Skip to comments.MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data
Posted on 10/31/2008 3:37:15 AM PDT by xcamel
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.
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.
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.
may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature...
Kinda like that BIG BALL OF NUCLEAR GAS we call the SUN - since it expands back and forth - and has been measured - could be a part of that - uh?... GORE - YOU ARE A LOSER!!!
Trying to mix science and Global Warming is like trying to mix science and Scientology. All of them have a glancing encounter with “science”, but in name only.
My husband is an MIT alum and he has said this from day one about global warming.
I hope Mssrs. Rigby & Prinn have secured 24 hour body guards/food tasters.
Naw! It’s just cow farts!
(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.)
LIARS. Everyone KNOWS and Science has PROVED that Global Warming is George Bush’s fault and all those Americans that voted for him and drive Hummers...
Of course at one point in time everyone knew that the world was flat.......................
political correctness and financial instruments
It seems there is a human gene that is dedicated to fixating on some condition, and convincing yourself that the end is near. Thirty years ago ‘global cooling’ was going to kill us all.
Around that same time overpopulation was going to kill us all.
About the same time global food shortages were going to kill us all.
Today it’s global warming, but don’t be surprised if in ten years we’re back to trying to counter global cooling.
There will always be a group of people trying to save the rest of us from something. They will always try to get government intervention to save us.
The sane folks will yawn and go on with life, knowing those fools will replaced with another dedicated bunch of psychos in time.
It’s a form of mental illness.
Like the newest one - BPA in plastics - causes friggin “Everything” ....
I say its directly attributable to the utterances of a certain democratic presidential candidate.
“There will always be a group of people trying to save the rest of us from something. “
And in process getting my money in form of grants from govt to fund lunatic stidies to prove their point.
We stop funding them they might just go away.
Except that Global Warming is a front for a different kind of agenda - that of 'sustainable' development (otherwise known as killing off suburbia).
‘’May be part of a natural cycle’’ no sh-t Sherlocks? The fairy tail/pepsi syndrome effect again?
So every time we heard "Carbon Dioxide, the Chief warming gas" we were being lied to? It's a rhetorical question.
I've heard ruminations about "Carbon Black". Just watch, the dialog will shift from CO2 to this new nonsense term.
As a note, I mean nonsense term in that it’s responsible for the current cooling term. I realize that Carbon Black is incomplete combustion...heavy soot.