Climate change hits Mars!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

Laura, what is your take on this, hmmm? Coincidence?

I am with Mark(not). Just like we deserve whatever is coming to us, the Martians deserve what is coming to them, because they also don't care about their environment. Hahaha. Nature is gonna do whatever, but the earth will still provide us with life. Keep following your WE CAN STOP global warming pied piper y'all. And keep complaining about how much freedom is costing, but don't complain about how much your GW non-sense will cost. As long as it is for your anxiety driven cause, right hypocrites?

Rich - I have the issue of Nature cited in that article and I'll be posting on it hopefully later today. I'm sure it doesn't matter what the article says, though.

Comparing Mars to Earth is comparing apples to bricks. Go back to watching your war movies, Rich.

Another reference to my comparisons, I should start collecting royalties or something.

Mark:

Can you explain why comparing Mars to Earth is unwise?

Oh, and by the way, on the topic, I think that it is fine that some owners have the where with all and excess money to put towards green construction. I just hope that it is not mandated because it is expensive relative to standard construction, is debateable as to effectiveness, and leads to more numerous maintenance issues. Among other issues.

But, provided that a person knows this, the idea of green construction is just fine.

"These are projects that use a number of different strategies to make them environmentally sound, from reuse of existing structures to use of sustainable or renewable construction materials to use of systems which conserve enery and water."

Hmm reuse of existing structures. What a noble idea. It's rediculous that there are as many empty buildings around all the while new ones are being put up.

Green buildings cost between 2% to 10% more than traditional buildings. I don't know what projects you did, but this has been done and been documented in Manhattan, Chicago, and San Francisco.

We have very little data on Mars, and NO surface observations. Mars has different weather patterns, different orbit, different everything. It's amazing to me how deniers say we have too little data on Earth to deduce AGW but they embrace the extremely tiny amount of Mars data that we have.

Mark:

I have read you mention that 2 to 10% additinal cost. In my experience, that is way too low. Not sure how they have been documented but I do know that the stories I see on TV are essentially misrepresenting the facts in low-balling the "green" parts and high-balling the original construction. More importantly, they never mention maintenance and other associated problems.

And, by the way, we agree with the Mars thing since it bolsters our thoughts, LOL. It does show a trend though even though the specifics may be different.

Mark, Mark, Mark. You are being dishonest to yourself, it's no wonder you are so confused. As far as your previous comment that the earth will magically absorb CO2. It's not magic Mark, it's called nature, a cycle. It's going on now, and is becoming more noticable. Increased warmth means; receding snow pack resulting in increased oxygen providing vegetation (Greenhouse Effect),increased carbon dioxide sinks(weather, ocean and air currents) for an increased oxygen dependent human and animal population. The earth is in the process of balance, by scrubbing CO2 and releasing more oxygen. All good, the earth is healthy. Sorry if this is to deep for you. Your projected linear increase in CO2 concentrations do not show that the earth is in the process of balance. As far as methane release from thaw, we don't know to what extent, yet. Regardless, there are other factors to warming, uh like that big warm thing in the sky (sun) and there is nothing that you or Al Gore can do to stop GW from happening. Get a life!

Laura, as far as trees releasing CO2 when they decompose, over the life span of a mature tree, it absorbs more CO2 than it releases when it dies, as the carbon is returned to the biosphere though decomposition. Your assertion that more plantlife eventually means more atmospheric carbon dioxide I feel is disingenuous, on scale. I do appreciate you and your website though. It is informative.

I see Rich subscribes to Gaia theory. So tell us, Rich, when do we expect the Earth to "balance" itself and we see a linear DECREASE in CO2? If you're so sure that this process is occuring right now, why don't we see evidence of it?

If anything, the rate of CO2 growth has been increasing more in recent years. For example, we've averaged an annual increase of 1.3 ppm, but a couple of recent years (1998 was one, forget the other year, maybe it was 2002) we've seen rises of 2.3 ppm. Let's hear your explanation as to why these rates are rising even though the Earth is supposedly balancing itself.

I came to this conclusion on my own. It's called logic through meditation. Try it sometime. Regardless, you are so wrapped up in hate and disdain, that you don't see things for what they really are. It's kind of sad.

It's a cycle, Mark. Nature. Your an environmentalist, right? Don't you understand how nature works? The earth has been around for billions of years. CO2 Levels will not stabilize overnight. The earth has time and is doing so through nature. You cannot look at this linear increase through the prism of fear and anxiety. You have to accept the fact the the earth is more powerful than we are and that us emitting CO2 will not destroy us nor the earth. With that, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased by 35 percent, yet the average temp has only increased by .6 degree. Technology reducing CO2 emissions are evolving just as the earth is correcting, but you seem to think that we are all doomed. You should challenge your brain and focus what is going on in the middle east. Is a 2 degree rise apocolyptic?