Very battered and bruised from the loss of a very strong and pounding post I made over a month ago regarding a one of the BBC’s environmental newz articles, I dare to venture back into the arena.
This time regarding http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14476389
The article is about the apparent reduction in ‘growth rate’ of atmospheric methane. The sloppy article fails to say whether the rate is positive or negative (i.e. the actual level is increasing or decreasing – I don’t have time to read the source, I’m only commenting on the BBC part of it).
If the article was about the increase in growth rate, the article would surely not have hesitated to say how elevated levels of methane contribute strongly to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). One could be forgiven therefore to imagine an article about lower levels would mention something along the lines of “decreased growth rates of methane in the atmosphere may indicate a trend towards global cooling”.
Having FOUND the growth rate levels are down, we get the baseless supposition:
” there are suggestions that methane levels are now on the rise again.”
followed immediately by the new paragrpah
“Methane is regarded as one of the most potent greenhouse gases, trapping over 20 times more atmospheric heat than carbon dioxide. “
OK OK OK, this is the BBC – you gotta expect some crap, and the expectation sure don’t go by unmet.
By the way, in the medical profession, when certain increases are found e.g. Autism this is solely attributed to greater accuracy in diagnosis. But methane rates, either up or down, (how did they measure atmospheric methane in the industrial revolution? and who did that measuring? Ice core samples perhaps??).
There is also babble that the reason for the three decade decline in methane is because Asian farmers have switched to synthetic fertilisers instead of traditional manure fertilisers…Oh, so that over 30 years we much greater head of cattle producing much more cattle dung irrespective of whether it’s used in a paddy or not isn’t relevant. Marvellous.
“”We think the trend we see in methane is best explained by dramatic changes in emissions linked to fossil fuel production and use which seem to have declined in the 1980s and 1990s. “
Yeah, pretty conclusive decline there.
“Climate sceptics who think that natural factors and not human activities play a more important role in temperature rise…”
Frist of all, one again look how it’s temperature “RISE” inclined, and in no way suggestive that the reduction in growth rate may signal a turning point towards a period of global cooling, hene deserving the script: “spectics believe natural factors could cause more cooling than anthropogenic factors”.
And what of the term “Climate sceptics”? What does this really mean? Is it supposed to mean people who deny there is a climate??? Is deployment of this term meant to ridicule? Shouldn’t the description be something along the lines of “sceptics of well publicides claims regarding levels of AGW” by the likes of the Al Gore and East Anglia Universities ‘Climatic Research Unit’ each of whom have been embroiled in questionable behaviour” etc?
And is the quoted sentence above saying ALL so called “climate sceptics” are like this? It could refer to just a particular subset but then it the sentence doesn’t really make much sense to single them out. It seems the claim is indeed aimed at ALL sceptics.
and to top it off…
“I think both studies are actually suggesting that human activities are playing a very important role in determining the methane levels in the atmosphere,” he explained.
As we use more and more fossil fuels, you can be sure it will start creeping up again slowly, I think it demonstrates pretty clearly that human activities have direct and pretty profound impacts on the levels of these gases in the atmosphere.”
This Dr Murat Aydin seems like an idiot to me. How does the result lead one to exclue natural factors? I guess by this very idiocy that Aydin is a pro-AGWer. He totally inverts what is FOUND… There is no creeping up at all. If anything there is a creeping down, no wait, the article says earlier on that the reduction was “substantial”
P.S., today I heard Captain Planet (who does nothing against banks, governments and corporations what are raping the environment for a fist full of dollars) say:
“If the population keeps growing the way it is, tere will be too many people everywhere” – Captain Planet
Why do I have a feeling I know just which people dear Captain Planet would like to see a reduction in?