MIT Team Says "Global Warming Part of Earth's Natural Cycle" -A Galaxy Poll

A team of MIT scientists recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels -the first increase in ten years. What baffles the team is that this data contradicts theories stating humans are the primary source of increase in 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. Since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, however, it is probable that this may be part of a natural cycle - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

A team of MIT scientists recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels -the first increase in ten years. What baffles the team is that this data contradicts theories stating humans are the primary source of increase in 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. Since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, however, it is probable that this may be part of a natural cycle - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

MIT's Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, state that this imbalance has resulted in several million metric tons of additional methane in the atmosphere. Methane is produced by wetlands, rice paddies, cattle, and the gas and coal industries, and is destroyed by reaction with the hydroxyl free radical (OH), often referred to as the atmosphere's "cleanser."

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. Methane is 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 while the collected data in 2007 reflects a simultaneous world-wide increase in emissions, how relevant are any of the data findings at this late date?

One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a focus 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 "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 occurring for hundreds of thousands of years.

What do you think? Join the Comments thread below.

Posted by Casey Kazan. Photo Credit: Maria Stenzel, National Geographic.

Source Link: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029.html

MIT Team Asks: Is Global Warming Part of a Natural Cycle?.

MIT's Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, state that this imbalance has resulted in several million metric tons of additional methane in the atmosphere. Methane is produced by wetlands, rice paddies, cattle, and the gas and coal industries, and is destroyed by reaction with the hydroxyl free radical (OH), often referred to as the atmosphere's "cleanser."

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. Methane is 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 while the collected data in 2007 reflects a simultaneous world-wide increase in emissions, how relevant are any of the data findings at this late date?

One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a focus 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 "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 occurring for hundreds of thousands of years.

What do you think? Join the Comments thread below.

Posted by Casey Kazan. Photo Credit: Maria Stenzel, National Geographic.

Source Link: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029.html

MIT Team Asks: Is Global Warming Part of a Natural Cycle?.

Comments

[Brian]

Very interesting. I must point out that the title of your article is misleading and rather irresponsible, as clearly the MIT scientists have said no such thing. We know greenhouse gasses like methane and CO2 occur naturally on Earth, and we also know that human activities also produce these gasses, but as your article points out, what effect human activity may or may not have on global warming is far from clear. It may be that some warming trends are part of a natural cycle, but it is by no means certain that they all are. To title your story with a quote that appears nowhere in the article is bad journalism at best.

[Christian Rioux]

Earth climate has been changing since the beginning of it's formation. There have been times that it was completely frozen, that have been time with almost no CO2 (freezing) and there have been times with a lot more CO2 than now. There was cyclic ice ages and solar cycles that affected the earth's climate. All this before the man even existed.

Saying that man is the reason for earth's climate changes is giving us way too much credit.

[ShadowDS]

I'm not sure about that.

The question is if we are causing the current climate change (or at th every least one of the causal factors) I think honestly we are but that we are not the sole cause, just a major contributor.

With regard to the article itself, the source stated that it is still "to early to tell."

[Rex]

I am also curious how you came up with the headline? While I agree with the premise I did not find the quote in the original article. Perhaps there is another article that you gleaned the quote from?

[Dean]

I agree for the most part with the comments posted by Brian. One thing that concerns me is that this sudden increase in methane may be due to the melting permafrost all across the arctic of which there is substantial evidence. It is well established that as the permafrost melts the organic matter, once frozen, will decay releasing massive amounts of methane. I wonder if this is exactly what we are now seeing. More disturbing is that our best and brightest at MIT haven't made the connection.

[claudio]

What the MIT guys are saying seems to me rather correct .

I have understood the following conclusion : "we do NOT know very well the impact of all the elements on the Climate and how natural variations and the man made induced variations (e.g. CO2)interact on global warming".

1 thing is for sure (i.e. doubtless) : we are consuming (i.e. burning) everyday an incredible amount of Hydrocarbons energy and we produce an incredible amount of CO2 ...and I 'hope' that this element will have NOT much influence on Global warming.

BUT I also 'guess' that the man made influence on climate is NOT negligible.

Regards

[SiliconJon]

Cynicism, satire, opinion, and other personal touches I don't mind. But without a link to the source of the quote, "Global Warming Part of Earth's Natural Cycle", you come across as a blatant liar to me. I see no accurate way to even paraphrase such a statement from the source’s article, and there's definitely no such exact phrase as indicated by your including such a phrase in quotes.

Do you make such a habit of this, Casey Kazan? This is a very important scientific issue regardless of where it leads us, and I prefer to see liars not patronized. If this site is to avoid becoming some sort of polarized outlet for political retards, this sort of behavior needs to be removed and avoided. Or are you looking to bait some trolls into linking this article as evidence for a conclusion that it does not support? If the latter, I apologize, though still don't like it.

[Milkman]

The earth has had many ice ages and many warm phases - these changes occur naturally without our intervention.

What we should be concerned with is:

1. What is the current trend - warming, cooling?
2. How will it affect us? Will it create drought, famine, displacement, war, death?
3. Is it possible for us to fight the cause of these changes?
4. How should we best do it?

When someone says "Save the Earth", the earth will unapologetically go on fine without us. What we're really saying, is "Save the Humans". Preserve our ability to flourish on the planet in the future.

[DuaneP]

I too think that the title is very misleading. And the argument you seem to be provoking is simplistic. It's sort of like the nature/nurture 'debate'. We shouldn't be looking at an either/or answer to what is responsible for climate change. It is obvious that there are natural cycles, but the question should be: despite the natural cycles, are humans substantially adding to global warming? The consensus of scientific opinion says we are, and we need to do what we can to alter our behavior.

Please don't cater to the industry flacks and shouting denialists.

[ChemBob]

I agree with Dean. This is likely the melting of the permafrost finally emitting methane in significant amounts.

[greenfyre]

This attempt to once again misrepresent an old story - "October 29, 2008"
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029. ...
which was debunked as nonsense the first time the Deniers lied about it. See
"Comfortably Dumb: The TGDaily MIT/Methane Fraud"
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/comforta ...

[Duncan]

I am frankly, very disappointed with the title that you have given this article. The research done at MIT makes no conclusions about global warming, just the production of methane by mankind.

The study simply states that it is unlikely that the recent increase in methane came from human sources. I'm not sure there have been many in-depth studies on humanity's methane production as a contribution to global warming. This study says nothing about CO2 or global temperatures.

It is my personal opinion that it is probable that this methane was released as a result of increased global temperatures, which, past studies suggest, are almost exclusively the result of humanity's production of green-house gases.

Please do not make wild jumps of faulty logic just to attract views. Further, I deplore the misuse and misunderstanding of scientific research in the pursuit of sensationalism.

[Raven Daegmorgan]

Milkman, when someone says "Save the Earth", they do not mean "Save the Humans" and preserve our ability alone to flourish. Or not solely.

Your response ignores the major, destructive impact of humanity on the biosphere: millions of species are dying off, or have already died, because of man's activities, worldwide coral reefs are being destroyed by pollutants, forests are being clear cut turning land into barren dustbowls the forests can't reclaim, etc.

These events are not things happening as part of a natural cycle, but because of the destructive activities of man, and will take nature millions of years to recover and rebuild from, if it recovers at all.

With so much of the natural world in crisis because of our activities, we may easily do something that starts a chain reaction that topples the whole thing, already weakened, the interlinked natural systems that support one another may be unable to bounce back -- like a cancer patient who catches the flu and ends up in a fistfight, then dies from some aspect of the various injuries their body finds itself unable to repair or deal with, causing a total system crash as dependent systems fail or inter-dependent systems fall apart.

So when someone says "Save the Earth", they don't mean "Save the Humans" alone, they mean "Save it FROM the Humans" for us and for every other living thing on the world.

[Dave]

Raven Daegmorgan, the Earth is just a giant ball of rock and it's not being affected by humans at all.

What you really mean is life on Earth. And even then it's about life on Earth's diversity rather than the sterilisation of all life on Earth (which would be a massive undertaking even for us destructive humans).

[BobBrown]

The lies are a bigger web than just the title in quotes:
You say about methane: though its effect is 25x greater than that of carbon dioxide.
They said: "Given that, pound for pound, methane is 25 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide,"
Do you even see a difference?

[SiliconJon]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090814103231.htm

[Swart]

Re: Dean

The authors are not ignorant of the release of methane from melting permafrost, however, as you state above, the vast majority of thawing permafrost is in the northern hemisphere. As the authors measured a simultaneous increase in methane concentrations in both hemispheres, this would indicate that the source of the increase can not be isolated in a single hemisphere (so it is most likely not due to melting permafrost). If these measurements are correct (and there is no reason to believe they are not) then it really does suggest that there is an unaccounted for natural mechanism controlling atmospheric methane levels.

Re: Christian Rioux
The logic of this often used argument is faulty. Just because an event has happened in the past due to one cause does not mean that it can not happen in the future by any other means. Using your logical argument, you would have to believe that just because wildfires have been happening throughout the history of the earth that the wildfires burning in California today could not possibly be caused by a careless smoker; they must be caused by natural phenomena. But that does not make any sense. Of course I can start a forest fire with a match or a smoldering cigarette butt.

Here's another example of the faulty logic of your argument: people have been dying of natural causes long before the invention of the pistol, so if I shoot a man in the head with a pistol tomorrow, it must not have been the bullet that killed him. Instead, he must have died of natural causes because that is the way people died in the past.

Do you see how your argument does not hold up to scrutiny?

[Ayrdale]

I treat sick people.

They need to know, and I tell them (to the very best of my ability)

...What's wrong ?
...What can I do about it ?
...How's it going to effect me in later life ?

These are exactly the questions we need to know about our climate. Right now science is dodging the issue. The above article shines a little more light but there is much to learn.

[Misanthrop]

but it against the holy doctrine that man is in the center of the universe! we effect everything, we are so important,no effect what so ever can happen without any relation to our godly power.

[Ladakh]

One thing that concerns me is that this sudden increase in methane may be due to the melting permafrost all across the arctic of which there is substantial evidence. It is well established that as the permafrost melts the organic matter, once frozen, will decay releasing massive amounts of methane.