MAVEN carries a suite of instruments that have been measuring Mars»
atmospheric loss since November 2014.
Not exact matches
Since among the main goals of this mission are the characterization of
atmospheric loss processes (with special attention to water) and the identification of their relation to the solar wind (Bougher et al. 2014), major scientific return related to space weather is expected in the next years.
But from an email conversation with Francis, Vavrus, and several other
atmospheric scientists this week, it became clear that there may be more questions than answers at this point, given the large amount of natural variability that affects winter weather patterns, and the very short observational record of how the atmosphere responded to extreme
losses of sea ice (only five winters of records
since 2007).
Since most of the atmosphere was lost as part of a dramatic climate change, MAVEN will make definitive scientific measurement of present - day
atmospheric loss that will offer insight into the Red Planet's history.
However, if the
loss of Arctic Sea ice has significantly changed global
atmospheric circulation patterns, then we are dealing with a different system that has only been in existence
since 2007, and we do not know how often to expect crop failures.
It seems the Warmists bet the farm on a correlation between rising
atmospheric CO2 and rising temperatures in the period 1976 to 1998, and are at a
loss to explain the lack of correlation
since then.
It is arguably one of the most advanced of the seven in its impacts, with a 2011 GRL report putting its warming effect as equivalent to around 30 % of
atmospheric anthro - CO2, and the recent report putting albedo
loss from arctic sea - ice decline
since»79 as providing a forcing equivalent on average to that from 25 % of the anthro - CO2 levels during the period.
I wonder if these models recognize the
loss of
atmospheric water that has occurred
since 1948 or do they ignore the reality and build in a water vapour feedback loop to boost the supposed backwelling radiation to the surface.
If the Ocean slowly cools with radiant heat
loss to space via warmer Arctic waters and a discernible decrease in
atmospheric temps the last 1.5 years
since the Super El Nino of 2016, then there should be more
atmospheric CO2 uptake by cooling oceans.
But from an email conversation with Francis, Vavrus, and several other
atmospheric scientists this week, it became clear that there may be more questions than answers at this point, given the large amount of natural variability that affects winter weather patterns, and the very short observational record of how the atmosphere responded to extreme
losses of sea ice (only five winters of records
since 2007).
(ii) We have little control over the net gain /
loss in
atmospheric CO2,
since anthropogenic emission is only part of the story, and potentially a small part.
Since forests are — in general — agencies that absorb
atmospheric carbon, and help cool the planet, any
loss can only accelerate global warming and create even more difficult conditions for the surviving woodlands.