MIT Science Team Finds Evidence of Natural Climate Change

By Bob Ellis on June 29th, 2009

MIT (Credit: Calvinkrishy)

MIT (Credit: Calvinkrishy)

From MIT News via the Galaxy Daily I became aware that researchers have found still more evidence of natural causes for climate change…and for natural planetary regulation of planetary temperature.

This MIT News article actually came out about eight months ago, but of course the “mainstream” media has been too busy trying to sell cap-and-trade schemes to us to have time to cover anything actually factual regarding global temperatures.

Until recently, the leveling off of methane levels had suggested that the rate of its emission from the Earth’s surface was approximately balanced by the rate of its destruction in the atmosphere.

However, since early 2007 the balance has been upset, according to a paper on the new findings being published this week in Geophysical Review Letters. The paper’s lead authors, postdoctoral researcher Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, say 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.”

One surprising feature of this recent growth is that it occurred almost simultaneously at all measurement locations across the globe. However, the majority of methane emissions are in the Northern Hemisphere, and it takes more than one year for gases to be mixed from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere. Hence, theoretical analysis of the measurements shows that if an increase in emissions is solely responsible, these emissions must have risen by a similar amount in both hemispheres at the same time.

You can read the original pdf version here.

“…balanced by the rate of its destruction in the atmosphere.” Hmmm. So the planet can self-regulate, eh?  The earth-worshippers must have missed that little tidbit.

Also, notice that since these methane levels rose worldwide instead of following what the scientists say is the normal “produced in the north and passed to the south” cycle, and that this seems to indicate a global and thus natural occurrence?

Of course, there is much much simpler and more compelling evidence that climate change is a natural, cycle phenomenon, including climate fluctuations going back thousands of years in Greenland, temperature data tracking with solar activity and not human activity, warming occurring on other planets like Mars and Jupiter, and more.

But if you’re determined to scuttle the economy of the United States on the altar of socialist dreams, what are a few facts and some common sense to get in your way?

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: , ,

  • Swart
    “…balanced by the rate of its destruction in the atmosphere.” Hmmm. So the planet can self-regulate, eh? The earth-worshippers must have missed that little tidbit.

    Bob Ellis obviously does not understand the meaning of this statement and he blatantly disregards the context in which it was used. It is a shame when "journalists" (and I use the term loosely in his case) who have no science background attempt to interpret scientific findings. Bob could not even get the findings straight after MIT News did their best to "dumb down" the original research.

    It is true that if the atmospheric mixing ratio of a trace gas is constant over time that its sources are equal to its sinks. This does not mean that the atmosphere can handle anything that we dump into it. Another "self regulating system," your immune system, provides a useful analogy.

    Your body has all of the tools that it needs to identify a virus and clear it from your system. If the virus is too fast acting, your immune system does not have the time that it needs to work and you get sick. If the virus is highly virulent then you may even suffer extreme consequences like liver failure, or death.

    Likewise if there is a large and sudden release of methane into the atmosphere then the sinks for this gas will be overwhelmed and atmospheric concentrations will increase. Oppositely, if one of the sinks slows down or ceases to be, then concentrations will increase.

    The evidence presented in this article does suggest that a natural source is the most likely cause for the observed global methane mixing ratio increase, but as of now, we can only speculate on how the system was perturbed. Was the perturbation natural or anthropogenic? I'm sure Bob Ellis could tell us.

    The true shame is that when Bob Ellis writes such poor articles he hurts the credibility of real scientific debate. Perhaps a good rule to follow in the future would be this: if you never took a class about atmospheric chemistry (I doubt that Bob has ever taken a single chemistry course), don't write about it. When you do, you are only hurting those who could seriously debate the points that you are trying to make.
  • Swart, you make it hysterically obvious that socialists like yourself are desperate to maintain faith in your eroding theory. You can have evidence handed to you on a silver platter, yet you still can't see it.

    Well, you're entitled to believe in silly ideas that don't even pass the smell test if you want, but you're not entitled to tax the rest of us to indulge your fantasies, so folks like me will continue pointing out what's becoming more obvious all the time and eventually you guys are going to be recognized for the flat-earthers you really are.
  • Swart
    To the esteemed Bob Ellis, scientists, statesmen, devout family man, and all around true patriot:

    My comment had nothing to do with taxation. Nor did this article. Your interpretation of the cited article is still wrong. Who is the real flat-earther here? What "evidence did you present in this piece? You did not even understand what you were writing about.

    I just wanted to make certain that you understand that when the ill-informed (that is you) try to participate in a real and important debate they make the rest of us who are legitimately trying to determine the underlying causes of climate change seem like dogmatic nut-jobs. I am not part of the consensus and people like you make my job a great deal more difficult. Your science journalism is to true reporting what the WACO "Christians" were to Christianity, or what Al-Queda is to Islam. It is clear that you have already tasted the Kool-aid and turned off your brain.

    Well preacher, you are welcome to your soapbox. Hopefully you will find something else that you are truly qualified to write about and leave the science to real science journalists. If you insist on writing about science, I challenge you to read the primary literature before you simply corrupt what other decent journalists have written.
  • Why do I keep having visions of horses being led to water any time I hear from earth-worshipping socialists?

    Hopefuly, Swart, you are aware of the massive assault on the property and prosperity of the American people passed by the U.S. House on Friday. That is the tax to which I refer, and, I suspect, the reason these socialists in congress indulge a nutty idea that can't even pass the smell-test of credibility: it makes a great excuse to separate more of the taxpayer's money from its rightful owners to be used on more socialist schemes.

    Let me spell it out for you since you seem abnormally slow, even for a global warming hysteric. If the normal flow of methane increase is from the north to the south, and this is blamed on industry in the northern hemisphere, and all of a sudden (i.e. without a huge development of industry in the southern hemisphere) methane increases all over the planet (in contradiction to that normal north-south patter), that would strongly indicate a natural source, eh?

    Couple that with the stunningly obvious evidence of previous climate change (long before SUVs or industry), solar activity, warming on other planets, etc., it takes a real Koolaid drinker (or someone thirsty for someone else's money) to continue blathering about anthropogenic global warming.

    You can believe in pink elephants or that socialism actually works (both about as likely and as credible), or even anthropogenic global warming if you want, but don't expect the American people to subsidize your foolish notions.
  • Swart
    Oh my...Bob Ellis, you just can't seem to stick to the topic. Nor do you take the time to READ what people post on your website. You can't even recognize when someone is ON YOUR SIDE! Not once in either post did I support Waxman-Markey (you should READ before responding). I said in my first post (if you will actually READ before you start spouting off your dogmatic agenda of "I hate taxes" and "Mommy...I think there's a communist under my bed") that the source of the CH4 increase must be from a natural source (you can still READ it, it's posted above). But you don't seem to understand that during those previous climate cycles atmospheric mixing ratios of CO2 rose as well, we simply don't know which comes first at this point. These increases in CO2 in the past were obviously natural, but if they were the cause of the past climate warmings, then shouldn''t be concerned about dumping a whole lot of additional CO2 into the atmosphere? If they were just coincidental, then who cares how much CO2 we emit. We are most likely going to have to live through one of these climate cycles recording the relevant measurements in order to truly determine which is the driver.

    We all get it. You don't want to pay taxes. Fine, that's cool. Don't pay them. Move to another country in protest. Do what you've got to do. There are taxes and laws that we all disagree with. The only benefit that I really see in this bill is moving the US away from sending trillions of dollars overseas to people who really do not like us very much. Maybe you like financing terrorism, but it's really not my thing.

    You are probably not a horrible person, but in writing you come off as just another hate monger in the mold of Michael Wiener (aka Savage). You should just accept that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the science.

    And, if you are the opposite of an earth-worshiping socialist, would that make you a money-worshiping oligarch?
  • Ah, no, you and your socialist friends can move to another country. This country belongs to Americans, and we will continue to fight for it and to see our Constitution adhered do. Like all our ancestors before us, we are determined to be free.

    It is quite obvious that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about when it comes to science, law, government, or the American way of life. You are apparently so drunk on global warming Koolaid that you somehow imagine that all the previous warming cycles our planet has seen were natural (because there was no industry for you to blame it on then), but now, oh, we just know it's man-made.

    I don't mind having a discussion with someone with whom I disagree as long as they are somewhat rational. You have made it most apparent that you are not too keen on the American way of life.

    That's your prerogative, but it would be better for all if you did it from some socialist country better suited to your tastes of having government run your life for you, and you can find another place to spout your deceptions and propaganda than here.
  • Anonymous
    "…balanced by the rate of its destruction in the atmosphere.” Hmmm. So the planet can self-regulate, eh?"

    You must have missed the next sentence- "However, since early 2007 the balance has been upset, according to a paper on the new findings"

    You also fail to mention that this MIT report projects a warming of 9 degrees by 2100, worse than even the pessimists expected a few years back. The difference between today's temps and an ice age is 8-10 degrees, so a 9 degree warming would be catastrophic, wiping out a significant portion of the human population.

    Your notion that we can do whatever we want to this planet because God had already accounted for it is not only illogical but not reinforced by scripture. The Bible repeatedly tells us to take care of the planet- not "it's yours, do whatever you want with it."
  • Anonymous, you must have missed what upset that balance: something that strongly appears to be naturally caused.

    You also seem to be pretty ignorant regarding my notions about earth and what God said about it. Nowhere have I ever said we can "do whatever we want to this planet because God had already accounted for it." I have, however, said--and this article points out evidence of it--that God was smart enough to build our planet with the ability to cleanse and regulate itself.

    You really should get a grip, stop listen to socialist prophets of doom like Al Gore, and maybe spend more time digesting some real science over assumptions and hysteria.
  • Anonymous
    Surely, Mr. Ellis, you must admit that the vast majority of scientists in this field believe that climate change is taking place and that human activity is a significant contributor. Do you believe this is the case? If so, why do you believe it is?

    Of the scientists who accept global warming, do you think they are intentionally misleading the public, or just unintelligent?

    If God designed the Earth so that humans couldn't harm it, how do you explain CFC's and the hole in the ozone layer? Why did it take a reduction in the human production of CFC's to close the hole in the ozone layer?

    You accuse me of getting my information from 'socialist prophets of doom'. I take it this means MIT. Where do you get your information regarding global warming?
  • That "vast majority"...except for the tens of thousands who have gone on record stating they aren't buying it? That "vast majority?"

    Let me ask you this, as well: if the "vast majority" were lining up to jump off a cliff, would you try to cut to the head of the line to show that you were with the program?

    Such is the power of peer pressure, my good person. If someone or a group with sufficient influence says pink is yellow, one looks like a fool to say differently and run contrary to the herd, don't they? We laugh at teenagers for following the herd, yet so many of us grownups follow the herd of whatever the elitists tell us is the right direction. Even scientists and other professionals are, in the end, just human beings like the rest of us (http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/do-scientist...)

    I don't mindlessly follow everything the "mainstream" media or a former vice president tells me, or even someone with a PhD who has a socialist agenda or lacks the independence of thought to realize when an idea is simply silly on the very face of it.

    I think for myself (you really should try it sometime), and it doesn't take a PhD to realize the idea of anthropogenic global warming is, when you consider the compelling evidence of climate change going back thousands of years, solar activity, warming on other planets and much more, nuttier than a fruitcake.

    But the more than 9,000 PhDs (and tens of thousands of other scientists) who think the idea is overblown doesn't hurt, either.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »