Mar
IPCC propaganda, half truths, bogus science, urban legends about methane
I’ve recently posted an article debunking the methane Doomsday scenario. The scares make good headlines, but it’s trash science fit only for comics and the IPCC.
This is what the IPCC tells us about methane.
Although global methane-emissions levels are much lower than CO2 emissions, pound for pound methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas; a ton of it has 23 times the warming effect of a ton of CO2. And methane, like CO2, is on the rise thanks to us: about 60% of global methane emissions come from man-made sources, and the atmospheric concentration of methane has increased by around 150% since 1750, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
If the IPCC had referred to scientists like The Joint FAO/IAEA Programme, which is:
Approximately 600 research institutions and experimental stations in Member Countries co-operate in 40 Co-ordinated Research Projects
A different picture emerges, or at least one that doesn’t fit in with the political message of the IPCC:
Belching Ruminants, a minor player in atmospheric methane
The above graph shoots down two myths at once.
Since 1999 atmospheric methane concentrations have leveled off while the world population of ruminants has increased at an accelerated rate. …………..This change in relationship between the atmosphere and ruminant numbers suggests that the role of ruminants in greenhouse gases may be less significant than originally thought, with other sources and sinks playing a larger role in global methane accounting.
The information exists if the IPCC wants to find it.
On November 17, 2003 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the concentration of the potent greenhouse gas methane in the atmosphere was leveling off and it appears to have remained at this 1999 level
Someone forgot to tell the IPCC, and apparently no one from the IPCC knows how to do an online search.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 acknowledged that methane concentrations have plateaued, with emissions being equivalent to removals.
So, they knew, but decided to ignore the published science.
At this time there is no relationship between increasing ruminant numbers and changes in atmospheric methane concentrations changes, a break from previously assumed role of ruminants in greenhouse gases…
…Seeing that the total source has remained constant for at least the last two decades, it is questionable whether human activities can cause methane concentrations to increase greatly in the future.
So what’s all the hype about giving up meat about you may ask? It’s politics, not science. The IPCC is not the place to look for scientific facts. It’s more like the world repository of myths and urban legends.
People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world’s leading authority on global warming has told The Observer
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further.
Absolute tripe, with no scientific resaon or purpose, much like the IPCC.
I think that this, and my previous post about there being no risk from a catastrophic methane release, pretty well puts the methane hype to bed.
Source: Time, NAWEB, Guardian UK
The IPCC doesn’t mention the actual concentration in the atmosphere – 150% of absolutely minuscule is still negligible.
I watched a debate on BBC’s Sunday morning show (28 Feb. 2010) “The Big Questions” about whether we should all be turning vegetarian to save the planet!
Interestingly, not a single voice on either side of the debate questioned that eating meat was destroying the planet. Many didn’t want to give up meat but they conceded that it was a bad thing to do.
I believe it shows that, because of lack of coverage in the MSM, the majority of the public have not been exposed to the sceptical viewpoint, anti-AGW evidence and that ‘Climategate’ and all the other ‘…Gates’ have simply passed them by.
It’s going to be a long, hard slog!