MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data

TGDaily ^ | Thursday, October 30, 2008 09:55 | By Rick C. Hodgin

[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.

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.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks xcamel.

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

[Camel Joe]

It’s an election year, all that gas from the Obama World Tour no doubt.

[Theo]

Bump....

[Reeses]

Methane is produced by one type of organism on Earth: Archaea.

Great informative post, straight and to the point. I never heard of any of this before.

[FrogMom]

Ya think?

[xcamel]

And Ozone holes, and DDT, and nuclear winter, and bird flu....

[Travis T. OJustice]

Ping, FYI.

[xcamel]

Good try, but it doesn’t pass the ‘smell test’.

Methane levels have been much, much higher, > 250 years ago, but still is only .0000034% of the atmospeheric volume.

Methane comes from many chemical reactions - not all of them organic. “growing rice” is insignificant.

Please go back and do a little more research, and don’t be sucked in by carefully crafted “plausibility”

[cogitator]

Hilarious. I was just reading this thread. Had to go to the first link in post 26 to see the press releases and related articles; the truncated links in the post (which were copied verbatim from the Digg post) don't work.

As someone else noted, this doesn't contradict GW theory; the lack of methane increase over the past decade was the real mystery. So now it has started going up again. So there's two questions: why did methane growth in the atmosphere stop, and why did it start going up again?

(My theory: Chipotle. Have you seen how many people go to Chipotle for lunch???!!! There were 14 Chipotles in 1998 and nearly 800 now. That's a gastro-intestinally disturbing trend.)

[Travis T. OJustice]

AGW is a huge political hoax, perpetrated by algore. The science does not support it.

[cogitator]

AGW is a huge political hoax, perpetrated by algore. The science does not support it.

I don't want to get into it. I'm not even posting the most recent study results regarding Antarctica. Someone else can. But I will say one thing, clearly: it is not a "political hoax". It is indeed a scientific issue. The image below illustrates why. Investigating how the changing concentrations of CO2, CH4 and other radiation-absorbing gases in the atmosphere will affect the climate of the Earth is properly the province of science. The factors which affect Earth's climate are changing, and the Earth's climate is changing, and science needs to determine what is affecting what and by how much.

There are indeed political and societal implications. But it's not a political hoax. 'Nuff said.

[Travis T. OJustice]

AGW is a huge political hoax, perpetrated by algore. The science does not support it.

[ZX12R]

That graph looks scary, till you realize it only covers a range of 100 parts per million.

[mad_as_he$$]

MIT welcome to the party. Too bad it took you so long to figure it out.

[xcamel]

LOL - Mona Loa - the 9th largest natural CO2 vent on the planet...

Great science there buckwheat...

[cogitator]

AGW is a huge political hoax, perpetrated by algore. The science does not support it.

[mlocher]

Good news. Now I can pass my righteous wind again.

[cogitator]

That graph looks scary, till you realize it only covers a range of 100 parts per million.

And now ~80 ppm higher than anything nature achieved over the past 650,000 years. That's why science is examining the issue.

[xcamel]

Where do you get this crap? Back of a Koolaid packet?

[cogitator]

LOL - Mona Loa - the 9th largest natural CO2 vent on the planet...

It's spelled "Mauna", Lisa, and if you think scientists don't know how to detect volcanic gas emissions when doing their atmospheric sampling, think again:

Mauna Loa Volcanic Emissions 1958-Present

"At night a temperature inversion forms near the ground, trapping volcanic emissions coming from Mauna Loa summit fumaroles in a layer tens of meters thick. Down slope winds sometimes transport these emissions to the observatory, where they are detected as a "noisy" increase above smooth baseline levels for some gases. A volcanic component can be estimated by taking the difference in concentration between periods when the plume is present and periods immediately before and after that exhibit baseline conditions. The most significant volcanic gas is CO2, which has been monitored since 1958 through three eruption cycles. Volcanic CO2 is greatest shortly after an eruption and then decreases exponentially over the subsequent years. Right after the 1984 eruption, Mauna Loa emitted as much CO2 as an American city of 40,000 people. By 2005, these emissions had fallen by a factor of about 100. This suggests that a reservoir deep beneath the summit is recharged with fresh, CO2 rich magma during and immediately following an eruption which is then quiescently outgassed at an inverse-exponential rate. There were substantial emissions of SO2 and aerosols following the 1975 eruption and much lower levels were seen after the 1984 eruption. By 2000, SO2 and aerosol emissions from Mauna Loa had fallen below detection limits. The CO2 and SO2 data is examined weekly for any significant events which may signal renewed activity in the volcano. The long-term records are updated yearly."

And is this CO2 curve located near any volcanic vents?