Climate Science Underestimates Natural Sources of Warming
Scientists discover two more potent sources of greenhouse gases, both of which have nothing to do with human activity.
When you build a model for something as large and complex as the earth’s biosphere, how can you be sure you have accounted for all the pertinent factors? Climate modelers, along with Darwinians, have the distinction of being among the most dogmatic of all scientists, and yet we have repeatedly shown factors (reported in the secular news) where they have goofed. Here are two more.
Masses of methane from mud volcanoes (Phys.org). Methane (CH4) is one of the most potent greenhouse gases, far more potent than the carbon dioxide (CO2) that civilization has been taught to worry about. The Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres has just uncovered evidence that methane is pouring out of tectonic plate margins. Human activity has nothing to do with what goes on down there.
In the seabed, there are numerous microorganisms that play an important role in the global carbon cycle. Until now, however, it has not been understood to what extent geodynamic processes such as the subduction of oceanic plates influence this microbial activity and, in turn, impact the carbon balance. A study carried out by an international team of researchers, including scientists from the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, now provides new evidence. They drilled down to a depth of 200 meters into an underwater mud volcano. Based on the recovered samples, they found that the microorganisms in the sediment are extremely active and form about 90 percent of the methane released from that depth. Apparently, the role of mud volcanoes in the global methane cycle has been significantly underestimated, the authors now conclude.
Is this just a small anomaly they found at one site? Probably not, according to the report. The impact on climate models could be substantial:
The results show that 90 percent of the methane was produced by microorganisms; only a small part was formed at great depth through chemical processes alone. Obviously, the microbes are fed by fluids pressed through the powerful sediments after subduction. “If these mud volcanoes are not completely unique in the world, and there’s no indication at all for this, then the role of mud volcanoes in the global methane cycle has been massively underestimated,” says Kallmeyer. “Furthermore, the study shows that indicators for the formation processes of methane—biological or chemical to date—do not work in the investigated mud volcano. If this applies to others, then the global models on the origin of atmospheric methane need to be rethought.”
Who will rethink it? How soon will the climate models that Big Science uses to threaten world governments change to correct for this “underestimate” of a major greenhouse gas? How long will humans be blamed for something they didn’t do?
For more on greenhouse gases at deep sea vents, see another paper by McNichol et al. on PNAS, “Primary productivity below the seafloor at deep-sea hot springs.”
Dry riverbeds are contributing to climate change more than previously thought (Science Daily), based on an article from James Cook University, “When the river runs high: A massive world-wide study of dry riverbeds has found they’re contributing more carbon emissions than previously thought, and this could help scientists better understand how to fight climate change.” A big international study should put egg on the face of spokespersons for the climate science consensus.
Dr Nathan Waltham from the Tropical Water and Aquatic Eco-systems Research Centre (TropWATER) and James Cook University in Australia, joined scientists from 22 other countries who looked at 212 dry riverbeds on every continent on earth.
He said the contribution of intermittent rivers and streams to the process of carbon cycling — the process by which carbon is circulated around the ecosystem — is largely ignored.
Who ignored this? Climate scientists, who didn’t think to measure this factor before. When you stop ignoring it and take it into account, it’s a large factor, this study concludes. Intermittent rivers dominate the landscape in many regions, although they have been “far less studied” the perennial streams, and yet they comprise half of the world’s stream networks. Decomposition of leaf litter during wet seasons contributes a large amount to carbon dioxide emissions, the scientists found. This factor, again, has been going on for millennia without humans being at fault.
“We believe that a single pulse of CO2 emission upon litter rewetting contributes up to 10% of the daily CO2 emission compared to perennial rivers and streams, particularly in temperate climates. What this means is that the contributions of intermittent rivers and streams should be included in global carbon-cycling assessments,” said Dr Waltham.
The scientists found that aridity, surrounding vegetation, channel width and dry-phase duration explained most variability in the quantity and decomposability of plant litter.
He said that the new data shows the contribution of CO2 from intermittent rivers and streams is higher than previously thought.
Consensus Is Often More Powerful than Facts
What’s alarming about these two reports is that they represent unknowns only just now brought to light. How many “unknown unknowns” remain out there, “largely ignored” by climate consensus?
The main question to keep in mind about global warming is, How much are humans causing it? The two factors here, reported in the secular pro-consensus news, have uncovered data that climate modelers either didn’t think about or have “largely ignored.” Climate scientists might continue ignoring these factors unless someone hands the leaders of the consensus these reports and insists that the models be recalculated with the new information. Who will make that happen? There is no guarantee that new information will make it into revisions. Nature just published a letter by three scientists about the problem of zombie papers that are wrong but keep getting cited: “Exorcising citations to the ‘living dead’ from the literature.” Hundreds—perhaps thousands—of papers about greenhouse gases are unlikely to be corrected by these new findings, but will continue to be cited.
The certainty about anthropogenic global warming has become fossilized into memes and reports that have already influenced world governments meeting at international conferences in Paris and other cities. None of the consensus promoters are likely to say, “Whoops, we were wrong!” and tear up the recommendations. There’s too much momentum behind the consensus.
An example of pro-consensus bias, reported by pro-warming secular reporters, can be seen in Ross Pomeroy’s article, written for RealClearScience and re-posted on Space.com: “Trump’s NASA Chief Changed His Mind on Climate Change. He Is a Scientific Hero.” It’s about how Jim Bridenstine, Trump’s pick for NASA Administrator and a former climate skeptic, kowtowed to the consensus. Now that he agrees humans are responsible for global warming, Big Science no longer has to label him with the black hat of “climate denier.” Now that he has repented, they congratulate his courage for leaving the company of conservative climate skeptics. They are especially pleased he will no longer be threatening NASA funding for more consensus studies. Why did Bridenstine change his views? “I heard a lot of experts, and I read a lot,” he says. Depending on the experts, and the reading material, one could arrive at opposite conclusions. Doubtless, Bridenstine was not handed these two new studies.
Update 6/20/18: In another example of dogmatic overconfidence, Phys.org published a piece, “James Hansen wishes he wasn’t so right about global warming.” One of the heroes of the climate consensus, James Hansen is portrayed as ultimately vindicated by sounding the alarm 30 years ago. Does writer Seth Borenstein allow room for any dispute over the data? “James Hansen wishes he was wrong. He wasn’t.” Phys.org published a second piece to celebrate the 30th anniversary of global warming, “AP Was There: The age of climate change begins.” No one would know from reading such articles that there is any controversy at all.
Once again, we need to state that CEH does not take a position on global warming. Reports like this, however, reveal the uncanny resemblance to the behavior of Darwin Party ‘experts’ who cannot tolerate debate. We’ve seen Darwinian evolution take nuclear blasts to its web of belief, and yet the repairmen go to work and put it back together as if nothing happened (see a recent case with W. Ford Doolittle’s expose of natural selection, followed by his re-imagining it in mystical terms).
How leading experts can perpetuate myths.
Science reporters are also overly optimistic about the myth that science is ‘self-correcting,’ as in this essay by Marilyn Marchione on Phys.org, “Science Says: What happens when researchers make mistakes.” (Any time a reporter says ‘Science Says:’, watch out! You’re being snookered by a bandwagon argument, an argument from authority, or both.) Marchione whitewashes the problem of fraud and error in science, making it seem like it’s not a big problem to begin with, and errors tend to be corrected rapidly. Not so. Read the last chapter of Jerry Bergman’s excellent new book, Evolution’s Blunders, Frauds and Fallacies, where he challenges the myth that science is self-correcting. He cites numerous experts and their statistics to show that fraud, misconduct and mistakes are huge problems, always have been, and scientists know it. This is after he has documented a dozen huge blunders that fooled the world’s leading scientists for decades or more! Is climate change a recent example? Darwinism sure seems vulnerable for a major collapse: that is, if we can just weaken the intolerant dogmatism of its totalitarian defenders.