Mars isn't a good model of Earth, but it is probably is good enough to serve as a partial check on the math models we create in our computers.
Math based models of something are only as good as the equations used along with the data they are fed.
Those equations and the data will always be a simplifications and rough approximations of the actual values especially when you consider the model is of an entire planet.
By thier very nature any biosphere equations we derive will never be complete and Mars by it's very nature will not have the same simplifications that our equations have.
No matter how inaccurate an analog of Earth Mars is it can and will include variables and interactions our derive computer equation modesl will miss. It and even Venus can and should be used as checks on our models.
When we start seeing things like both Earth and Mars warming then we should start checking our model for Earth for unknown common variables external to the planet.
No, Mars is nowhere near perfect model, but that doesn't mean it can't produce useful checks especially for something as noisy and inaccurate as a biosphere model.
As an example take the recent article I read about research that seems to have found a direct link between Earth's cloud cover and the amount of gamma rays entering the atmosphere.
Cloud cover is a key part of any biosphere model and if gamma ray activity does play a big part in cloud formation then all computer models which assume fairly constant external effects have a large error.
another example
I believe there are fewer than 200 weather stations feeding data from the South Pole continent into the models.
Yet we can't predict the weather accurately even a month in advanced here in America with 1000's of weather stations feeding data into models.
Now lets look into the past when the Viking discovered and colonized Greenland, it was a "Green" land able to raise crops. Yet within a few centuries it had grown much colder.
There are some minor evidence that within the last 2000 to 4000 years that the south pole was clear enough of ice for the primitive ships to approach and get a fairly accurate map of it's coast line.
I believe I've seen both Greenland and the South Pole Ice coverage used as examples of "mans" influence on the environment.
Yet history seems to point to periods when both areas were warm and mans influence was radically different from todays.
I wonder do the current computer models when run backward predict Greenlands warm period?
Can these computer models confirm or deny the vague legends and possible evidence of mapping visits to the south pole 1000's of year ago?
Do the computer models hint at the South Pole being ice free enough in the last 4000 years for maps to be drawn?
howard melton
God bless
Math based models of something are only as good as the equations used along with the data they are fed.
Those equations and the data will always be a simplifications and rough approximations of the actual values especially when you consider the model is of an entire planet.
By thier very nature any biosphere equations we derive will never be complete and Mars by it's very nature will not have the same simplifications that our equations have.
No matter how inaccurate an analog of Earth Mars is it can and will include variables and interactions our derive computer equation modesl will miss. It and even Venus can and should be used as checks on our models.
When we start seeing things like both Earth and Mars warming then we should start checking our model for Earth for unknown common variables external to the planet.
No, Mars is nowhere near perfect model, but that doesn't mean it can't produce useful checks especially for something as noisy and inaccurate as a biosphere model.
As an example take the recent article I read about research that seems to have found a direct link between Earth's cloud cover and the amount of gamma rays entering the atmosphere.
Cloud cover is a key part of any biosphere model and if gamma ray activity does play a big part in cloud formation then all computer models which assume fairly constant external effects have a large error.
another example
I believe there are fewer than 200 weather stations feeding data from the South Pole continent into the models.
Yet we can't predict the weather accurately even a month in advanced here in America with 1000's of weather stations feeding data into models.
Now lets look into the past when the Viking discovered and colonized Greenland, it was a "Green" land able to raise crops. Yet within a few centuries it had grown much colder.
There are some minor evidence that within the last 2000 to 4000 years that the south pole was clear enough of ice for the primitive ships to approach and get a fairly accurate map of it's coast line.
I believe I've seen both Greenland and the South Pole Ice coverage used as examples of "mans" influence on the environment.
Yet history seems to point to periods when both areas were warm and mans influence was radically different from todays.
I wonder do the current computer models when run backward predict Greenlands warm period?
Can these computer models confirm or deny the vague legends and possible evidence of mapping visits to the south pole 1000's of year ago?
Do the computer models hint at the South Pole being ice free enough in the last 4000 years for maps to be drawn?
howard melton
God bless