You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data
2008-10-31
Boston (MA) - Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

Methane - powerful greenhouse gas

The two lead authors of a paper published in this week's Geophysical Review Letters, Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, state that as a result of the increase, several million tons of new methane is present in the atmosphere.

Methane accounts for roughly one-fifth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, though its effect is 25x greater than that of carbon dioxide. Its impact on global warming comes from the reflection of the sun's light back to the Earth (like a greenhouse). Methane is typically broken down in the atmosphere by the free radical hydroxyl (OH), a naturally occuring process. This atmospheric cleanser has been shown to adjust itself up and down periodically, and is believed to account for the lack of increases in methane levels in Earth's atmosphere over the past ten years despite notable simultaneous increases by man.

More study

Prinn has said, "The next step will be to study [these changes] using a very high-resolution atmospheric circulation model and additional measurements from other networks. The key thing is to better determine the relative roles of increased methane emission versus [an increase] in the rate of removal. Apparently we have a mix of the two, but we want to know how much of each [is responsible for the overall increase]."

The primary concern now is that 2007 is long over. While the collected data from that time period reflects a simultaneous world-wide increase in emissions, observing atmospheric trends now is like observing the healthy horse running through the paddock a year after it overcame some mystery illness. Where does one even begin? And how relevant are any of the data findings at this late date? Looking back over 2007 data as it was captured may prove as ineffective if the data does not support the high resolution details such a study requires.

One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a handle on the big picture of global warming. Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at the political cry of "alarming rates." We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occuring for hundreds of thousands of years.

Project funding

Rigby and Prinn carried out this study with help from researchers at Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Bristol and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Methane gas measurements came from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE), which is supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Australian CSIRO network.
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#22  Fallen Angels is part of the Baen Free Library: link where you can read it on-line or download it and read it in your spare time. A good read...especially at this price.
Posted by: mft   2008-10-31 21:06  

#21  "I got disgusted with them years ago."

The four part hit piece on Lomborg was truly bottom-of-the-barrel disgusting for an ALLEGED science publication. THWT
Posted by: Minister of funny walks   2008-10-31 19:56  

#20  Seems they have forgotten that

a) correlation is nto causation

b) if the facts contradict the theory, then the THEORY is wrong.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-10-31 19:45  

#19  You held on to SciAm a lot longer than I did, Bobby. I got disgusted with them years ago.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2008-10-31 19:23  

#18  #8, 13, 14 - I read such an article in Scientific American several years ago, just before the big push, when everyone agreed on MMGW.

I quit the subscription two years ago when I couldn't stand the Gratuitous Bush Bashing anymore.
Posted by: Bobby   2008-10-31 18:06  

#17  Very funny, tu3031. I used to be one of those frat boys that you speak of.

Good times.

;-)
Posted by: eltoroverde   2008-10-31 17:06  

#16  15
What kind of warm season? It's been level to slightly cooling for ten years, at least.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey   2008-10-31 14:37  

#15  This could mean one of two things. Either methane is generated in a lag to a warm season, or hydroxyl production is slashed with cooler weather or reacts with something other than methane.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-10-31 14:23  

#14  sounds familiar, spiffo - you're probably right.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2008-10-31 14:16  

#13  Barbara - the book may be 'Fallen Angels'

Posted by: spiffo   2008-10-31 13:53  

#12  SOMEBODY CALL ALGORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: ARMY GUY   2008-10-31 13:20  

#11  Quagmire!
Posted by: anonymous5089   2008-10-31 13:16  

#10  What they need to counteract this is a giant frat boy with a giant Zippo.
Just trying to help out the "baffled scientists".
Posted by: tu3031   2008-10-31 12:43  

#9  Gaia ripped one.
Posted by: ed   2008-10-31 12:40  

#8  "Just think how it would be WITHOUT all that CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere!"

I don't have time to look for it right now, Glenmore, but Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) has several times referred to a sci-fi book (not recent, I think) whose premise is that the only reason the earth hadn't already entered a natural cooling cycle was because of man's contribution to warming the earth.

Heh.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2008-10-31 12:36  

#7  "it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions"

No, really - ya' think?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2008-10-31 12:33  

#6  Gummit money, they are using my dollars to talk about the weather and I don't even get a cup of coffee for it.

Saw first flight of ducks heading south this morning - that is at least 2 weeks early for this area. You can look at sunspots and you could look at trees. Even thinking about a generator b/c last couple years were tough out here (helicopter drops to feed cattle) and we are showing signs of a colder one.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2008-10-31 12:07  

#5  The primary concern now is that 2007 is long over.

More gummit grant money need to verify?
Posted by: Besoeker   2008-10-31 11:54  

#4  I don't understand. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. Methane is way up, worldwide. And it's in the 30's in New Orleans, snowing in Tennessee and Zurich, freezing 144,000 yaks & such to death in Tibet, in October. Just think how it would be WITHOUT all that CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere!
Posted by: Glenmore   2008-10-31 11:41  

#3  Don't worry. They will be ordered to ignore all data that doesn't show man is the cause by the Obama administration.
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-10-31 11:25  

#2  Think I'll go stand in the sunlight and contemplate this.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2008-10-31 11:24  

#1  Scientists baffled...AGAIN!
Posted by: tu3031   2008-10-31 11:15  

00:00