Talk:Climate of Mars

message: 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)
replies: text:  I tend to agree. Wikipedia is being hijacked by special interest groups. Mixino1 16:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Censorship of Wikipedia by Special Interest Groups 

message: At best, the consensus to move the Martian global warming page here was a weak one.  I believe that the intent of those of us who voted for it was that Martian global warming would get fair play in this article, which it doesn't have at this point.  Warming should at least be mentioned in the opening paragraph. Oren0 18:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: a good point - i added a bit, feel free to add more, regards sbandrews 18:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair representation in this article

message: A merge of Martian global warming into Mars was proposed, then pre-empted by an  AfD proposal. In the AfD, a plurality of responses (15 out of 31) favored merging Martian global warming into another article while most of the rest proposed deletion. Only four respondents recommended keeping Martian global warming as a separate article. Thus, am reopening the merge discussion following sentiments expressed in the AfD.  Please give your comments here. Raymond Arritt 02:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge. The Martian global warming page is as it stands WP:OR - the subject of the local climate variation, and the melting of one pole is interesting though, and should be provided within the correct context of Climate of Mars or Mars. --Kim D. Petersen 08:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: merge - as KDP, as previous discussion William M. Connolley 10:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Do not merge with Climate on Mars, rather merge with global warming. The article is not so much about describing the climate of Mars as a static condition, but more about the dynamic process of a change in the planet's climate which is currently being observed. So it would be much more appropriate to merge it into climate change or global warming. Kgs 18:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Do not merge with Climate on Mars, rather merge with global warming. The article is about the dynamic process of a warming climate change which is currently being observed. So it would be much more appropriate to merge it into global warming.  -- Rameses 20:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can always merge with both. If you think this material deserves to be on global warming, just go ahead and put it there. Lunokhod 00:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Linking this material to global warming on Earth constitutes original research. Raymond Arritt 00:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true.  You can dispute the reliability of  but it clearly doesn't violate WP:NOR. Oren0 02:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It violates WP:RS and hence WP:NOR. --Stephan Schulz 19:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You don't have to link it to Earths global warming. Global warming would get two subcategories: Global warming on Earth and global warming on Mars. Kgs 08:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge to Climate of Mars, and give fair representation to Martian warming in that article. Oren0 21:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge: This article can not be expanded as is, as there are no reputatable sources that are directly related to this subject. It is original research WP:NOR, it is non-notable WP:Notability, and the title of the topic is misleading, as it could be confused with global warming on Earth. Lunokhod 22:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge: Title is erroneous (there is no reliable source stating that the change on Mars is global), and Climate of Mars provides necessary context. Raymond Arritt 22:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge: Merge with Climate of Mars. Changes on Mars will receive the proper attention and context there.  Mishlai 18:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge to Climate of Mars (or just delete it, there was not much useful context anyways). --Stephan Schulz 19:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge with both Global warming and with Climate of Mars. It is of real interest to readers of both articles.  -- Persianne 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree - Merge with both Global warming and with Climate of Mars.  -- Brittainia 22:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: Edit histories for User:Persianne and User:Brittainia show that they edit on similar topics and use remarkably similar wording in their edit summaries. Raymond Arritt 22:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: comment 
# There are very many 'dynamical processes of change' in the climate of Mars - and that is why I started this page during the AfD. In fact Mars has most if the processes of change that the earth does, some stronger, some weaker, and a few more thrown in for good measure, not least the dust storms and one third of the atmosphere condensing twice a year, and the ecentricity of the orbit and the lack of the stabilising effect of a large moon... etc etc. 
# There is no paper, to my knowledge, peer reviewed or otherwise that states that global warming is occuring on Mars.
# There has been observed melting of the CO2 ice on the south polar cap - we have about 3 martian years of data, at best wildly incomplete in breadth, on which to make theories as to what is happening there. In short, we don't know what is happening there.
# The place of presentation of this information on wikipedia is perhaps as important as the content of the final article. The name given to the page that contains it should not be a loaded phrase, implying one conclusion or the other. It should be neutral - this is the most important criterion in the current decision process. The pages Global Warming, Martian Global Warming, Global Warming on Mars etc etc all fail the *neutrality test*. sbandrews 22:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Martial global warming merge discussion

message: Are we of the opinion that this article still needs cleanup?  It seems reasonable enough to me.  If so, please say which parts you believe need to be fixed. Oren0 07:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup tag?

message: Jakosky, B.M. & Haberle, R.M. "Year-to-year instability of the Mars Polar Cap" J.Geophys Res, 95, 1359-1365 (1990)
If anyone with access to this article (I don't have) wants to paraphrase the reasons they give for the instability it would make a nice conclusion to this page, regards sbandrews 22:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Online back issues of JGR go only to 1994, so it means a trip to the library. Something this old may have been superseded in the meantime. Raymond Arritt 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: one would have hoped so, but it is the reference that Colaprete et al rely on, who in turn are relied upon by Sigurdsson, who in turn is relied upon by.... :) sbandrews 22:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look it up tomorrow during my lunch break. --Jespley 04:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, here are some relevant points based on my quick read through.  They basically calculated energy balance (Sun's energy in vs. heat radiated away by Mars) with a variable sized polar cap and numerically integrated the heat conduction throughout the Martian orbital cycle.  They assumed a constant solar luminosity.  They found that the amount of CO2 ice depended on the previous year's place in the cycle as the system alternated between a large amount of ice and a small amount with small changes in the atmospheric conditions causing a large amount of variations.  It's my impression that results like this have been largely superceded by (and reinforced) by the more sosphicated GCM models like Colaprete et al. 2005. --Jespley 18:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice, do they speculate on the fundamental frequencies of the changes, how many years of ice deposition followed by how many of melting - and if so where are we now on the cycle - and many thanks :), kind regards, sbandrews 18:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess I'm asking is it like the ice ages on earth - is there some kind of pattern under a lot of noise, sbandrews 18:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't suggest a well behaved cycle.  Let me quote (pg. 1364): "What we have, then, is a system where each residual polar cap has two possible states, where either cap can jump from one state to the other, and where relatively small pertubations within the climate system can trigger a jump from one state to the other or back again.  These pertubations can take the form of a small (perhaps 5%) increase in the CO2 frost sublimation rate dust dust loading in the atmosphere or on the surface or an increase in the surface albedo due to the addition of clean water frost onto the residual surface."  It reminds me of discussions regarding feedback loops in the Earth's climate change.  Thanks for trying to synthesize this material.   --Jespley 19:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: While we're at, here are my very rough notes on the Head et al., Science, 2003 article which is key to this discussion.  Interested parties who have access to this article should read it.  In the meantime, here are my notes.  Hopefully someone with more time can read the article themselves or they can put my notes into a coherent form.
Head, Science, 2003
*find that high obliquity (>30degrees) causes the polar caps to melt more, increasing the humidity, which increases the stability of ice at low latitudes.  Thus more ice condenses therefore creating an "ice age" (i.e. ice across the ~ equatorial regions).  This ice then sublimates during non-ice ages leaving variegated terrain at lower latitudes.
*this is confirmed by geologic (i.e. surface roughness and topographic concavity), 
*prior to 300k years, there was high obliquity and hence an "ice age"
*<300k years, Mars had a steady obliquity of ~25degrees so we are in an "interglacial" period where "[w]ater ice at mid mid-latitudes has been slowly and steadily removed from this reservoir by diffusion, sublimation, and atmospheric transport processes; it was deposited in the polar regions, creating the uppermost layers in the polar cap, and also resulting in the degradation of the surface mantle in the 30°–60° latitude bands"
--Jespley 19:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ty - will give it a look - Looking up Head et al. I found this online paper,|Climate Simulations of Recent Climate Changes On Mars, not looked at it yet, regards, sbandrews 12:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article

message: I'm thinking of putting Climate of Mars forward for GAC - any comments, suggestions for improvements etc? sbandrews (t) 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The article is lacking a lot about the polar ice caps (I just plugged in some from the Mars page), temperature structure of the atmosphere, and composition of the atomosphere.  Some of that should only be in-depth on Atmosphere of Mars, but it should at least be mentioned here.  --zandperl 00:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: how does the temperature structure of the atmosphere affect the climate? sbandrews (t) 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I did a google search to find the diffeence in temperature on Mars if it didn't have a CO2 atmosphere - i.e. what contribution does the CO2 greenhouse make - only found hundreds of terraforming hits - could someone help with a reference for any of this? regards sbandrews (t) 15:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article candidate

message: I just threw in some content from the Mars page into the section on polar caps.  It needs cleaning up and expanding - we shouldn't have more on the general Mars page about this than on the climate-specific page.  --zandperl 00:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polar Caps 

message: FYI, this stuff is coming up at Political_positions_of_Fred_Thompson#Global_warming. He has been pushing this theory.  Crust 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone politically well-connected enough to tell him that he's embarrassing himself? Raymond Arritt 14:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, those irresponsible anti-scientists over at NASA leading astray poor gullible folk like Fred Thompson, talking about global warming processes on Mars, how could he have been taken in by them. TMLutas 19:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fred Thompson and Martian Global Warming 

message: Dry ice submlimates, its doesn't evaporate William M. Connolley 20:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evap / Subl 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: The pits are seasonally and spatially variable.  MCS gets you nothing on that front. Michaelbusch 23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Time series? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: "Solar cause for global warming" bollocks

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

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Temperature 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  'Local' changes? 

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

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

text: 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 (]).  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)
thread_title:  This makes any departures from trend more significant than they would be on Earth 

message: 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)
replies: text: WP:V is the relevant policy and 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You should read some more Solanki then. Or read them more closely - since if you go by Solar and Solanki - Mars should have warmed in the beginning of this century - and should be cooling now. It would also as others have noted by WP:OR to take unrelated results and speculate about effects. --Kim D. Petersen 15:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General observation

message: 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)
thread_title:  astronomy on mars pic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Atmosphere of Mars 

message: 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)
replies: text: MRO has better cameras, I'm afraid. Michaelbusch 17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture substitution proposal 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ice age section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  MB's recent repeated reverts on Mars solar warming 

message: 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)
replies: text: This shouldn't become a proxy for solar variation William M. Connolley 20:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  revert on duke study on solar output, rationale and small oops 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Paleoclimatology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  weather section detail 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV fixes on climate change 

message: 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)
thread_title: Water?

message: The article is quite long, so I wonder if it would be OK to remove the methane section from this article; it seems to me that, even if proven to be present, it takes no significant part in the climate. It is already covered at length in the Atmosphere of Mars article, so we could just leave a link in the 'See also' section. What say you?  BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW - *Entirely* agree with you - removing the methane section (& adding a link in "See also") may improve the article - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methane section 

message: :I think the current lead image is not suitable for this article as it is computer generated based on radar data and thus featureless.
:Since the article is about climate, the lead image should show that Mars:
:*has an atmosphere (and thus clouds, winds and dust storms)
:*has polar caps
:*has a surface which is not uniform but differs in coloring and composition, not just in altitude
:I think this can be achieved by using this true-color Hubble image as the lead image.
:Scooter20 (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: How is the weather box (designed for Earth) compatible with use for Mars? A Martian year is much longer, so seasons wouldn't repeat at the same time each Earth year, which the box initially suggests. In so far as Mars has months at all, it has two sets, "Phobos-months" and "Deimos-months", both far shorter than Lunar months. 12 "months" in a year is a very Earth-centered approach. As the sunshine hours seem to be for a Mars year, each "month" on the box would be around 45-50 days long (Earth) which means they can't be called January, February etc! A different weather box design is needed for other worlds (Mercury and Venus don't have months at all, as they have no moons). Walshie79 (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Weather box

message: Hypothesis:  Signs of Acid Fog Found on Mars. Press Release - Source: Geological Society of America 
November 2, 2015.  Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A hypothesis. Too early to incorporate it in Wikipedia. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Signs of Acid Fog Found on Mars" 

message: I am pleasantly suprised to see a quick "skim" of a research paper suggesting that the heat loss is reduced on Mars due to its low density air.  https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/22924/apparent-temperature-mars  (Another pop-sci article seems to independently agree with that, suggesting that solar radiation is good enough for a thermometer to register +7C at the Earth's orbit, https://www.space.com/14719-spacekids-temperature-outer-space.html ).  The "feels like" temperature (heat loss speed) appears as important as the "final state" kinetic energy of atoms of bodies on the martian surface. --ilgiz (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Feels like" (windchill) temperatures 

message: Since the Martian year is ~22.5 months, it would be inappropriate to align Mars's seasons and climate data with Earth's calendar as this table does. This exact structure does not appear to be in the sources, and the linked Twitter feed even says that today (a sol no less) is a summer day at that location on Mars, while it is not summer anywhere on Earth right now. Even if the data is correct, can this table either be restructured (aligned to a Martian calendar or Martian seasons, perhaps) or removed completely to fix this error-prone transcription? ComplexRational (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate data should not follow Earth's calendar 

message: The article text quotes: "This day-night discrepancy is unexpected and not understood". Not having any specialist knowledge on this subject, I nevertheless wonder whether, at or around the nighttime temperatures, there might be a mechanism at work allowing heat exchange at a constant temperature. Such a mechanism is at work on Earth where fluid water and melting ice (or solid ice and freezing water) are in contact with each other (under appropriate pressure and temperature conditions).
Since Mars' atmosphere is reported to consist mainly of carbon dioxide, and since the surface pressure is reported to be around 6 hPa (and around 11.5 hPa in an approximately 7.1 km deep impact basin at/near Hellas Planitia), and since the average nighttime / minimum temperatures in the Gale Crater (which at its deepest point is reported to be around 5.5 km deep) are in the range of -90 deg C to -75 deg C (according to a table in the current article), I wondered whether these circumstances might correspond to a range where (a) phase change(s) for carbon dioxide is/are possible.
Looking at a phase diagram for carbon dioxide at https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/4896/are-there-pockets-of-liquid-carbon-dioxide-in-earths-oceans, I could not help but notice that there is "some" closeness of the vapour-liquid and liguid-solid transition lines (as well as a clathrate region, if I interpret the diagram correctly) to the average nighttime temperature range and the pressure range at certain places on Mars.
Surely, someone else has already had thoughts of such a possibility, maybe even discarded them on good grounds. If not, would these thoughts be helpful in explaining the day-night discrepancy as it is quoted in the article?Redav (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Every northern spring and early northern summer, nighttime air temperatures identical to within experimental error (to within ±1 °C), daytime temperatures varying from year-to-year by up to 6 °C" 

message: Can we say how fast a thicker atmosphere in the past is calculated to have been lost by "boil-off" (ballistic escape of faster molecules) or stripping by the solar wind ? Article doesn't seem to say now, although I thought it used to. Eg. Would the thinning of the atmosphere quickly follow the declining magnetic field/magnetosphere, or lag it by hundreds of millions of years ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we say how fast a thicker atmosphere in the past is calculated to have been lost by boil-off or stripping by the solar wind.