are not the way to go. The bias is supposed to be towards adding, not deleting from articles. Yes, one can and sometimes should delete entire sections, even articles but you shouldn't open your editing with that if you dispute a section. If you think a second point added isn't relevant to recent climate change maybe it would fit better in the historical section. That's fine by me. I think you should make as much of an effort to salvage misplaced material as I am with RA's original edit. What do you say? TMLutas 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly think that Abdusamatov has things right but for wikipedia's purposes, this is *irrelevant* and smarmy notes on edits implying I hold opinions I do not are ill advised. This encyclopedia, by policy, is aiming at verifiable (ie the position can be sourced as actually having been held), notable opinions and not at a grand search for truth. If WP were looking for truth, it would not open up edits to everybody the way it does.

Abdusamatov's position can be debunked, and I think it has been adequately debunked in the article. If you want to make the debunking larger, more detailed, knock yourself out. You may be surprised to find me editing to improve the debunking. I have before. I have defended others' edits recently and in the more distant past, trying to preserve and even expand points that do not necessarily agree with what I personally feel is going on regarding the recent odd data that's popping up. That's because I think that the positions were a good stub for a notable current of opinion and deserved to be in the article on that basis. Others have disagreed that all viewpoints deserve to have a respectable amount of time to demonstrate that they are notable and have engaged in what I view as slash and burn deletion. But there's worse than slash and burn out there.

I don't think cheap propaganda tricks such as making titles disagree with the content of the paragraph and the actual assertions by the scientist whose position is being described is acceptable at Wikipedia. Leave that to the NY Times. They're better at it and they already seem to have pawned off their soul decades ago (see Walter Duranty). TMLutas 19:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of insulting anyone. I'd rather the article be uniform, rather than even mention this particular nonsense. It has caused no end of trouble, but that trouble is confined largely to Wikipedia. Michaelbusch 19:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted elsewhere, Presidential candidate Fred Thompson has at least referenced the position which means by Wikipedia rules it should be covered. People are going to look this stuff up. Wikipedia should have something to say about it. *That* is my position and I'm well within the rules on it. You're going to have really elaborate on "uniformity" and what you mean by it if you want that standard to apply here. TMLutas 19:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put in my reason in the edit note for reverting MB's latest content reducing edit which was that he knocked out a peer reviewed study (actually multiple studies, I was being conservative) by vaguely asserting that it had been debunked but not providing any rationale why the question was settled in favor of his interpretation nor providing links documenting his assertion. Now it may very well be true that the Duke study and the related Columbia study the ref refers to have been shown to be in error but wiping things out like that deserves a higher standard than he demonstrated. I'm only sorry that I quick fingered the edit and didn't refer to the talk page when I reverted him. Hopefully he'll come by and see this before the issue spirals to a revert war. TMLutas 20:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't become a proxy for

solar variation William M. Connolley 20:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You're right in that but solar variation is such a large article that a simple link doesn't really do the issue justice. You have to wade in *very* deep to get to the Duke study reference in that article and it's not presented in a manner that's helpful. I'm not arguing against your edit but I think that we can do significantly better on this section. It's too stubbish. In fact, as a general observation, a lot of the article could qualify for section stub tags. This is not a small topic. TMLutas 22:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was in a hurry, and didn't explain: if I remember correctly, the Duke study relied on stratospheric temperature measurements from balloon probes, which were found to be systematically off due to a design flaw (reported in Science last year). As Connolley notes, this is better kept under

Could you supply a link on the debunking. The study *is* in the solar variation article so perhaps it wasn't as debunked as all that. (semi-off topic) Considering the problems that are showing up in the USHCN ground stations, single study debunkings may not be a wise standard for AGW proponents just now. What a mess seems to be forming there! TMLutas 22:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can tell, there are two complete systems of categorizing ages on Mars. Sorting out age descriptions is important for the paleoclimatology section. I can see describing inline and using both or picking one and sticking to it with an explanation why. What's the consensus on this? TMLutas 20:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the Noachian/Hesperian/Amazonian vs. the OMEGA based mineralogy eras then I'll say that within the scientific community the NHA category is still fully dominant over the OMEGA based ages. Jespley 18:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's one opinion for Noachian et al age system being used, any others? Until there's a contrary opinion, I'm going to go with this. A month is long enough to wait. TMLutas (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I paraphrased some additional detail from the ref page already accepted and of longstanding. It got reverted and I put it back in. I don't understand what's the problem so perhaps MB can detail it and we can come to some sort of understanding on how to expand the section. TMLutas 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have assertions that climate change is global and that climate change is local, the compromise seems obvious, don't use adjectives in the title that are controverted by text in the section. Also saying editorially that the change in the ice pits is slight while the quote we've agreed on says that they're prodigious triggers the same problem. I'm leaving the tag down because I fixed the underlying problems. Discuss them here if you disagree instead of going into edit war mode. TMLutas (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section Low atmospheric pressure says:

...point, so if the temperature exceeded 0 °C liquid water could exist there.

Fundamental question: does it ever exceed 0 °C, or is this just an if-Saturn-flowed-in-an-immense-ocean reasoning? Said: Rursus (☻) 15:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Properties of Water Ice Clouds over Major Martian Volcanoes Observed by MOC (PhD thesis)
• Benson; et al. (2006). "Interannual variability of water ice clouds over major martian volcanoes observed by MOC".
  doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2006.03.014. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help
  )
• Benson; et al. (2003). "The seasonal behavior of water ice clouds in the Tharsis and Valles Marineris regions of Mars: Mars Orbiter Camera Observations".
  doi:10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00175-1. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help
  )