Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
Research Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsResearch Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic

But Wait......I thought global warming was a myth?

I did read them. They are basically saying that 1 year of ice growth and cooler temperatures erases the last 50 years of documented melting and temperature rise.

Look at the chart here. Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can see there are peaks and valleys but the general trend is a warming one. Look how steeply it rises from 1980 on.


"Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any topic, so you know you're getting the best information."

- Michael Scott
 
"Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any topic, so you know you're getting the best information."

- Michael Scott


Still waiting for the correct chart that shows the earth is not warming.
 
Climate cycles. rather than looking at the warming trend, how about looking at the overall big picture?

Global Climate Change Chart on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Please note the concurrence of the climate swings with natural occurances.

MIT Scientists Ask: Is Global Warming Part of a Natural Cycle?

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.

Melting Antarctic Ice Part of Natural Cycle | The Resilient Earth

Historical records for the western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) show that it is particularly prone to rapid climate change—change that occurs in cycles of ~200 years and ~2500 years. By studying major transitions in plankton productivity in the western Antarctic, scientists have shown that “spectacular” ice-cover losses have happened many times in the past. In other words, the “unprecedented rapid loss of ice” from parts of Antarctica that global warming alarmists make so much of are a normal part of nature's cycles.
 
Nef you idiot...I don't see a chart.

You have to show a chart if you want to be taken seriosuly.

Fucking wimminz.
 
Climate cycles. rather than looking at the warming trend, how about looking at the overall big picture?

Global Climate Change Chart on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Please note the concurrence of the climate swings with natural occurances.

MIT Scientists Ask: Is Global Warming Part of a Natural Cycle?



Melting Antarctic Ice Part of Natural Cycle | The Resilient Earth


The chart you posted shows that the current warming trend appears to be part of a natural cycle, and part of it probably is. But the current rise seems to much quicker and steeper than previous ones based on your chart and most others.

That article in your second link completely contradicts the article it refers to as its source.
Levels of the greenhouse gas methane begin to increase again - MIT News Office

Levels of the greenhouse gas methane begin to increase again

New surge ends a decade of stability; cause still unknown

David Chandler, MIT News Office
October 29, 2008

The amount of methane in Earth's atmosphere shot up in 2007, bringing to an end a period of about a decade in which atmospheric levels of the potent greenhouse gas were essentially stable, according to a team led by MIT researchers.
Methane levels in the atmosphere have more than tripled since pre-industrial times, accounting for around one-fifth of the human contribution to greenhouse gas-driven global warming. 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.
A rise in Northern Hemispheric emissions may be due to the very warm conditions that were observed over Siberia throughout 2007, potentially leading to increased bacterial emissions from wetland areas. However, a potential cause for an increase in Southern Hemispheric emissions is less clear.
An alternative explanation for the rise may lie, at least in part, with a drop in the concentrations of the methane-destroying OH. Theoretical studies show that if this has happened, the required global methane emissions rise would have been smaller, and more strongly biased to the Northern Hemisphere. At present, however, it is uncertain whether such a drop in hydroxyl free radical concentrations did occur because of the inherent uncertainty in the current method for estimating global OH levels.
To help pin down the cause of the methane increase, Prinn said, "the next step will be to study this using a very high-resolution atmospheric circulation model and additional measurements from other networks." But doing that could take another year, he said, and because the detection of increased methane has important consequences for global warming the team wanted to get these initial results out as quickly as possible.
"The key thing is to better determine the relative roles of increased methane emission versus an idecrease in the rate of removal," Prinn said. "Apparently we have a mix of the two, but we want to know how much of each" is responsible for the overall increase.
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.
In addition to Rigby and Prinn, the study was carried out by researchers at Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Bristol and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. These methane measurements come from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE) that is supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Australian CSIRO network.
 
Top Bottom