Slashdot Mirror
Emissions of Key Greenhouse Gas Stabilize
brian0918 writes "Multiple news sites are reporting that levels of the second most important greenhouse gas, methane, have stabilized". From Scientific American: "During the two decades of measurements, methane underwent double-digit growth as a constituent of our atmosphere, rising from 1,520 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) in 1978 to 1,767 ppbv in 1998. But the most recent measurements have revealed that methane levels are barely rising anymore — and it is unclear why." From NewScientist: "Although this is good news, it does not mean that methane levels will not rise again, and that carbon dioxide remains the 800-pound gorilla of climate change."
What about Water Vapor (or vapour, depending on where you live)? I've heard that's a major contributor... though the talk you hear about it is... a heated discussion at the very least (flamefests usually).
What do you mean our knowledge of the earth is incomplete?
*Insert obligatory fart joke here*
Seriously, with the North American BSE scare, how many cows where destroyed or not bread that would have been? Cows are a major producer of methane and there are lots of them.
---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
The real 800lb gorilla for methane is the Arctic. If the predictions are right then this is the calm before the storm. If the Arctic melts, which it is, it'll release vast amounts of methane. It's likely to dwarf all other greenhouse sources. Everyone seems to be ignoring the Arctic but all the CO2 sources combined can't compare so a melting Arctic should be our primary concern. If it's the canary then the canary isn't just dead but it has been reduced to a skeleton.
Does less methane in Earth's atmosphere mean that people are farting less?
This is not good news because if people think that the problem is not serious enough to warrant attention, society will not change its bad habits. Burning fossil fuels, driving polluting cars, and spewing chemicals into the air and our water supplies must not continue. Gas prices work similarly. A drop in prices is not necessarily good news because it will discourage people from acting to move away from our Middle Eastern energy dependence.
The single largest source of methane as a greenhouse gas is (flatulence from)cattle raised in the third world for food. The next sources in order are cattle raised in the western world, and human flatulence IIRC.
Does the stabilization of methane levels mean they're now feeding beano to cattle?
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
Beano?
Whoever designed level 61 in Frozen Bubble is a sadistic bastard.
I'll bet global methane emissions can be shown to track the gross sales of Taco Bell.
Hmmmm... their stock has climbed steadily since August. Perhaps the methane readings are due to their recent switch to Canola oil.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
methane levels are barely rising anymore -- and it is unclear why.
One line - eat less beans.
Just mail the Nobel Prize to my address, thanks.
The thing is that it takes lots of years for the effect of gas ratio changes at sea level to propagate up into the upper atmosphere.
From the vague article, these appear to be sea-level measurements - so the density of methane in the upper atmosphere (where it actually matters) will continue to grow for maybe 10 years before it starts to level off.
We are seeing the effects of methane growth rates in the 1980's and 1990's...it'll get worse before it gets better.
www.sjbaker.org
"But the most recent measurements have revealed that methane levels are barely rising anymore -- and it is unclear why.""
Wishful thinking is a powerful thing.
Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history
... two thousand years of Christian fulminating against the Jews."
RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIF. - In recent months, a spate of atheist books have argued that religion represents, as "End of Faith" author Sam Harris puts it, "the most potent source of human conflict, past and present."
Columnist Robert Kuttner gives the familiar litany. "The Crusades slaughtered millions in the name of Jesus. The Inquisition brought the torture and murder of millions more. After Martin Luther, Christians did bloody battle with other Christians for another three centuries."
In his bestseller "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins contends that most of the world's recent conflicts - in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland, in
Kashmir, and in Sri Lanka - show the vitality of religion's murderous impulse.
The problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes attributed to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism. The best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials. How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25. Yet the event still haunts the liberal imagination.
It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness.
These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.
Moreover, many of the conflicts that are counted as "religious wars" were not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to territory and power. Can the wars between England and France be called religious wars because the English were Protestants and the French were Catholics? Hardly.
The same is true today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not, at its core, a religious one. It arises out of a dispute over self-determination and land. Hamas and the extreme orthodox parties in
Israel may advance theological claims - "God gave us this land" and so forth - but the conflict would remain essentially the same even without these religious motives. Ethnic rivalry, not religion, is the source of the tension in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.
p>Yet today's atheists insist on making religion the culprit. Consider Mr. Harris's analysis of the conflict in Sri Lanka. "While the motivations of the Tamil Tigers are not explicitly religious," he informs us, "they are Hindus who undoubtedly believe many improbable things about the nature of life and death." In other words, while the Tigers see themselves as combatants in a secular political struggle, Harris detects a religious motive because these people happen to be Hindu and surely there must be some underlying religious craziness that explains their fanaticism.
Harris can go on forever in this vein. Seeking to exonerate secularism and atheism from the horrors perpetrated in their name, he argues that Stalinism and Maoism were in reality "little more than a political religion." As for Nazism, "while the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominantly secular way, it was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity." Indeed, "The holocaust marked the culmination of
One finds the same inanities in Mr. Dawkins's work. Don't be fooled by this rhetorical legerdemain. Dawkins and Harris cannot explain why, if Nazism was directly desce
Ok, let me get this straight.
The methane gas was coming from an 800-pound gorilla?
We don't have to worry about reducing CO2 emissions and global warming.
When the CO2 levels rise to the point where it's poisonous, then Human involvement will drop significantly.
Problem solved!
Lots of methane comes from anaerobic activity (rotting vegetation/sawdust, landfills, waste water processing etc). Even atural swamps and forest floor decomposition produce a lot of methane and CO2.
Methane is far worse than CO2, thus it is preferable to burn off methane than let is escape into the atmosphere. Better still to burn it and extract power.
But the major interesting factor is that the methane levels have stabilised without understanding why. Likely it is being changed into CO2 by some process which is not well understood. Likely too, all the atmospheric carbon models are way to simplistic to really predict what is going to happen 10, 50 or a hundred years out.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
People are drinking less cheap American beer and turning to wine and high quality ales. There is much less farting than there was 25 years ago.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Slashdot, the front site for New Scientist. Everybody click on the new Scientist link and click through on their ads now so Slashdot can get their kickback. Do your pseudo science duty and help support the Slashdot - New Scientist partnership.
New Scientist is an OSTG site.
So here we are, currently doing basically bugger all about global warming, but with plenty of computer simulations and estimates about how much warming will happen in how many years, and plenty of politics going on about who should pay for it, and what about second world countries, and AFAICS it's basically a game of how long can be put off doing something about this, because it's going to cost plenty of money and we don't seem to need to be doing it just right now...
Now, out of the blue, something *utterly* unexpected, inexplicable and major happens - the rate of methane emission levels out; and no one has a *CLUE* why.
Well, I can hear this ticking noise...
I sure hope we figure out interplanetry colonization soon.
You know - just in case.
Sweet! Party at my place to celebrate! (I'll bring the bean dip)
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
plenty of computer simulations and estimates ... the rate of methane emission levels out; and no one has a *CLUE* why.
Gee... if the models are correct... shouldn't they have PREDICTED this? The "iron clad" proof held up by all the global warming cultists are nothing more than computer models. Models that spit out hockey sticks even when you input random data. Models that predict death, destruction, fire and brimstone. However when it comes to major observations that these all knowing models should have anticipated, they come up short.
What shocks me: You are so sold on the global warming religion, that you can't put those two things together yourself. If the models are correct, why didn't they predict this?
"methane levels are barely rising anymore -- and it is unclear why."
I fart less than I used to...
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
and that carbon dioxide remains the 800-pound gorilla of climate change.
Actually, carbon dioxide is a small player. Water is responsible for at least 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect. It is amazing to me how everyone is so eager to jump on a single bandwagon when it comes to global warming. Anyone who offers contradictory information is immediately dubbed as an "oil company lover" or a "right-wing anti-environmentalist." The first unfortunate truth is that science on both sides is being funded by people with particular interests. Oil companies and industrialists would love for global warming NOT to exist just as much as many anti-corporate liberals and environmental extremists would love for it TO exist.
The second unfortunate truth is that we know very little about the Earth's climate system. It is a complex subject where everything is interdependent on everything else. We need to invest more money into figuring out how it all works and we need to figure out how to get the money to those scientists in such a way that they aren't pressured to produce results that imply specific conclusions.
Do you really expect that the left are sincere in their motives and that they really want to "make the earth a better place?" Hint- the answer is the same as whether you think the right's sincere motive is to "keep the country safe." Most politicians are the same breed. Some will try to convince you that invading Iraq is necessary to protect America and some will try to convince you that new laws are required to prevent global warming and save the environment. Neither side consistently demonstrates the ability to think rationally or objectively which is in fact the only moral way to govern.
Drought causes many western ranchers to significantly reduce herd size as the feeding/grazing/watering becomes cost prohibitive. If you consider cows to be a significant source of methane of course.
Wax on, wax off baby!
But the most recent measurements have revealed that methane levels are barely rising anymore -- and it is unclear why
Yeah, I quit with the bean burritos. Sorry about that whole warming thing, everybody. I'm done with them for good, now.
Arghhh,
just why oh why are sane reasonable people wasting their time with this shit.
In most spheres of physics we put forward ideas and then test to see if those ideas are proveable and repeatable. We build from small ideas to larger models and then see if our models are consistent and accurate. We then take glee in trying to prove the model wrong or inaacurate. Only if the model matches observation and we find no conflicts do we begin to trust it.
To let you know how accurate the large model for climatologists is look at the weather prediction in your news paper.
The problem is they're trying to run before they'ved walked. They have no big model that is provably accurate so they have to guess. They are not sure as to just what influences our weather let alone to what extent. Ask them how much influence the sun or the earths core temp or the annual freezing of the southern oceans contribute to our weather and all they can do is shrug their shoulders and talk in non specifics.
So how as an intelligent person are you meant to interpet their findings and conclusions? I think that the findings are most likely accurate when they talk about discrete facts e.g. the level of CO2 in ice cores is less the further down the same core you go. But when they draw conclusions they are just blowing smoke the more assumptions the more smoke e.g. higher CO2 means higher temperature, therefore the level of CO2 measured in ice cores proves the temperatures years ago were less therefore we have global warming therefore etc etc
Mod parent up.
Shitty moderation is not going to shut anyone up. This is NOTM/b> subject to political correctness any more than it is subject to a vote.
For a moderator to mod the parent "FlameBait" illustrates just how awful the moderation can be. Arrggghhhh.
CO2 is blamed for global warming yet the paleoclimate records show there is no correlation.
CO2 actually does leave the atmosphere easily. Plants literally grow out of the air. This is where their Carbon comes from. The expected life of CO2 in the atmosphre is anywhere from 15 to about 50 years and its probably closer to the 15 than the 50.
Furthermore plants grow faster with the increase of CO2. This is proven and clearly obvious... obvious to any layman who can think and totally obvious to any intelligent biologist since they have been doing greenhouse studies on this for decades.
Since plant life growth rates increase we end up with additional CO2 stimulating plant growth and a new steady state is achieved within a couple decades. This is clearly NOT something our global warming folks want to hear... because their theories end up in the trash can unless they can constantly increase CO2 for ever and ever.
Note: Mankind's activities have clearly increased the amount of H2O in the atmosphere since we divert entire rivers via irrigation. For our climate modelers to claim that since H2O is short lived there is no net increase is the same as saying the humidifier in my house won't work since the water will be lost fairly soon after it is introduced. These ideas completely ignore the fact that H2O is being constantly pumped into the atmosphere via many mechanisms including burning fuel... irrigating lawns, running humidifiers in dry areas, and of course - wide spread irrigation.
The thing is we havn't been able to measure the H2O levels accurately. Thus people choose to wave their arms and say this effect is a "constant". To do so is to set change in the most significant variable to zero. One cannot have much faith in models which ignore the most significant variables.
I decided to just build hot taco salads at Jose's Mexican Buffet, avoiding refried beans completely. I'm happy to do my p(h)art to save the world.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
From NewScientist: "Although this is good news, it does not mean that methane levels will not rise again, and that carbon dioxide remains the 800-pound gorilla of climate change."
Um, yeah.
The 800 pound gorilla of climate change is really water vapor, but let's not talk about that...
Goofy, Geeky Gifts and More!
"methane underwent double-digit growth ... rising from 1,520 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) in 1978 to 1,767..."
Let's see;
1767 - 1520 = 247
Isn't 247 triple digit?
CO2 is blamed for global warming yet the paleoclimate records show there is no correlation.
You seem to know a lot. So maybe you could then find me a single proper paper appearing in a real peer reviewed scientific journal in the last decade that says CO2 isn't to blame for global warming.
If you're going to spout off about how increasing CO2 emissions isn't a problem when the rest of the world thinks it is you could at least provide a link to your nonsense you're trying to pass as fact.
Believe it or not, this is huge. The CO2 as the 800 pound gorilla is not quite right. Methane is MANY times more stronger a green house gas than CO2. In fact, the United States pays BIG money to the former Soviet Union to get them to contain methane leaks because any gain on methane emissions is huge.
So "... it does not mean that methane levels will not rise again ...". That is correct. But only used to prevent the appearance of not toeing the party line of how all greenhouse gases are on the rise. Will we ever see equally correct statements in print today such as:
And the rise of CO2 levels "does not mean that they will not descend again".
And the rise in temperatures "does not mean that they will not lower again".
No. We'll only repeatedly see:
And the fact that our models were wrong many times "does not mean that they won't be right sometime".
Science is lost when it goes public.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
I guess this is what happens when so many people light their own farts.
But the most recent measurements have revealed that methane levels are barely rising anymore -- and it is unclear why.
Yes. Unclear. But one must assume it must only be a minor (and temporary) effect that will not detract from the alarming global changes that are forecast. Right? It could not possibly be revealing the fact that so much is not understood about the atmosphere that any current attempt at drawing firm conclusions about the present state (let alone future states) is pure guessing. And while guessing isn't a bad thing in and of itself, it becomes bad when you use it to further your own personal or political agendas.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Heh... well, now you see the whole problem with the issue of global warming and the reason why people believe what they believe. A few people get silenced, the rest find a way to be extremely vocal, and guess who the masses will follow.
While global levels are now steady I have just detected a series of local fluctuations. Must have been something I ate.
Note: Mankind's activities have clearly increased the amount of H2O in the atmosphere since we divert entire rivers via irrigation.
Last I heard, the oceans covered 2/3rd of the surface of the Earth. It should be pretty clear that, in contrast, evaporation through irrigation on arable land (a fraction of the remaining 1/3) will be a drop in the bucket.
The same can't be said for the production of CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels versus organic processes. And I have never seen spontaneous precipitation of liquid or frozen CO2, but I have seen a lot of rain and snow when humidity levels get high enough. It's pretty clear to me that there are non-biological processes for the regulation of water-vapour content in the atmosphere that don't have an equivalent for CO2. It seems therefore plausible to me that CO2 would have a higher risk of continuing increase than water vapour.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
While the bulk of the arctic ice is in the ocean, Greenland and the tundras (candian, Russian, American) have huge volumes of ice. There will be issue if all of this ice melts. The greenland glaciers will raise the ocean some none trivial amount. And the tundra ice melt is more important for the sun that it reflects. If that stops, the perma-frost is defrosted AND large amounts of CO2 AND CH4 (methane) will be released.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I think it may be related to the rise in natural gas prices, and the natural urge for gas producers to go plug up leaks at those prices.
Natural gas production is the leading source of Russian methane emissions, for instance. And in 1990, Russia leaked as much as 26 million tons of methane. It was probably worth their while to plug some of these leaks at current prices.
I'm pretty tired of you right-wing anti-environmentalists always trying to throw a wet blanket over our moral panic.
Consensus has been reached. No further debate is possible. We've figured it all out. All of it. The earth is going to end in a matter of years if we don't immediately stop all progress and revert to living in trees. I've already picked out mine. If you're smart, you'll stop arguing and pick out yours before all the good ones are claimed.
I lost all faith in (pseudo)-scientific (pseudo)-"studies" and the so-called media that reports them when, a few years ago, some study was published that said pregnant women should not drink water. Riiiight... Just like Sweet-n-Low will give me cancer (if I drink the equivalent of 350 soft drinks a day). These "scientific" conclusions are ridiculous. I might as well come out and say, "water must kill because 100% of all people who drink it, die." Of course, an astute person would recognize the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, but most people buy into this garbage.
My grandmother suffered from hypochondriasis before she died. On one of my last visits with her, she was convinced she had a kidney stone. It turned out she had a urinary tract infection. After the ruckus of taking her to the hospital - she claimed she needed an ambulance - she was treated with antibiotics and told to drink lots of water. Later in the day, back at her house, she was on the phone talking to someone and she said, "if I had a blockage, they would have admitted me; but I didn't, so they sent me home." My mother quietly whispered, "if I had been hit by a bus, I would have been killed; but I wasn't, so I'm still here."
The media and certain "advocacy groups" have an interest in human-caused global warming. In fact, I think I'd trust Geraldo Rivera with information about where and with whom I'm cheating on my wife before trusting the (mis)-information given in these "studies". I might even tell him in a place with lots of sticks and sand and live cameras. Al Gore, the "Inconvenient Truth" man, claims to have "taken the initiative" of "creating the internet" during his Senate service. Did he also take the initiative to ride in those huge black GM SUVs? I'm more pissed about my tax dollars paying for the gas which only goes about 10 MPG than I am about causing "global warming" because I'm wasteful.
Al, look in the mirror man. First, we (humans) aren't causing global warming. Second, if anyone is causing global warming, it's fat-asses who bitch about "lock-boxes" and how awful our world is. I wonder if they're not worse than OJ Simpson. At least OJ says he wrote the book and did the interview for the money.It's actually pretty tiring to refute you ignoramuses point by point every time...
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Multiple news sites are reporting that levels of the second most important greenhouse gas, methane, have stabilized
NOOOOOOOOOO!
Wow, that post is full of misinformation, it's difficult to know where to begin.
Yes, *some* types of plants grow better in higher concentrations of CO2. Not all, some. That's important because there are a lot of different kinds of plants on this planet and they don't all react in the same way to their environments. (In fact, I seem to recall that some types of plants grow worse in higher CO2 environments. It'd be a pity if those includes grasses, wouldn't it?)
So you're "obvious" fact is, as obvious facts often are, at least partially wrong. But never mind facts. What's worse is that the CO2-loving plants don't help that much. Even the researchers who have shown the correlation between CO2 and grown rates admit that right in their papers. One of the reasons for that is that plants just don't take up that much CO2 on our planet. Look at where the carbon is. Even if they did take up a large fraction of the total, there's no reason to think that they can take up much *more* than they already do. Do you honestly think that lack of CO2 has been limiting plant growth all these millions of years? The plants need other nutrients, water, and sunlight to grow. These are much more likely to limit the growth of the plants than CO2.
AND, say that plants like corn (shown to grown faster in extra CO2) did take up a significant fraction of the CO2 from the atmosphere. What do you plan to do with it when corn does what it always does int he fall: die? Since you claim to understand biology, do you know where that CO2 goes? Yep, back into the air as the planet matter decays. Whoops.
I won't touch your rant about water except to say that water isn't very important toward the anthropomorphic greenhouse effect since water already is doing most of the absorbing it can do.
Oh shit, now we've got to worry about global cooling!
The problem is the net amount of carbon in the system. Biological activity (and this includes man-made activity like farming or biofuel production) has no net impact on the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle; what gets added to the air by respiration or by combustion of biofuel/wood/waste gets removed by photosynthesis (even if this isn't immediate, it will have to balance out due to conservation of matter). However, carbon locked up in fossil fuels has been outside of that cycle for millions of years; our reintroduction of it into the air is the root problem.
There is no equivalent with the hydrological cycle. We move water around a lot, but we don't add or remove it; digging wells, or irrigation canals, or creating reservoirs doesn't alter the net amount of water in circulation. There could be a disequilibrium of water due to human activity (that is, we lower the amount of water in aquifers, and raise the amount of vapor in the air), but that's not going to have the same impact as causing a net increase in circulating CO2.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
It's EU and other entities that made this happen. The US does absolutely nothing for global ecology. As one of the US presidents put it, "our economy is above ecology".
they cattle there don't eat well enough to produce a lot of methane. Goats are also more popular (more meat per kg of vegetation and will eat more types of vegetation than cattle.
The western cattle are overfed and juiced to the eyeballs to produce the most meat per hoof and this causes inefficient digestion and THAT is the cause of much of the methane produced by cattle.
Population rising, yet methane levels have stabilized. The cause is actually more people falling in love. I predict a lot of explosions soon.
I wonder if I should explain this one...
CO2 is blamed for global warming yet the paleoclimate records show there is no correlation.
Really?
Looks like mankind has finally conquered nature. Mind you it's not so much a case of conquering nature as it is something like getting the newspaper in the morning only to find that the fella who delivers it accidently gave you an extra elastic. You think to yourself 'Yes! The joke's on him! He'll never see this again!' Then a week later you find the newpaper guy broke into your house and set your electric kettle boiling and left it going while you were at work, so when you get home the thing's broken.
Since the original discussion was of Methane levels... Methane is probably going down in the atmosphere due to methane (natural gas) extraction operations of the oil/gas industry. In Alabama about 120 Billion standard cubic feet of gas is extracted annually from coal bed methane recovery operations. (30% of State production) It is probable that 100% (and more) of that methane was escaping into the atmosphere unburned on an on going basis. Currently the extraction is by recovering ground water and extracting the gas similar to a soda fizzing. While the route of ground water movement in Alabama may have changed, it was all going out in "real time" anyway.
For those who wonder, it is probable that the conditions for generation of this methane have been suppressed by extraction operations. This is because water is part of the process. This means that large volumes of CO2 were created by decomposition of Methane due to the natural emissions. These have probably been reduced dramatically by the diversion to Man handled extraction and the loss of water to support Methane production and movement in the rock. While man uses produce C02 this also means that the amounts as a whole are probably reduced dramatically.
Don't mistake me for a supporter of the Oil/Gas industry or an opponent, I am neither. I just wanted to explain that the processes for Carbon Dioxide and Methane introduction into the atmosphere are dramatically more complex than commonly known. These processes also are much more rapid than generally known. What may or may not be known by most people is that nearly 100% of all liquid hydrocarbon or gas in the rock world wide will be expelled by the planet into the Atmosphere in the next few hundred years anyway. The human influence is probably more of just a route change than a prevention or promotion of the dispersal of this material. I am aware that many people on this forum assault any scientific reporting. If you disagree. just post against what I say. Skip moderation because that is just suppression of good discussion.
Honestly one of the great myths of the 21st century is that of the human influence in this matter. There are forces suggesting changes in the climate that are vastly greater than any human factors. These include solar variability. The sun has changed since 1900 by over 1% in brightness. (Increased) The particle flux in space is suggesting massive changes as well. There are mechanisms associated with the operations of energy flow that also suggest massive changes. All of these mechanisms dwarf by several powers of 10 any human influence. There are historical and geological records that indicate that variations here occur vastly beyond any human control. This is not an argument for the continuation of oil/gas etc. They are as used pretty dirty stuff. Pollution is enough of an argument against oil.
I am involved in development of alternative power sources for the world. It soon will be delivered (not my invention) that the human race will have unlimited energy without fuel. At that time we will have to confront the fact that energy generation itself from these fuel free sources is in fact a problem as well. The real dirty issues here are human over population and just plain arrogance. I know of 9 separate technologies that generate energy without fuel. All of these are progressing towards market presentation at one level or another. When these appear rather than being saved, the human race will be doomed by them unless we face the real issues of human behavior and of human intentions. I am well aware of just how complex these realities are.
Every time I have tried to post a few hints about what was actually going on in this area, I get moderated into oblivion like a troll or something. I am actually seeing the results and trying to tell people what is going on. This is hands on stuff and it works. I am no troll. The moderators who seem to want to blind people to the realities of just how messed up our modern science is, are the trolls.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
"carbon dioxide remains the 800-pound gorilla of climate change." Someone who should know, the chief of climate environmental sciences at MIT, states that the overwhelming warming gas is water vapor, not carbon dioxide or methane. Since we currently do not have a clue on how to control water vapors and few ideas on methane control, the idiots at Kyoto decided to try to control carbon dioxide creation ... just because we have a few half thought through ways of controlling CO2 a little bit. Instead of spending all this money on CO2 control, it would more intelligent to invest in finding out more on understanding the water vapor problem we have.
Too bad we can not expect more thought from our political leaders. Shame on all the bloodsuckers that want to take advantage and line their pockets with money made due to this brain dead policy of emphasizing CO2 control.
That's great news. A minor point: the title of the post is incorrect. It's the level of methane in the atmosphere which has stabilized, not emissions.
GW denialists are sabotaging real debate here. They keep lobbing grenades into the debate, by repeatedly saying things like "H2O vapor is the real greenhouse gas". This point has been discussed many times in the above comments and has been rebutted. More information can be found here and here. I think the point of their constant harping about water vapor is to plant seeds of uncertainty in the minds of the public, in order to "position global warming as more theory than fact", as was stated in a policy paper of a right wing think tank (see Al Gore's movie).
There is a difference between having an honest debate in order to discover the truth versus entering a debate simply to muddy the issues and distract the observers of the debate from the truth. Honest debate cannot happen unless all parties in the debate are interested in discovering the truth. Posting statements with the knowledge that they have been debunked is not honest debate. It is just noise.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
I can see some future articles...
"the most recent measurements of CO2 show it barely rising..."
-or-
"Recent heating of Ocean has caused an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere causing an increase in cloud cover that is expected to continue to grow for the next 30 years. Scientists believe that that if the ocean warming isn't halted (due to a recent uptick in geothermal activity believed to have been brought on by deep-core drilling attempts to develop cheap geothermal energy) that cloud cover will soon plummet the earth into an ice age not scene for the past 75,000 years.
Even though temperatures should be rising due to trapped heat from excess CO2, the heat first has to get below the increasing cloud cover to be trapped...."
etc...etc...etc.
Probably some ill-founded "hopefulness", but it seems we haven't completely discovered everything about what makes the earth tick and the planet may have a few more surprises up her sleeve before the cancer on her surface causes unprecedented warming... 'Sides, it's a good time to invest in Arctic Ocean-front Beach property...:-)
Just wait until we have a fully "green" economy with fuels that burn to nothing more than water vapor. Yeah, that'll help!
One man's religion is another man's belly-laugh. - LL
Given that the seas would be too acidic by 2050, causing the destruction of coral and shells worldwide.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"So maybe you could then find me a single proper paper appearing in a real peer reviewed scientific journal in the last decade that says CO2" is "to blame for global warming."
It seems that you feel that this should be simple.
"...you could at least provide a link to your nonsense you're trying to pass as fact."
"Al, look in the mirror man. First, we (humans) aren't causing global warming. Second, if anyone is causing global warming, it's fat-asses who bitch about "lock-boxes" and how awful our world is.."
Do we have a Republican on our hands here? AHA! If you trust Geraldo "Faux News" Rivera more than Al Gore, I feel sorry for you.
I guess flag-waving Faux News fans haven't had much to cheer about lately, so go ahead, if you feel better after knocking the inventor of the Internet, do it. In the spirit of the season, I will intercede for you to spare you the wrath of the Gore.
Please Al Gore, Creator of all RFC's, forgive him, for he knows not that you can cut off his broad-band connection for blaspheming so..ummm... on second thought, cut away, dude, he's just clogging the tubes. Amen.
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
Could be the methane has dropped as I've been eating less beans this year. :-)
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)