Polar Warming 'caused by humans'

[Brugdor]

MIT scientists baffled that global warming science is wrong yet again

http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-39973-113.html

Did you actually bother to read this article or only parse it?  This relates only to an observed increase in methane in one year (2007).  This article does not give the name of the article, nor the publication date and further the only actual quote from the article says NOTHING about their findings being contrary to "global warming science" whatever the hell that agglomeration is supposed to mean.  Seems like a fairly suspect article to draw broad conclusions from.

First paragraph -

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.

Ok, I researched this one and found the actual paper. The author of the article I linked added that last sentence in the paragraph I quoted above. So he is misleading his readers that the MIT guys have come to the conclusion that it's part of a natural cycle. However what is true is that methane levels have always been found to be generated more in the northern hemisphere and then they take about a year to cycle down south. This time they rose equally everywhere. So that does contradict the belief that this rise was caused my man unless they can find some other reason for it happening.

The other thing that I find interesting is that for the 10 years prior to this study, methane levels hadn't really changed. I can only assume that our methane production has gone up in that time period. So if there's supposed to be a direct link there then that is also an obvious contradiction. Again, assuming human methane production went up in those 10 years ( and why wouldn't it have?).

[BlueCross]

The other thing that I find interesting is that for the 10 years prior to this study, methane levels hadn't really changed. I can only assume that our methane production has gone up in that time period. So if there's supposed to be a direct link there then that is also an obvious contradiction. Again, assuming human methane production went up in those 10 years ( and why wouldn't it have?).

" 'The key thing is to better determine the relative roles of increased methane emission versus an increase 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.' "

If you left "I can only assume" and "assuming" comments out of your statements, you would be way better off.

[Brugdor]

September was the hottest October on record

Everybody panic! 

To get these numbers, Al Gore's cronies carried over temperatures from September instead of getting accurate temperatures for October. Then they tried to cover it all up with the Arctic "hotspot" story that led to articles like the one in the OP.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

Much much more at link

I'm sure I'll just get a recipe in response though.

[Solwyn]

I'm sure I'll just get a recipe in response though.

Toast

2 slices of bread

Put slices in toaster. Wait until after they pop out. Enjoy.


Nah that's all I got.

I read through the article and it looks really interesting, especially the GISS saying they don't have the resources to be doing pretty much what it is that they do.