The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change 4th march 2008

OffTheBackAdam

Heard about it, heard of it? Seen it on the dear old Beeb? Read about it in any newspaper (Bar one)?
Why not? Read on, it might give you an idea why.

"We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed 'consensus' among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity's real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend -

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as An Inconvenient Truth.

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008. "

And just to finish off with a bit quoted from the "Grumpy Old Man" website, quite entrtaining and certain to get those with a leftwards lean all upset.

"• This year, China had its coldest winter in 100 years …

• … and Baghdad saw its first snow in all recorded history …

• … and North America had the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began …

• … and Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina and Chile all reported record low temperatures …

• … and all four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) all report that over the past year global temperatures have dropped precipitously. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C - a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year …

• a… and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that almost all the allegedly 'lost' ice has come back …

• … and there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual.

But have the headlines been proclaiming "Global Warming at an end"? Have our television presenters stopped ending every single nature programme with dire warnings that "these beautiful creatures are under threat from climate change and we may never be able to film them again"? (If it's a film about polar bears or badgers, that'd be brilliant. Vicious bastards, the lot of 'em).

Has our government changed its tune even a tiny bit? No, not at all - in fact, as I write we await the Budget speech which is expected to include an enormous tax hike on new cars (to combat global warming) and a ban on plastic supermarket bags (to save the sweet ickle sharks and, like, turtles, you know? And combat global warming, of course).

The Chief Scientist has said nothing about it. The Royal Society has said nothing about it. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth and Al Gore and George Monbiot have said nothing about it. No, for them Global Warming just carries on its merry way, same as usual.

Funny thing, that. But then Global Warming has often been described as a new religion, and religion depends very heavily on faith and not so much on hard evidence. As a Jesuit priest of my acquaintance often says, "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts."

I'm looking forwards to Thursday and popping out to buy a copy of Lawson's new book.

Nuggs

Very interesting. Thanks for posting!

Unfortunately, our government has swallowed the MMGW guff for too long and has committed itself bravely to the cause by raising taxes :roll:

I rather suspect that even the most compelling evidence that we have been led a merry dance will be insufficient to reverse the misguided but sadly now entrenched policies.

As a wise man once said "No one wants to slay the goose that laid a throusand golden eggs".

richardast

I'm undecided, but have been leaning towards the non-believing camp when it comes to human induced global warming.

I'm a layman, but my limited knowledge of science tells me that with the existance of polar icecaps, we are still, technically, living in an Ice Age - albeit one that is coming to an end. I would have expected some slightly chaotic climate changes in those circumstances.

That said, I am against our burning up the remaining fossil fuels willy-nilly and wonder why, rather than taxing air fuel out of reach along with domestic petrol, our governments are looking to build more runways and re-double the amount of air traffic.
I suspect I already know the answer.

Parkey

Translation: "My, my, this sand does feel nice around my head. Global warming? Nahhhhhhh that would be inconvenient, and I feel cold. Who else feels cold? lalalalalalalalalala!"

I can understand where a lot of the cynicism regarding climate change comes from, especially given this government's opportunistic token "green" taxes. Just because we have an incompetent amorphous blob of a government that thinks increasing bureaucracy and raising taxes is the solution to everything doesn't mean that global warming doesn't exist.

I work in the field of scientific instruments used for Earth observation on spacecraft, and I work with the scientists who are interpreting the data from these instruments. Yes there's a little bit of uncertainty as to the magnitude of global warming because this is science, and there's always uncertainty in science, but that doesn't mean that it isn't happening. Believe me it is.

To those who say it's a conspiracy to get funding I say I wish it was! Then they might pay me more.

Nuggs

Parkey wrote:

Believe me

No.

clanton

Nuggs wrote:

Parkey wrote:

Believe me

No.

Spoken like a true disciple of the antiglobal warming brigade!

I REALLY don't get you guys. Even assuming man made CO2 is not the bugbear Al Gore makes it out to be - the vast majoirty of the recommendations to cut man-made CO2 make sense on a huge range of levels. Why then the passionate hysteria of the conspiracy theorists?
As for the taxes issue - if you don't hit people where it hurts ie their wallets then no change will take place.
I for one am not 100% convinced about the science behind Man Made Global Warming but I fully endorse changes such as encouraging more fuel effciient houses/cars/tranport and sustainable use of resources.

Parkey

I'm not some eco-hippy trying to dictate to you all that you need to hug trees and and knit your houses out of hemp. I've just seen the data, heard from the scientists themselves, and I'm convinced. I therefore get irritated when people tell me I'm trying to spread a myth because some fella they met down the pub told them global warming is all made up.

I can understand where a lot of the cynicism comes from. People don't like to told they can't have something, and when the source of such restrictions isn't something that they see in their daily lives it's easy to know why denial sets in.

Unfortunately a scientific fact won't change just because people don't like it.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

So Parkey, over what time scale does this data span?

Considering (according to historic records) how temperatures have risen and fallen over the last couple of thousand years, and that there is incredibly strong evidence to suggest that this planet has seen 7 ice ages and will endure more, do you not think that the notion of MMGW is simply another indication of human arrogance?

Unfortunately a scientific fact won't change just because people don't like it.

I see what you've done there, but unfortunately it isn't fact, it's heavily (scientifically ) disputed opinion.

I for one am not 100% convinced about the science behind Man Made Global Warming but I fully endorse changes such as encouraging more fuel efficient houses/cars/tranport and sustainable use of resources.

That gets two thumbs from me.

Nuggs

clanton wrote:

Nuggs wrote:

Parkey wrote:

Believe me

No.

Spoken like a true disciple of the antiglobal warming brigade!

Spoken like a true swallower of fashionable political rhetoric. Just because Parkey works with mysterious men in white coats that tell him stuff, does not mean that I am going to take his word for it.

Unlike many the of the sheep that make up the MMGW camp, I have done my own research. To me the arguments supporting the theory that we are responsible for GW which will lead to catastrophic results are too deeply flawed to be believed. They also hide alternative agendas such as class war, socialism and anti-globalisation which I believe makes them more dangerous to our way of life and current standard of living than any change in the Earth's temperature.

However, no doubt you have made up your mind, and will not be persuaded to change it. I'm the same, so let's no run the same old arguments about the Earth having cooled over the past decade and about how there are far more things which are more potent than CO2 (it's just hard to tax volcanos, cows and rotting leaves).

And the good news for you is that our feckless politicians have jumped on this thing as a great excuse to countinue taxing us into oblivion, leaving very little room for them to perform the necessary U-turn.

In a few years time I have no doubt that Mr Gore will be exposed as the modern day King Kanute.

Parkey

I'm not interested in swallowing any fashionable political rhetoric, and especially not from this government. I'm only quoting established scientific fact that I get to see first hand because of the nature of my work.

If you want to keep on denying it, and only reading what other cynical individuals of the same mindset have written in order to rationalise it, that's fine you go ahead and do that. I just hope you've got plenty more sand on order.

nasahapley

F**k it I'll chuck my 2p worth in:

While I can't claim to have absorbed every piece of available data regarding global warming (who can?), I have read a fair bit of the MMGW literature from both sides of the debate, I am (I would hope) more scientifically literate than most, and I'm pretty much convinced that MMGW is real. However, I'll readily admit that I don't think that it's 100% proven, as very little in science ever can be. So, I believe it's a type of Pascal's Wager situation:

(a) If MMGW isn't real and we do nothing, no problem,
(b) If MMGW is real and we do nothing, the results could be catastrophic for mankind,
(c) If MMGW isn't real but we try to combat it anyway, we spend a whole lot of money on stuff we don't need but we do that anyway and the world's still turning,
(d) If MMGW is real then we should be trying to combat it (see (b) for reason why).

In my opinion, the downside of doing nothing if it is real far outweighs the downside of doing something if it isn't, and I'd feel the same way even if MMGW was a much more speculative conjecture than it appears to be. Also, if I rile a few Richard Littlejohn nutjob types by believing this, that's fine by me.

jezwold

Its about time that the general public where let in on the fact that all the handwringing about global warming being caused by mankinds activities is based deeply unsound science. The whole central thesis that it is increased emissions of CO2 that is causing a greenhouse effect is actually not a valid scientific thesis because there is no way for it to be disproved.
It seems that every time I have a discussion about it,particularly with the more devote environmentalist nutters they can only talk about whats happened over the last fifty years, if you point out to them that the worlds climate works on a timescale more like 50-100 million years and we are in fact still in the last ice age they simply refuse to listen.
The cycicism doesn't come from the fact that people don't like being told what to think, it comes from the fact that the so called science used to 'prove' that global warming is caused by mankinds activities would never pass any kind of peer review, which is why you never see any of it published in reputable publications which do use peer review before they publish a paper.

clanton

jezwold wrote:

Its about time that the general public where let in on the fact that all the handwringing about global warming being caused by mankinds activities is based deeply unsound science. The whole central thesis that it is increased emissions of CO2 that is causing a greenhouse effect is actually not a valid scientific thesis because there is no way for it to be disproved.

So lets see how we would set about testing and proving such a thesis. We would need at least two Earths (in fact we would need a whole bunch to make statistically sound analyses but lets start with just two) Then we run our experiment - one Earth with Mankind and all the desertification, CO2 production, waste heat etc etc, the other exactly the same but no Man made influences. We run the experiment for a suitable lenth of time - 100 million years should about cover it as you indicate below. And we measure the results. Short of this there is no absolute proof of ANYTHING. We go on hypotheses and the best available current evidence, scientific models etc. To my mind there is more than sufficient reason to change mankinds practices, especially as these changes almost without exception are to the benefit of the Earth as a whole, to Man today and to future generations, completely irrespective of MMGW or not. Its high time Man takes some responsiblilty for his actions.

It seems that every time I have a discussion about it,particularly with the more devote environmentalist nutters they can only talk about whats happened over the last fifty years, if you point out to them that the worlds climate works on a timescale more like 50-100 million years and we are in fact still in the last ice age they simply refuse to listen.

To be more precide we are in an interglacial period within the current ice age.

Parkey

jezwold wrote:

Its about time that the general public where let in on the fact that all the handwringing about global warming being caused by mankinds activities is based deeply unsound science.

Ahhhhh I see.

Right, I'm just off to tell my colleagues that, amongst others, the SOHO spacecraft that's monitoring solar activity, the scanning radiometers on the ERS and ENVISAT spacecraft that measure ocean temperatures, and the GERB instruments that monitor the thermal balance of the Earth on the MSG satelites are all "unsound", and so we shouldn't pay any attention to the data they produce.

That unprecedented spike in global temperatures over the last couple of decades that just happens to correlate with the levels of extra greenhouse gases that man has put into the atmosphere, well, we must have just made it all up.

After all, you'd know.

jezwold

Yep you've got it,
You take a population which is almost totally scientifically illiterate and you feed them some half baked ideas from a load of ageing American hippies and Bob's your uncle

jezwold

While I have no doubt that the climate is changing, because it always has been unstable, I doubt very much that it has anything at all to do with increased carbon emissions from industry or motor vehicles.

Parkey

Please enlighten us as to the source of your information.

OffTheBackAdam

Parkey wrote:

That unprecedented spike in global temperatures over the last couple of decades that just happens to correlate with the levels of extra greenhouse gases that man has put into the atmosphere, well, we must have just made it all up.

Ah, now that's where there's a teensie-weensie problem.
The fabled "Hockey Stick" graph of global warming has been shown to be severely inaccurate.
If we look at the change in global temperatures over the past century, we'd expect them to show a steady increase, after all, we've produced more CO2 per year, as the century progressed, shouldn't we be seeing at least a steady, if not accelerating, increase in mean global temperatures?
If so, why id the following pattern seen?
from 1920-40, an increase of 0.4C, from 1940-75, a cooling of 0.2C and from 1975 and increase of 0.5C.
A grand total over a century of 0.7C.
Looking at recent figures from the Hadley Centre & Uni of East Anglia, the numbers represent the average in dergrees C above the 1961-90 estimated global average temps.
2001 0.40
2002 0.46
2003 0.46
2004 0.43
2005 0.48
2006 0.42
2007 0.41

So in a time period where the amount of man-made CO2 is hurtling upwards (See China, India for examples) we've got a a pretty static picture, no increase. Why? Especially when 1998's figure was 0.52.
Warmest year of all in the USA in the 20th Century?
1934, right towards the end of The Great Depression. We've produced squillions of tonnes of CO2 since then and not only seen no sustained increases in temperature, they've fallen.
Now, according to the climate computer models used, we should be seeing relatively greater warming in the troposphere (15km up!) than at the surface. Guess what? Yep, we're not.
We're also barking on about CO2, the major "Greenhouse Gas" in the atmosphere is water vapour, the computer models ignore this completely. How can an accurate prediction be made, when a major component is ignored.
Effect of Methane from agricultural activities? Err, we don't know that one either.
OK, let's assume global warming is occuring and it's because of thee & me, what are the costs of doing nothing compared to the costs of doing something effective about it?
Sea level rising?
Al Gore's apocalyptic 20ft rise will ruin quite a few peoples' day. After all, Tuvalu is being drowned isn't it?
Since 1978 (There are no measurements that predate that year) the annual rise has been 0.7mm per year. In 2006, there was actually a fall in sea level recorded. Warmer world, more ice melting, greater rise in sea level, it's not really happening is it?
You will undoubtably remember last year, as mentioned above, that the arctic ice sheet was melting, this year, it's back and a greater area too. Warmer Earth, less ice forming, that's not happening either.
So cost, estimates vary, anything from 1-5% of global Gross Domestic Produce in 2050. That's a lot, but people in the developing world will be 9.5X better off than they are today. I think we can agree agree, that's a worthy concept.
Do nothing? Then in a century's time, people in the "developing world" will be a mere 8.5x better off.
A price worth paying?
And who's going to pay. If we wish to combat Global Warming, it's going to need Global Action. So, sorry India & China you can't industrialise anymore, you can't find jobs to support your booming populations and they can't come here, because we've stopped making things to reduce our CO2 output, in fact, what we're no longer making, you are. Oh :idea:

Nuggs

richardast

Parkey

There are plenty of scientists spouting sh1te about all sorts of things, so I tend to be cynical until I see or hear that something has been proved.

Nobody has proved that CO2 is causing GW yet. It's just a theory.

None of this means that I'm sticking my head in the sand. I'm living as green a life as I possibly can - minimal car journeys; using the bike and train to commute; no air miles in 12 years; recycling; all that other good stuff.

There's not much more I could personally do, but thanks for the lecture anyway.

Parkey

richardast wrote:

...but thanks for the lecture anyway.

Here we go. I just make a few posts stating what I happen to know on this subject, and where I know it from, and all of a sudden I'm the self-righteous eco-nut who's telling everybody what bad people they are and how to live their lives. Lecture? I think you'll find that my posts are some of the shortest on this thread. I don't have any more answers to global warming than anyone else, the difference is I'm not out trying to convince myself that the problem doesn't exist.

You can "well I reckon" yourself into whatever conclusion you want as far as I'm concerned. I've said my bit and I stand by it.

richardast

Until there's proof, which there isn't, we're all just well I reckoning.

You reckon your scientists are right.
I'm undecided.

clanton

Adam - your figues don't actually prove that gliobal warming has neded, nor that Man has had nothing to do with it. Indeed the fogures show that the average temperature for that decade is higher than any previous decade over the last 100 years and that the general trend is to a higher temperature. What it does show is that there is more going on than is taken into account by current models for climate change and that we don't know or understand all that is going on.

I for one look at those figures and say - that is cause for optimism and gives us time to act rather than "phew we can go back to all the bad old ways cause nothing we do makes a difference".

To address some of the other points - India and China will be forced to reckon with limited fossil fuel supplies just like everyone else. The faster we use it up the sooner it will all be gone. Far better to start making changes now than to wait till there is a crisis. Anyone want to bet the next world war will be fought over fossil fuel supplies?

Cost really just isn't even a consideration. It can be offset over generations and relative to the costs of the current (oil driven!) war in Iraq will be cheap.

OffTheBackAdam

The questions to answer here are.
1) Is Global Warming occuring?
2) If it is, why?
3) What (if anything) is our contribution to it?
4) What are the effects of it?
5) What will happen if we do nothing about it?
6) What, if the answer to 5) is pretty bad, can we do about it?
7) What is the cost of doing something effective, compared to doing nothing?

The answer to 1) is known, over the course of the 20th Century, mean global temperatures have risen by 0.7 C.
The answer to 2) is argued over, hotly one may say!
Likewise 3)
The answer to 4) is also in debate. The positive effects are an increase in plant growth, due to more CO2 in the atmosphere and an increased growing season and a rise in altitude and latitude that crops will grow at.A reduction in human mortality rates during the winter months is expected.
On the debit side, an increase in human mortality due to hotter summers (But only 10% of the numbers who aren'y dying in the winter). An expansion in latitude of desertification areas.
A rise in sea levels, to what extent, guesses vary between 18 & 59cm over the next century (Not Al Gore's 20feet = 6000cm!)
An increase in "Extreme Weather" has been predicted, but Hurricane seasons haven't shown any increase in intensity.
The answer to 5) is also debateable. Can we actually do anyting about it is the question? And also who's going to do it? The news last night said that China had taken over from the USA as being "The most polluting" nation. By that, of course these days. means biggest Greenhouse Gas emmitter. I'd put money on China's production of really polluting substances , both solid, liquid & gas, to be a lot higher that those of the USA. This is apparently 12 years ahead of predictions (If we can't predict this accurately, then what can we?)
So, 6), The Biggy! What can we do about it? As I've pointed out, China's increased (Note, increased, not just output) output of CO2, dwarfs the UK's contribution.
We can prat about with windmills, but it takes 25GW of wind power to replace 7GW of "conventional" output (Wind is variable, you may have noticed) and where are they to go? Do we want our moorlands digging up, huge concrete bases laying and objects taller than Nelson's Column everywhere? Put them out at sea? How long before a ship hits one and causes a big problem with pollution? Their effect on birds has been noted to be detremental and they also interfere with radar.
Wave Power? An attractive proposal, but I'm unaware of any single commercial wave power program in the entire world, I'm sure if there were any, the Greens would be advertising the fact. Solar? Still not viable due to cost. Nuclear? The issue of waste disposal is still unsettled.
What has not been addressed properly, is, "If we can't really reduce our CO2 production (Oh, as an aside, how much extra is produced by the extra humans on the planet?), what can we do to ameliorate the effects.
Sea levels rise? The Dutch have been able to tackle this problem for many centuries. One proposal to increase the oceanic capture of CO2 was to seed them with Iron II Sulphate, to promote algal growth.
Seed the atmosphere with sulphate particles, the effects of volcanic erruptions on climate are well known, Pinatubo dropped global temperatures for a number of years, likewise Krakatau (1887) & Tambora (1815). If, or when, we get another Toba (c 75,000 BC) we're really in trouble. That was reputed to have reduced human population to some 5,000 worldwide. (If it does turn out that Yellowstone is the next one, then we're really up shit street!)
The answer to 7) is, we don't know too well.
If the growing industrial nations don't want to play ball, then we've not a hope in hell of stabilising, let alone reducing global human CO2 emmissions. And what should they? We've brought ourselves out of a cold, disease & starvation-ridden world by industrialisation, why should there growing populations be left to starve & die from disease?
The current cold spell hasn't been predicted by any of the computer models that have been used, for that matter, none of the computer models agree with each other. We have no answer why the "Mediaeval Warm Period" occured, we don't know why the climate was so clement as to allow the Romans to grow grapes ,commercially,as far north as Northampton and why the climate of Greenland permitted the Vikings to settle & farm there around the turn of the first millenium A.D. All times when the mean Global temperature was much higher than today.
Now, why do you expect me to be a "believer"

clanton

Adam there are a number of potential solutions to the energy needs for the planet. As you pointed out lots of them are white elephants - I would add biofuels to your list. However workable solutions do exist, the most likely of these is nuclear power, advances in superconductors may also be very useful in conjunction with things like solar power. Given motivation and support science can and will provide workable alternatives to fossil fuel use - and will eventually have to as these supplies are finite.

I do agree that there is lots still to be understood re global warming/climate change and mans influence. You have glossed over a few points though - a warmer planet is not necessarily a healthier one. Only 1-2 degrees increase in sea temps will lead to widespread coral bleaching, long term bleaching leads to widespread coral deaths and massive changes in the ecosystems dependent on these reefs with unpredictable but likely severe knock on effects. It also allows for wider ranges of potential insect vecotrs for a number of diseases. The UK is already seeing the effects of this specifically with the current outbreak of Bluetongue. How healthy will we all feel when other insect borne diseases arrive? With regards to extreme weather events, you are clearly reading quite different reports to me as the ones I have come across point to a distinct increase in the number of extreme events such as hurricanes.

I am not a "religious environmentalst" type - I retain some scepticism but I do believe that the current situation is untenable. The solution will have to be a holistic one that addresses a number of issues such as population growth, poverty and disease, renewable resource use to mention just a few. The thing is that as individuals there are loads of minor changes that we can all make that are actually quite painless and will benefit the planet and Mankind as a whole. Lots of them will actually directly benefit ourselves too.

flattythehurdler

Population growth is the real problem, and needs addressing urgently on a global scale before increasing poulations go to war over decreasing resources.

Nuggs

flattythehurdler wrote:

Population growth is the real problem, and needs addressing urgently on a global scale before increasing poulations go to war over decreasing resources.

Agreed. The world's population is the mahoosive elephant in the room that no one has the cojones to confront...

OffTheBackAdam

Sea Temp increases, range over which coral will grow moves north & southwards. You think this hasn't happened before? Interesting to see that there is now profuse coral growth on Bikini Atoll 50 years after the H-bomb test there.
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/04/16/2224235
Warmer enviroment in Roman times than today, coral seems to have survived that.
We've had insect born disease here before, Malaria was rife in the marshy areas of the fens.
"From the 15th century onwards, malaria was endemic along the coasts and estuaries of south-east England, the Fenlands, and estuarine and marshland coastal areas of northern England. The growth in international trade in the 16th century contributed to the spread of disease, as international traders introduced new sources of infection."
There were outbreaks post WW1 in Kent, soldiers returning from Thessalonika being the vectors.
Blue Tongue is harmless to humans, it's a criminal waste to kill and incinerate infected cattle.
The bottom line here is, climate changes, climate has always changed, humans will adapt (We live in Singapore, with mean temperatures of 30-odd C and Helsinki where it's only 5C. Animals will migrate to where the climate suits them better, given the chance.

richardjallen

Parkey wrote:

I work in the field of scientific instruments used for Earth observation on spacecraft, and I work with the scientists who are interpreting the data from these instruments.

What about measuring other planets in our solar system. I read somewhere that the surface of Mars is also warming. We might be polluting our own atmosphere but not Mars. If it is also warming then could it be for the same reason that is external to both planets?

Ok, by that I mean the sun.