Jump to content

MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data


RangerM

Recommended Posts

Trick or Treat! (depending on your perspective)

 

Link to article

 

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.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But...but...(somebody quick, bring their lives into question/state they work for "big oil"/not relevent/etc)

 

 

They can't be right, it's all mans fault, and man should pay....with higher taxes or some sort of tax grab like say..umm..CARBON CREDITS! yeah that's it, that's the ticket....yeah....

 

 

 

 

 

(ps, don't forget, the sky is falling, al gore said so!) :runaway:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The believers have their god. They will never be convinced that he lied to them. They would line up for hours for the privelege of giving him their money if he told them to.

 

All of you environuts are in your glory now. You have a president who will soon have his advisors come up with all sorts of impending enviromental calamities. Warming, flooding, earthquakes, sunspots, tornados, hurricanes, tsunamis, holes in the ozone, food poisoning, bad air, people working too much overtime, inadequate health care, the rich having too much money, too many people criticizing the government, people allowed unlimited travel, people with too much living space. The only solution is for the government to take all of the money and give each person an allowance. The big offenders will go to the gulag and work as slave labor on big government projects.

Edited by Trimdingman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

zeig heil!

 

 

Wait about 6 months and then we'll see, I hope I'm wrong and people don't go"....um what happened? that's not what we wanted"

 

Good news is it's not a supermajority, and he might be concerned about pissing people off in former red states that voted blue so he might ease up on stupid shit. If he wants to do a second term that is.

 

Or he can go for broke in one term and try to "change" everything all at once hoping he'll buy another election, then you will be saying zeig heil!

Edited by goinbroke2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global Warming is a fraud to the highest degree, It is just a theory put in place by the Dems and Libs to get us to pay taxes and money on a false hood they all want us to believe. Everyone is dumb enough to fall for it too, In 10 years once this theory is put out to pasture we will have another doom and gloom money making scenario from the Dems that we will all fall for once again. I am sure Obama will waste plenty of our money trying to solve something that does not exist and we will all sit back and soak it up like a bunch of well trained robots.

gore_firegloablawarminghoax.jpg

Edited by 94bronco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the matter with people? Don't they want to be free any more? When are they going to wake up and tell government to get off their backs. We don't need all this government. Government is the problem. Without government, we would not be in this mess. Dumb people are now looking to government to solve it. That is like asking a fox to guard your chickens. Tell government to turn around, and boot its ass into last week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hahahahahaha! Boy, you conservatives never cease to amaze me, science is murky world you don't understand, it scares you. So go ahead, pray to your invisible sky god and tell your kids about intelligent design then go get in your pickup truck, turn on some country music, drink a PBR and go sleep with your cousin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Aliens Cause Global Warming"

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html

 

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

 

"Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

 

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . .

 

"I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . ."

 

 

RIP, Michael Crichton (1942 - 2008)

Edited by Roadtrip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hahahahahaha! Boy, you conservatives never cease to amaze me, science is murky world you don't understand, it scares you. So go ahead, pray to your invisible sky god and tell your kids about intelligent design then go get in your pickup truck, turn on some country music, drink a PBR and go sleep with your cousin.

There is plenty of science to show that global warming is just a bunch of hot air escaping from Obama's mouth, Why don't you go get in your Prius, Put some Celine Dion in and head to the nearest gay bar

liberals.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

theres also carbon dating to tell how old john mccain really is.

 

heres some fine print maybe we over looked:

 

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.

 

i dont see MIT in there but i do see bristol and scripps.

 

follow the money and you'll find the fiend!

Edited by stephenhawkings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hahahahahaha! Boy, you conservatives never cease to amaze me, science is murky world you don't understand, it scares you. So go ahead, pray to your invisible sky god and tell your kids about intelligent design then go get in your pickup truck, turn on some country music, drink a PBR and go sleep with your cousin.
Wow. I'm not even conservative and I find that insulting. Go find an intelligent argument and then come back. At least these conservatives are doing that much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont see MIT in there but i do see bristol and scripps.

 

From the article:

 

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

 

Does that count as MIT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

 

It is too early to tell whether this increase represents a return to sustained methane growth, or the beginning of a relatively short-lived anomaly, according to Rigby and Prinn. Given that, pound for pound, methane is 25 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, the situation will require careful monitoring in the near future."

 

well the contradiction seams to be where the greenhouse gases are coming from, methane in particular, not in regard to climate change, or that methane levels are rising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well the contradiction seams to be where the greenhouse gases are coming from, methane in particular, not in regard to climate change, or that methane levels are rising.

 

You're right. There is a contradiction.

 

The contradiction is to the "Man-Made" part of "Man-Made Global Warming", and this is one more piece of a little understood puzzle.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My issue is with the "alarming" way they state stuff.

 

Smoking is bad for you. How do you know? EVERYBODY smoked years ago, what changed? Well, people started dying from cancer and it was linked to smoking. They used SCIENCE to prove that smoking is bad for you. After numerous fights ect it was generally accepted that yes, smoking is bad for you.

If in 1965 they came out and tripled the tax on cigs and stated everybody would be dead by 1970 unless smoking is made illegal, smoking causes wars, smoking is ruining the ocean, smoking is using up all the oxygen and we'll all suffocate...then there would of been the same backlash as today.

Prove it instead of being hysterical and foretelling the end of mankind!

 

I'm all for the planet, but I'm not going to panic over something that's not proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hahahahahaha! Boy, you conservatives never cease to amaze me, science is murky world you don't understand, it scares you. So go ahead, pray to your invisible sky god and tell your kids about intelligent design then go get in your pickup truck, turn on some country music, drink a PBR and go sleep with your cousin.

 

Hmm...conservatives like myself must get under your skin.

 

I'm none of the things you described yet I still feel that the reaction to "global warming" is absolutely ridiculous. I'm an atheist who believes in evolution. I don't own a pickup truck, I hate country music, Pabst Blue Ribbon is disgusting swill, and well, the part about the cousins is just flat out laughable. I wouldn't mind checking into your cousins though. Got any pics?

 

You can't legislate your way to saving the planet and attempting to insult those who don't agree with you will get you NOWHERE. Go elsewhere with this bullshit, because it won't be tolerated here.

Edited by NickF1011
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...