oops climate changers are wrong again

[TemplarKormac]

A team of MIT scientists recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels -the first increase in ten years. What baffles the team is that this data contradicts theories stating humans are the primary source of increase in 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. Since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, however, it is probable that this may be part of a natural cycle - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

MIT's Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor

LOL

Arctic News: Dramatic rise in methane levels since end July 2013

NASA finds high CO2 & methane levels over Arctic permafrost » The Zingularity

NASA Visible Earth: Methane Emissions from the Arctic Ocean

Arctic methane: Russian researchers report - Arctic Sea Ice

"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said. "I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them."

So where in those links does it say humans caused it?

I suppose I could try to explain this in words of one syllable. However, the Arctic is experiancing the highest rise in temperature of any area on the planet. So that raises the temperatue of the ocean and land. And the permafrost and ocean clathrates are emitting CH4. A lot of CH4. Which, on a decadal time scale, is over 100 times as effective of a greenhouse gas as CO2.

You never answered my question. Where does it say humans caused it? Or are you hard of reading?

 

[Old Rocks]

January 10, 2012

An extensively peer-reviewed study published last December in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics indicates that observed climate changes since 1850 are linked to cyclical, predictable, naturally occurring events in Earth’s solar system with little or no help from us. The research was conducted by Nicola Scafetta, a scientist at Duke University and at the Active Cavity Radiometer Solar Irradiance Monitor Lab (ACRIM), which is associated with the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. It takes issue with methodologies applied by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) using “general circulation climate models” (GCMs) that, by ignoring these important influences, are found to fail to reproduce the observed decadal and multi-decadal climatic cycles.

Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change - Forbes

Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the general circulation climate models

Oops, you alarmists are still wrong.

LOL. Climate change by astrology.

Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the general circulation climate models

We compare the performance of a recently proposed empirical climate model based on astronomical harmonics against all CMIP3 available general circulation climate models (GCM) used by the IPCC (2007) to interpret the 20th century global surface temperature. The proposed astronomical empirical climate model assumes that the climate is resonating with, or synchronized to a set of natural harmonics that, in previous works (Scafetta, 2010b, 2011b), have been associated to the solar system planetary motion, which is mostly determined by Jupiter and Saturn. We show that the GCMs fail to reproduce the major decadal and multidecadal oscillations found in the global surface temperature record from 1850 to 2011. On the contrary, the proposed harmonic model (which herein uses cycles with 9.1, 10–10.5, 20–21, 60–62 year periods) is found to well reconstruct the observed climate oscillations from 1850 to 2011, and it is shown to be able to forecast the climate oscillations from 1950 to 2011 using the data covering the period 1850–1950, and vice versa. The 9.1-year cycle is shown to be likely related to a decadal Soli/Lunar tidal oscillation, while the 10–10.5, 20–21 and 60–62 year cycles are synchronous to solar and heliospheric planetary oscillations. We show that the IPCC GCM's claim that all warming observed from 1970 to 2000 has been anthropogenically induced is erroneous because of the GCM failure in reconstructing the quasi 20-year and 60-year climatic cycles. Finally, we show how the presence of these large natural cycles can be used to correct the IPCC projected anthropogenic warming trend for the 21st century. By combining this corrected trend with the natural cycles, we show that the temperature may not significantly increase during the next 30 years mostly because of the negative phase of the 60-year cycle. If multisecular natural cycles (which according to some authors have significantly contributed to the observed 1700–2010 warming and may contribute to an additional natural cooling by 2100) are ignored, the same IPCC projected anthropogenic emissions would imply a global warming by about 0.3–1.2 °C by 2100, contrary to the IPCC 1.0–3.6 °C projected warming. The results of this paper reinforce previous claims that the relevant physical mechanisms that explain the detected climatic cycles are still missing in the current GCMs and that climate variations at the multidecadal scales are astronomically induced and, in first approximation, can be forecast.

 

[Old Rocks]

So where in those links does it say humans caused it?

I suppose I could try to explain this in words of one syllable. However, the Arctic is experiancing the highest rise in temperature of any area on the planet. So that raises the temperatue of the ocean and land. And the permafrost and ocean clathrates are emitting CH4. A lot of CH4. Which, on a decadal time scale, is over 100 times as effective of a greenhouse gas as CO2.

You never answered my question. Where does it say humans caused it? Or are you hard of reading?

No, I read very well. The problem is simply that you are stupid. GHGs, from the burning of fossil fuels have raised temperatures worldwide, but especially in the Arctic. The methane being emitted from the Arctic sources is a feedback from the GHGs we have put into the atmosphere.

 

[Gadawg73]

Anyone here ever heard of National Glazier Park?
IN AMERICA
100 years ago it had over 150 glaciers.
Now it has 25 and shrinking.
They will be gone in less than 30 years.

And folks claim there is no climate change.
NO ice core data ever has revealed this fast of a meltdown of glaciers, EVER.
Anyone that believes this is part of some cycle is not very swift.
The last cycle of this was over 3000 years long, and it was a quick one.
100 years is no cycle. This is real, wake up Americans.

There's a difference between denying climate change and denying that humans cause it. It's a common misconception. I contend that humans play no part in climate change. The climate change you see has been happening since before the dawn of man.

Perhaps we need to look at Ice Core charts:

We peaked at a global temp of 3 degrees Celsius about 325,000 and 120,000 years ago, proving that such a phenomena can occur without human interference.

Well who produces the increases of CO2 into the atmosphere which is the conclusive reason by the UNited States Geological Survey of the cause?
Total vehicles surpassed 1 billion last year. HEAT from the exhaust along with CO2 and increased particles in the air caused by worldwide pollution causes the glaciers to melt.
Man has caused most of it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

January 10, 2012

An extensively peer-reviewed study published last December in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics indicates that observed climate changes since 1850 are linked to cyclical, predictable, naturally occurring events in Earth’s solar system with little or no help from us. The research was conducted by Nicola Scafetta, a scientist at Duke University and at the Active Cavity Radiometer Solar Irradiance Monitor Lab (ACRIM), which is associated with the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. It takes issue with methodologies applied by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) using “general circulation climate models” (GCMs) that, by ignoring these important influences, are found to fail to reproduce the observed decadal and multi-decadal climatic cycles.

Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change - Forbes

Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the general circulation climate models

Oops, you alarmists are still wrong.

LOL. Climate change by astrology.

Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the general circulation climate models

We compare the performance of a recently proposed empirical climate model based on astronomical harmonics against all CMIP3 available general circulation climate models (GCM) used by the IPCC (2007) to interpret the 20th century global surface temperature. The proposed astronomical empirical climate model assumes that the climate is resonating with, or synchronized to a set of natural harmonics that, in previous works (Scafetta, 2010b, 2011b), have been associated to the solar system planetary motion, which is mostly determined by Jupiter and Saturn. We show that the GCMs fail to reproduce the major decadal and multidecadal oscillations found in the global surface temperature record from 1850 to 2011. On the contrary, the proposed harmonic model (which herein uses cycles with 9.1, 10–10.5, 20–21, 60–62 year periods) is found to well reconstruct the observed climate oscillations from 1850 to 2011, and it is shown to be able to forecast the climate oscillations from 1950 to 2011 using the data covering the period 1850–1950, and vice versa. The 9.1-year cycle is shown to be likely related to a decadal Soli/Lunar tidal oscillation, while the 10–10.5, 20–21 and 60–62 year cycles are synchronous to solar and heliospheric planetary oscillations. We show that the IPCC GCM's claim that all warming observed from 1970 to 2000 has been anthropogenically induced is erroneous because of the GCM failure in reconstructing the quasi 20-year and 60-year climatic cycles. Finally, we show how the presence of these large natural cycles can be used to correct the IPCC projected anthropogenic warming trend for the 21st century. By combining this corrected trend with the natural cycles, we show that the temperature may not significantly increase during the next 30 years mostly because of the negative phase of the 60-year cycle. If multisecular natural cycles (which according to some authors have significantly contributed to the observed 1700–2010 warming and may contribute to an additional natural cooling by 2100) are ignored, the same IPCC projected anthropogenic emissions would imply a global warming by about 0.3–1.2 °C by 2100, contrary to the IPCC 1.0–3.6 °C projected warming. The results of this paper reinforce previous claims that the relevant physical mechanisms that explain the detected climatic cycles are still missing in the current GCMs and that climate variations at the multidecadal scales are astronomically induced and, in first approximation, can be forecast.

Funny how you never tried to counter it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Anyone here ever heard of National Glazier Park?
IN AMERICA
100 years ago it had over 150 glaciers.
Now it has 25 and shrinking.
They will be gone in less than 30 years.

And folks claim there is no climate change.
NO ice core data ever has revealed this fast of a meltdown of glaciers, EVER.
Anyone that believes this is part of some cycle is not very swift.
The last cycle of this was over 3000 years long, and it was a quick one.
100 years is no cycle. This is real, wake up Americans.

There's a difference between denying climate change and denying that humans cause it. It's a common misconception. I contend that humans play no part in climate change. The climate change you see has been happening since before the dawn of man.

Perhaps we need to look at Ice Core charts:

We peaked at a global temp of 3 degrees Celsius about 325,000 and 120,000 years ago, proving that such a phenomena can occur without human interference.

Well who produces the increases of CO2 into the atmosphere which is the conclusive reason by the UNited States Geological Survey of the cause?
Total vehicles surpassed 1 billion last year. HEAT from the exhaust along with CO2 and increased particles in the air caused by worldwide pollution causes the glaciers to melt.
Man has caused most of it.

Ah, no. Given the cycles, I think such levels of CO2 can naturally occur without human intervention. It's arrogant to assume that humankind can suddenly influence a natural climate cycle in the way climate change alarmists are claiming.

 

[Vox]

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013

.

If you go to the tear 1976 you can find them producing a statement about catastrophic cooling

we were supposed to freeze by now.

Oh, and run of oil totally

 

[Vox]

Anyone here ever heard of National Glazier Park?
IN AMERICA
100 years ago it had over 150 glaciers.
Now it has 25 and shrinking.
They will be gone in less than 30 years.

And folks claim there is no climate change.
NO ice core data ever has revealed this fast of a meltdown of glaciers, EVER.
Anyone that believes this is part of some cycle is not very swift.
The last cycle of this was over 3000 years long, and it was a quick one.
100 years is no cycle. This is real, wake up Americans.

There's a difference between denying climate change and denying that humans cause it. It's a common misconception. I contend that humans play no part in climate change. The climate change you see has been happening since before the dawn of man.

Perhaps we need to look at Ice Core charts:

We peaked at a global temp of 3 degrees Celsius about 325,000 and 120,000 years ago, proving that such a phenomena can occur without human interference.

Well who produces the increases of CO2 into the atmosphere which is the conclusive reason by the UNited States Geological Survey of the cause?
Total vehicles surpassed 1 billion last year. HEAT from the exhaust along with CO2 and increased particles in the air caused by worldwide pollution causes the glaciers to melt.
Man has caused most of it.

NOPE.

Man has caused none of it.
You would be aware of that if you would know how to read that graph - it is pretty amazing it is so perfectly repeating itself

 

[Old Rocks]

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013

.

If you go to the tear 1976 you can find them producing a statement about catastrophic cooling

we were supposed to freeze by now.

Oh, and run of oil totally

Well, we have ran out of cheap oil. And your statement concerning the predictions of the '60's are validation of your ignorance.



What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."


"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Peer-Reviewed Literature

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

 

[Old Rocks]

There's a difference between denying climate change and denying that humans cause it. It's a common misconception. I contend that humans play no part in climate change. The climate change you see has been happening since before the dawn of man.

Perhaps we need to look at Ice Core charts:

We peaked at a global temp of 3 degrees Celsius about 325,000 and 120,000 years ago, proving that such a phenomena can occur without human interference.

Well who produces the increases of CO2 into the atmosphere which is the conclusive reason by the UNited States Geological Survey of the cause?
Total vehicles surpassed 1 billion last year. HEAT from the exhaust along with CO2 and increased particles in the air caused by worldwide pollution causes the glaciers to melt.
Man has caused most of it.

NOPE.

Man has caused none of it.
You would be aware of that if you would know how to read that graph - it is pretty amazing it is so perfectly repeating itself

Come on, you guys are embarrassing.

Milankovitch Cycles - Overview of Milankovitch Cycles

Milankovitch Cycles

Astronomer Milutin Milankovitch developed the mathematical formulas upon which these orbital variations are based. He hypothesized that when some parts of the cyclic variations are combined and occur at the same time, they are responsible for major changes to the earth's climate (even ice ages). Milankovitch estimated climatic fluctuations over the last 450,000 years and described cold and warm periods. Though he did his work in the first half of the 20th century, Milankovich's results weren't proven until the 1970s.

A 1976 study, published in the journal Science examined deep-sea sediment cores and found that Milankovich's theory corresponded to periods of climate change. Indeed, ice ages had occurred when the earth was going through different stages of orbital variation.

Now here is a real expert on the relationship of climate and GHGs.


A23A

Yes, there have been periods of rapid warming in the past when geological events created rapid increases of the GHGs in the atmosphere. And the physics for those events is the same, whether created by natural geological events, or by mankind.

 

[bodecea]

Arctic Circle Was Supposed to be ‘Ice-Free’ by 2013


Conservabuzz ? Whoops: Arctic Circle Was Supposed to be ?Ice-Free? by 2013

How's Colorado doing?

 

[auditor0007]

Arctic Circle Was Supposed to be ‘Ice-Free’ by 2013


Conservabuzz ? Whoops: Arctic Circle Was Supposed to be ?Ice-Free? by 2013

I found an article that says it "could be" ice free by 2058. Taking one person's subjective view and stating it as a widely held belief among everyone who understands the facts behind global warming is just plain stupid.

Arctic could be ice-free by 2058

 

[RollingThunder]

Extreme Ice Survey Photos, Video, Glaciers Wallpaper, Download, Photos -- National Geographic

And, on every continent, including Antarctica, the glaciers are in retreat.

Is Global Warming Part of Earth's Natural Cycle: MIT Team Says "Yes" -A Galaxy Insight

Just out of curiosity, are you really retarded enough to imagine that anyone with any sense is going to believe a lie filled 'article' posted by some unknown putz on some obscure blog, this "dailygalaxy.com weblog" you cited? Before falling for this distorted hokum, did it ever occur to you to check out some possibly better, more reputable sources of information on the research being cited? Are you a troll?

There is no place in the original articles on this research where the scientists involved even begin to suggest that the current abrupt global warming trend is being caused by "natural cycles". That part of the title of the blog piece you quoted is entirely a fabrication of whoever wrote that blogbarf. That person is a liar and either you are too or else you're just another denier cultist who's too stupid to double check your sources. Here's the original source article.

Levels of the greenhouse gas methane begin to increase again
New surge ends a decade of stability; cause still unknown
David Chandler, MIT News Office
October 29, 2008
Reprinted with permission of MIT News
The amount of methane in Earth's atmosphere shot up in 2007, bringing to an end a period of about a decade in which atmospheric levels of the potent greenhouse gas were essentially stable, according to a team led by MIT researchers.

Methane levels in the atmosphere have more than tripled since pre-industrial times, accounting for around one-fifth of the human contribution to greenhouse gas-driven global warming. Until recently, the leveling off of methane levels had suggested that the rate of its emission from the Earth's surface was approximately balanced by the rate of its destruction in the atmosphere.

However, since early 2007 the balance has been upset, according to a paper on the new findings being published this week in Geophysical Review Letters. The paper's lead authors, postdoctoral researcher Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, say this imbalance has resulted in several million metric tons of additional methane in the atmosphere. Methane is produced by wetlands, rice paddies, cattle, and the gas and coal industries, and is destroyed by reaction with the hydroxyl free radical (OH), often referred to as the atmosphere's "cleanser."

One surprising feature of this recent growth is that it occurred almost simultaneously at all measurement locations across the globe. However, the majority of methane emissions are in the Northern Hemisphere, and it takes more than one year for gases to be mixed from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere. Hence, theoretical analysis of the measurements shows that if an increase in emissions is solely responsible, these emissions must have risen by a similar amount in both hemispheres at the same time.

A rise in Northern Hemispheric emissions may be due to the very warm conditions that were observed over Siberia throughout 2007, potentially leading to increased bacterial emissions from wetland areas. However, a potential cause for an increase in Southern Hemispheric emissions is less clear.

An alternative explanation for the rise may lie, at least in part, with a drop in the concentrations of the methane-destroying OH. Theoretical studies show that if this has happened, the required global methane emissions rise would have been smaller, and more strongly biased to the Northern Hemisphere. At present, however, it is uncertain whether such a drop in hydroxyl free radical concentrations did occur because of the inherent uncertainty in the current method for estimating global OH levels.

To help pin down the cause of the methane increase, Prinn said, "the next step will be to study this using a very high-resolution atmospheric circulation model and additional measurements from other networks." But doing that could take another year, he said, and because the detection of increased methane has important consequences for global warming the team wanted to get these initial results out as quickly as possible.

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

It is too early to tell whether this increase represents a return to sustained methane growth, or the beginning of a relatively short-lived anomaly, according to Rigby and Prinn. Given that, pound for pound, methane is 25 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, the situation will require careful monitoring in the near future.

In addition to Rigby and Prinn, the study was carried out by researchers at Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Bristol and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. These methane measurements come from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE) that is supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Australian CSIRO network.

(Terms of Use -- Reprinted with permission of MIT News) (MIT News Office)


****************

 

[TemplarKormac]

I love how people keep repeating my post. Yet none of you have proven that humans are the direct cause of Global Warming.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Extreme Ice Survey Photos, Video, Glaciers Wallpaper, Download, Photos -- National Geographic

And, on every continent, including Antarctica, the glaciers are in retreat.

Is Global Warming Part of Earth's Natural Cycle: MIT Team Says "Yes" -A Galaxy Insight

Just out of curiosity, are you really retarded enough to imagine that anyone with any sense is going to believe a lie filled 'article' posted by some unknown putz on some obscure blog, this "dailygalaxy.com weblog" you cited?

You failed to show me where it lied, genius.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Educate yourselves.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl4Pz1mwBao]Unstoppable Solar Cycles - YouTube[/ame]

 

[billyerock1991]

But but but but but the prophet algore said that we were all going to be boiling in sea water by now---------you mean he lied?

he didn't say that ...

 

[LeftofLeft]

Gore rule invoked. First person to invoke Al Gore forfeits the discussion for their side. Those who can discuss the science, do. That who can't rave about personalities like Gore. And you don't see anyone on the rational side talking about Gore.

Looks like you finally realized how full of shit and corrupt Al Gore is too if you are removing him from the debate. That's a good start.

 

[jknowgood]

“The BBC’s 2007 report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, [Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California] who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that ‘we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice.’” At the time, the prediction was claimed to be a “conservative” forecast.

Not sure how you get more “conservative” then “no ice”, but I digress. In fact, BBC’s forecast was so far off that new satellite imagery shows that the Arctic has60 percent more ice now than it did in 2007 –one million miles more to be exact.

So yeah.. wrong again

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

Really? One million square miles more ice? Do you purposely lie, or are you just that gullable? By this graph, less than 600,000 sq kilometers of more than in 2007. That is a lot less than 1 million sq miles.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

But we are used to the lies that the denialists spew on this subject.

Denialist hasn't changed the name of it three times, because what is happening is the opposite of what is really going on.

 

[Vox]

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013

.

If you go to the tear 1976 you can find them producing a statement about catastrophic cooling

we were supposed to freeze by now.

Oh, and run of oil totally

Well, we have ran out of cheap oil. And your statement concerning the predictions of the '60's are validation of your ignorance.



What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."


"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Peer-Reviewed Literature

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Don't change the subject from the alarmist predictions of running short of oil altogether to political manipulation of the oil market which your messiah is to be blamed for. Aim to milk the Americans in order to enrich poltical donors has NOTHING to do with physical availability of plenty of oil, despite the hysteria of those who have been proven wrong yet again but continue to lie and lie and lie about unexistent human impact on climate.

There is NO GW so there is no green house effect on it, the least being human fault to unexistent problem.

Methane is abundunt in dthe earth and has nothing to do with humans at all