Danish researchers have found evidence of a massive “earth burp” that “pumped over 12,000 gigatons of methane into the atmosphere during the final years of the Triassic.” This coincided much closer to mass extinctions than volcanic activity which produced carbon dioxide.
“The original [Triassic extinction] theory blamed the extinction and atmospheric change on carbon released during a period of intense volcanism…”
Carbon dioxide did play a part, as a “small release” initiated warming, but the methane release “led to an increase in atmospheric temperature around the globe – and organisms and ecosystems were simply unable adapt to their hotter environment.”
Researchers note that planetary conditions were very different then and “are hardly comparable to the modern world.”
“We have to remember that the world in the past was a very different. All the continents were still together, there were no glaciers. Ocean currents were probably very different.”
At the very least, this new research throws more suspicion on current manmade global warming theories, making caution more reasonable when considering policy changes.
I am no physicist, but I have long suspected clathrite on the ocean floor was a much better suspect as a sudden climate change agent than CO2. With large deposits in shallow waters, and the ease with which it can decay, hmmmmm…..
Shhh. Don’t use that word. You don’t want to rouse our resident p*y*i*i*t.
Tee hee! Remember the old man in Life of Brian, who jumped up and down shouting “Jehovah” until the people stoned him? Your comment reminded me of that scene.
We need to tap it and use it as fuel — and hopefully reduce the danger and volume of any future “burps.”
Methane-associated AGW is real … but for sure, it ain’t news … already dozens of scientific articles have been written about it.
AGW-driven methane release is one of many reasons why the observed rapid thawing of Earth’s Arctic regions is hugely sobering news.
Scientific American for March 2010 had a nice summary.
——-
Methane Leaks off Siberian Coast, Speeding Climate Change
Scientific American, March 2010
URL: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=methane-siberia-climate-change
Here we go….he’s talking about cow farts.
Nice try with the glib derogation routine. A few quick references. NY Times, one of those ‘ideologically driven’ sources you mentioned at:
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/07/20/cern-update-bombshell-in-the-cosmic-ray-data/
NY Times focuses on carbon dioxide. No mention of methane.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html#
EPA gives CO2 preeminence over methane.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
Lists CO2 before methane.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html#inv
CO2 given preference while suggesting policy? Looks like a skewed perspective, to say the least. Thus, a call for caution is reasonable.
CO2 release happens when energy is produced. Energy production causes wealth. Controlling CO2 emissions gives you a lever on controlling wealth.
Bingo!!! The ‘progressive’ agenda in 2 concise sentences. That actually makes them regressives, since history shows our most common state of existence is pretty rough. Control the resources, control the wealth, control the people. The essence of feudalism.
It’s called getting rich at our expense. Kick the can down the alley and let the next generation deal with it. If wealth wants to stay in the public’s good graces, forcing more wealth out of the public and paying for it later by the public at no expense to the wealthy is not a good way to work.
The “rapid thawing of the Earth’s Arctic regions” is news, but the icing of the Antarctic regions is not.
Curious.
Rob, anyone who looks at a globe can see the North Pole is a shallow ocean surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is an island of land surrounded by a deep ocean.
The continents warm first, then the shallow oceans, and then the deep oceans … and that’s the common-sense reason why AGW was predicted to be seen first in the Arctic north, and seen only later in the Antarctic south
And that is precisely what we see now.
But soberingly … satellites are now starting to see Antarctic (and Greenland) land-ice sliding into the ocean … which is more bad news.
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
URL: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
“Rob, anyone who looks at a globe can see the North Pole is a shallow ocean surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is an island of land surrounded by a deep ocean.
The continents warm first, then the shallow oceans, and then the deep oceans … ”
Your “predictions” aren’t panning out, are they? In fact, they’re more “contradictions” than “predictions”.
You (correctly) noted that the Antarctic is land. Then said that land warms first. But that land in the Antarctic (and, BTW, the seas around it) is cooling — so your predictions are wrong.
Oh, BTW — ice from the Greenland and Antarctic ice packs is ALWAYS sliding into the oceans.
Yah mean like *this*, Rob?
It appears that the scientists, the businessmen, America’s hunters-and-fishers, and the US Navy all are 100% right to be concerned …
Mass balance of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
URL: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/mass-balance-of-the-west-antarctic-ice-sheet
Cherry-picking again?
You shouldn’t just Google up a source; you should read it. That link concerns *PART* of the Antarctic.
You will have to take this with a huge grain of salt, since I am not a revered physicist, only a lowly…well I wont say.
I predict that clathrite deposits will be used for fuel, but in the process of learning how to extract them, we will accidently cause one of these ‘burps’. This will result in much gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair by the greenie crowd because methane’s greenhouse potential is greater than for CO2.
To explain for those who dont understand, clathrite is a water molecule ‘cage’ around methane molecules. This complex forms when methane and water are mixed in low temperature/ high pressure conditions, such as exist under the sea. Methane is produced in the ocean by the decay of organic material, primarily by dead algae and diatoms. The resultant combination, called clathrite, is a solid substance that resembles dry ice. The clathrite complex can decay back to liquid water and gaseous methane fairly quickly by simply either removing the pressure or raising the temperature. Very large formations of this stuff exist on the ocean floor and we can only guess how much there is. My guess would be alot more than there is oil in the world. It is far too large an energy source for us to ignore. I know for certain at least one oil company is working on methods for extracting it and has one experimental rig.
A ‘burp’ would be a large pocket of this stuff decaying suddenly, releasing the methane which would bubble up to the surface and into the atmosphere. This could be caused by anything that could bring warm water into contact with the clathrite formation, or anything that could change the pressure conditions. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, meteorites, changing ocean currents, or maybe a large drillbit could cause this to occur.
Checked on your link there….shameful. Scientific American now reads like a national geographic magazine. That article is under the catagory ‘energy and sustainability’. Sustainability is a progressive buzz-word we are all familiar with.
I have a serious problem also with a small patch of permafrost releasing as much methane as all the worlds oceans….just doesnt make sense. Something hokey going on there with their measuring.
The widely successful politicization of science is the saddest, most shameful thing that has happened in western civilization in my lifetime.
The Physicist is providing information, while the rest of you assert only your opinion. Disagreeing with the science provided doesn’t mean your observations and opinions are correct. 97% of the peer review publishing scientists now agree that humans are the of the warming. Go into Skeptical Science and bring up any doubt that you have, and there is a response to your opinion based in science observations. Solid obstinance is not proof the scientists are wrong. Can you prove your own positions as the truth? It must stand up to doubt.
Never changing your mind no matter what the evidence is not skepticism, its denialism.
I disagree with the position of moving with caution. When it comes to managing risk the denier position is the recipe for disaster.
All the physicists and chemists I know dispute the “a” in “agw”. That’s why it’s evolved into “climate change.”
Physicists are aware that the earth has been both hotter and colder in the past, and has had less and more of both carbon dioxide and methane in the past. They also know we are coming off an ice age, and have been since long before the industrial era. They also know that global temperatures have not changed significantly over the last few decades.
Physicists know there are scale problems with the “agw” theory. That’s why it’s not “agw” any more, but “climate change.” The “a” in “agw” is not well-supported. The essence of “climate” is that it changes. So, the term “climate change” at least has the virtue of being technically correct, even if it is redundant.
You think AGW has problems of scale, look at “oceanic acidification”.
The science coming in is overwhelmingly showing the A in agw. More co2 is more warming for all of us. There is no way around it.
Our present understanding of methane’s role in climate change is well-summarized in Dave Reay, Pete Smith, André van Amstel’s survey Methane and Climate Change … its Introduction can be viewed on Google books.
A key point is that, on a time-scale of a few decades, sunlight breaks-down methane (by a complicated process involving many molecular species) into the end product of (you guessed it) CO2 and water … whereafter the CO2 hangs around for centuries.
So a CO2-driven “burp” of methane from thawing Arctic tundra and warming Arctic-ocean clathrate deposits might indeed drive a sudden, drastic global climate-change, the released methane would disappear after a few human generations … tops! … depending on the breaks!
The practical point is, massive global warming for “a few generations” would be a short geological time … but it would a mighty long time for our children and grandchildren, who would have to live on a hot earth with rapidly rising oceans.
That’s the common-sense reason why the recent findings are grounds for increasing concern about AGW, not relief.
———————-
Methane and Climate Change
URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=NKoxSVbEOHgC
Atmospheric methane undergoes rapid changes and much is converted to atmospheric CO2…. how does this cast doubt on the effects of CO2 from modern human sources? Does it really make a difference if the CO2 increase originates as methane from microbes in the seafloor instead of human tail pipes and smokestacks? You add new chemicals to the beaker (our atmosphere) you can bet the behavior of the contents will change. The research only makes curtailing human emissions that much more urgent, since so much of the current warming is going into the sea, and that heat has the potential to cause a new largescale release from these clathrate formations. If you folks WANT to cause a repeat of the oceanic methane release that ended the triassac, just keep on burning them fossil fuels.
Let’s see here: Terror-driven, massive government intervention in all aspects of our economy and lives, when history proves massive government leads to curtailment of civil and political rights, government sponsored genocide, and feudalism where the few control the many…
Or, taking a chance on Liberty, since all the alarmists can come up with are scare tactics like: “If you folks WANT to cause a repeat of the oceanic methane release that ended the triassac, just keep on burning them fossil fuels.”
Think I’ll take my chances with Liberty.
Again its just obstinance for reasons not to listen. Hating fear is a very poor way to deal with any problem. Its well proven that sea levels are rising. The navy is well aware that all ports in the world will have to changed and then they will have to be changed again. Sea level rise will be one of the greatest employers in the later half of this century.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/21/mass-extinction-caused-by-earths-burp/
Oh no this is an article based out of Fox News. No wonder it is full of shit. If you like your information distorted to a political view, just keep on reading. Keep in mind, its still full of shit.
First its methane then CO2 then back to methane. Its like when global warming started. It was real and happening then it wasn’t because they couldn’t prove it and then they doctored the data but it didn’t make sense so it comes back to the proof thing. Make up your minds already!
It’s not about minds; it’s about centers of feelings.
It’s about control.
Interesting. Control!
I am so sure of AGW that this decade will continue to rise in temperature. And the decade after that will continue to rise and so on.
The conservatives have successfully delayed a rapid pace of mitigation. Only to give up later what you valud most. Control by the Gov. If this is let go too long, it will be necessary to take firmer control for human survival. And guess where the anger will be directed in the 2020′s. The conservatives are so wrong it will cost us plenty later. Much more than today. You will be very wrong on this issue.
David, the science of AGW has been stable on time-scales of decades …
… as anyone can verify by reading the textbooks.
It’s the quibbling of AGW skeptics and the flailing of AGW denialists that changes weekly …
… as anyone can verify by reading PJM/Tatler!
There’s mounting evidence that AGW is accelerating faster than most scientists foresaw … which is yet another reason why American conservatism urgently needs a “Plan B” … that recognizes AGW as a sobering reality.
“David, the science of AGW has been stable on time-scales of decades …”
BS. Utter, complete, BS.
I was around to hear the screeches of the Coming Ice Age. From some of the same clowns as are now predicting the Coming Something Or Other.
“There’s mounting evidence that AGW is accelerating faster than most scientists foresaw…”
You mean like the decade of stable global temperatures? The failure of the number and intensity of hurricanes increase every year? The English children getting to see snow after being told that AGW meant they never would?
You have this great big blind spot for all the failed predictions of AGW. That’s not very scientific.
Dave, you’re quoting neither the scientific literature nor the textbooks … instead you’re quoting the ideology-first “moronic media” … which err similarly often left-versus-right (yah need read only Marxist sites and PJM/Tatler).
By the way … the Arctic’s NorthEast passage opened wide … just a few hours ago … at a record early date. And *that’s* why the hard-nosed conservatives in the US Navy … who formerly were skeptics … now are believers.
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
URL: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
“I think [the decade of stable temperature] supports the arguments of those who’ve said, ‘What’s the rush for policy on this issue?’ ” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist affiliated with George Mason University and the Cato Institute, a group opposing most regulatory solutions to environmental problems.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html
Oops, a scientist made this statement, and in the socialist rag New York Times. Looks like you rushed to derogate without citing sources. Not very scientific for somebody who claims to be a physicist.
“And *that’s* why the hard-nosed conservatives in the US Navy … who formerly were skeptics … now are believers.”
Oh, did your Admiral Titley suddenly multiply?
Of course, we already called you on this:
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/07/20/cern-update-bombshell-in-the-cosmic-ray-data/
Along with your lack of addressing counter- points being made.
Folks who think the US Navy’s climate-change task-force is a one-man-show are dreaming … TFCC is a Navy-wide effort … that is fully justified by (among many strategic factors) the ongoing acceleration of Arctic melting.
Full speed ahead, gentlemen!
Chief of Naval Operations creates Task Force Climate Change (TFCC)
URL: http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/climate-change/
Howard, the ideology-driven folks who cherry-pick 1998 as their index year … then issue press releases that claim “The earth stopped warming” … are politics-first con-artists pure and simple.
Is that a plain enuf answer?
Did global warming stop in 1998?
URL: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
No. So you trotted sources to back your argument. How about answering Rob Crawford, instead of dodging.
Also, the excuse that 1998 was an anomoly and therefore undeserving of the reference point that shows it hasn’t warmed since then is cute. “Let’s just toss out anything that doesn’t make our point.” Boy, that blogger is real scientific. That pesky ocean. Only atmospheric CO2 matters!!!
The truth is that everyone can cite supporting sources, but only one side has a history of spiking data they don’t want to enter into evidence: global warming alarmists.
“The truth is that everyone can cite supporting sources, but only one side has a history of spiking data they don’t want to enter into evidence: global warming alarmists.”
Yes, it is amusing to see someone try an ad hominem attack based on the number of publications, when the AGW crowd has been exposed as blocking the publication of critical papers.
The peer-reviewed papers were driving the press coverage. The scientists were giving press conferences.
You still refuse to address the failed predictions of the AGW cultists. Why? More and stronger hurricanes — didn’t happen. No more snow in England — oops. The last ten years of global temps — flat or declining.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
This is the most important prediction of all that is correct. The world will warm. Almost every year in the 2000′s was warmer than the years in the 1990′s. If you are so quick to proclaim others cherry pick and yet because straw men arguments created by false science are wrong, then all of AGW is wrong. This decade will get warmer.
That’s called living in the past. Denial just doesn’t cut it. Its the organized observations of the thousands of peer reviewed science papers that illustrate AGW is alive and well with enough predictable consequences.
One of the things to remember about AGW alarmists is that since they have failed to convince the general public of their mythology, they instead intend to use government regulation to accomplish their goals.
This is a use of force.
Using force is violence.
Using force is criminal.
They don’t want to let anybody who disagrees with them have a fair opportunity for public discussion.
CERN gags scientists from discussing evidence countering AGW:
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/07/20/cern-update-bombshell-in-the-cosmic-ray-data/
BBC muzzles climate change ‘sceptics’
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/260164/Uproar-as-BBC-muzzles-climate-change-sceptics
This is only a sample of the evidence showing they are already using force to gain supremacy of their views.
Rupert Murdoch loves to break the law to spread his views. This article is sourced out of Fox News. Somehow conservatives love to repeat false information for their own purposes including yourself. Your judgement of truth isn’t very good.
Howard, no one’s forcing you (or anyone) to look at *all* the data …
… but those whose eyes are open, will see a warming planet.
The quibbling of AGW skeptics and the flailing of AGW denialists doesn’t alter in the slightest these harsh realities.
State of the Climate: Global Analysis: June 1880-2012
URL: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201106.gif
You still haven’t addressed the failed predictions of the AGW cultists.
I think it’s because you can’t, and know you can’t.
Here’s my prediction: In five to ten years, warmers will not be citing Arctic sea ice. Three to seven years from now, we’ll be hearing that “short-term changes don’t invalidate the entire trend”. Seven to ten years from now, the metric will simply be abandoned by the side of the road.
They may take up one of their currently abandoned metrics, or they’ll find a metric that contradicts an earlier claim, yet with a carefully constructed just-so story that explains how it’s connected to AGW.
Rob, the skeptical folks at “What’s Up With That?” think like you, and they put their prediction into a pool, along eighteen with the other scientific predictions. Good for them!
It appears though, that the skeptical-science prediction for 2011 is (already) among the *least* accurate, because the Arctic is melting this year at a pace that astonishes (and dismays) pretty much everyone.
So … uh … maybe those skeptical ideas are … well … flat-out wrong?
After all, “Mother Nature can’t be fooled”, as Richard Feynman famously said.
Maybe American conservatism needs a “Plan B” … in case the science is right.
Summer predictions for Arctic sea ice
URL: http://nsidc.org/icelights/
BTW — that graph is of surface temperatures, right?
You *are* aware of the problems with the surface temperature records, right?
I’ve been looking at your citations. Half the time, you cherry pick to maintain your delusion. See my response at the bottom. I am concerned for you.
Watts up with that: just isn’t a go to site for the accurate science. Its a goto for you to hear what you like. Watts innaccuracy is well established. The instrumental temperature reocord is a much more accurate observation than Watts will ever be.
You mean the one where more than 50% of the sensors were in the wrong place? You know, heat traps like airports or next to air conditioner heat outlets? Or the ones in Russia where half or more of them didn’t work, so they just made up numbers and sent them in? THOSE instrumental readings?
*snort*
The problem here John-Boy is that most of us who think AGW is a giant cow-fart in a hurricane, have looked at the data you cite. We also have looked at the mountain of data which refutes it, noted that people such as yourself insist the science is settled when it manifestly is not and refuse to actually debate, choosing instead to deride your detractors rather than answer their legitimate criticisms.
What it comes down to, sir, is that you are a troll, whose masturbatory meanderings amuse no one but yourself.
Where is this mountain of data? Richard LIndzen? Christy? Spencer?
Rob posts:
Wrong. Half ocean, half surface, both show warming.
There are problems with every data record … climate or otherwise … and the literature discusses those problems in-depth. But on the other hand, the data record passes numerous cross-validation checks, which indicates those problems aren’t severe.
The conclusion is that land, sea, and air all are warming … fastest in the Arctic (as predicted).
This of course accords with what every hunter, fisherman, and outdoorsman sees with their own eyes. Because common-sense counts too.
Why not check the data for yourself, Rob … use your common sense too?
Are surface temperature records reliable?
URL: http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm
I am concerned for you. Your continuous postings on the same subject matter, referencing the same information, along with your inability to give any acknowledgement of other’s citations, leads me to believe that you either:
1. Are so intentionally, arrogantly blind to reality that you are nothing but a broken record.
2. Are so insecure about your own level of understanding of this immensely complex subject that you must drown out others’ reason in order to desperately cling to your hard-won but tenuous grasp of the subject matter in order to feel good about yourself.
So which is it? It may have to do with behavior patterns developed as the result of ACA.
Really good math, really good science, really good engineering, and really good medicine, have always faced what Einstein called “violent opposition from mediocre minds.” AGW is just one more instance in a long history. We all remember the violent opposition of the Tobacco Industry, to the science that showed cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. Or the violent opposition of Soviet Communism, to the reality of Darwian evolution. Or the violent opposition of the chemical industry, to the harm caused by persistent pesticides.
In the end, the science wins, but that victory often comes slowly. To win, the science must be public, and that’s where the modern internet can speed the process … by providing open links to the science. Like this one, Howard:
NASA: Climate change — How do we know?
URL: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
We’ve all suspected for months now that John-boy was not a conservative, no matter what he tries to tell us, we now have proof folks.
From thy own mouth, John, note well I did not call thee a red:
Really good math, really good science, really good engineering, and really good medicine, have always faced what Einstein called “violent opposition from mediocre minds.” AGW is just one more instance in a long history. We all remember the violent opposition of the Tobacco Industry, to the science that showed cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. Or the violent opposition of Soviet Communism …
Yes my friends Dr. John Sidles, PhD, has just told us all, communism was a good idea.
Parse it again, Patrick … the gist of that post is that the tobacco industry, the chemical industry, and soviet communism all were ill-advised to let shareholder profits and/or ideology trump science.
If there’s a message, it’s that capitalism and communism equally require checks-and-balance to serve society well.
Science-respecting conservatives like Dwight Eisenhower, Theodore Roosevelt, and the authors of The Federalist all asserted that same principle.
That’s why it’s disturbing that their traditional brand of American conservatism being vilified by PJM/Tatler‘s peculiar ideology.
Welcome my friends to the peculiar mind of Dr. John Sidles, in which we find that the man who created the progressive Bull Moose party, and who was a self-described progressive, one Theodore Roosevelt, is really a conservative.
John, read some history, really, seriously read some. Neither TR nor Ike were conservatives. They were both progressives as have been most leaders on BOTH sides of the aisle since Roosevelt’s time. You show your ignorance of history every time you open your mouth. You know, another historical figure said “It’s better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth a remove all doubt.”
Sound advice sir.
You are off topic. this is about AGW. AGW does not care about your ideology. It will continue on no matter what you tell yourself.
Nah, the only thing continuing is your fundamentalism. See post:
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/07/23/terrorism-and-global-warming-alarmism-same-motives-and-outcomes/
Ya know, if you’re not one of the players, you’ll just end up one of the serfs. Think about that.
Naw. You’re an echo chamber. The tobacco is a straw man. Tobacco companies had a lot of money to make by lying about their product. So do global warming freaks like Al Gore. You’ll be left with a temporary good feeling until the feudalists come for your daughter and your cash.
So you hate Al Gore. Big deal. AGW marches on. That is what is being observed all over the world.
Naw. You’re an echo chamber. The tobacco is a straw man. Tobacco companies had a lot of money to make by lying about their product. So do global warming freaks like Al Gore. You’ll be left with a temporary good feeling until the feudalists come for your daughter and your cash.
Like Patrick said, you repeat yourself to enjoy hearing yourself. But your smug, derogatory, off-handed way of ignoring anything and everybody who doesn’t fit your hallucination isn’t influencing anybody here, at least not in the way you may hope.
Like you said earlier, you don’t have to read these posts.
Howard: Any peer reviewed science? Can you put aside your denialism to see the science? Why is denialism right and science wrong?
Had you been involved in the conversation from the start, you would see that much science has been discussed. I see you haven’t submitted any citations yourself, only snark. Nice try. Must be Physic’s mini-me.
Head in the sand time there Howard?
You’ve the political argument down and who you don’t like. You also don’t like the reality of CAGW. Keep on denying. Its what you do best.
Howard, the cash-flow of Big Carbon dwarfs the cash-flow of Big Tobacco … all the climate-change science in the world could be funded by 25 minutes of Big Carbon’s cash-flow.
Some folks seemingly don’t mind bankrupting America by exporting petro-dollars to Muslim fundamentalists … and Big Carbon propagandizes vigorously in favor of this train-wreck.
Fortunately, plenty of American citizens now appreciate that carbon-burning energy economies are unsustainably disastrous, for multiple reasons, both for America and for the planet.
That is yet another common-sense reason why American conservatism needs a “Plan B” that recognizes the sobering scientific reality of AGW.
Saudi prince ups News Corp stake
URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/sep/06/newscorporation.citynews
So it’s option 1. Have a nice day.
Howard:
In all this, you can be rest assured you have Fox News on your side.
Huh. You read Fox Snooze? I mean, you must because you seem to be an authority on it. And psychic, too, to know that Fox Snooze is on my side. Wow, a major dude! And renewable, too. Does that mean you have bionic parts?
This article origonated out of fox news.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
I will go with the science agreed upon by 97% of peer reviewed climatologists. They are self correcting. They expect it of each other. They fight for a living to get to the truth of science. Enjoy your loosing battle.
http://www.climatesoscanada.org/blog/2011/02/17/the-real-weapons-of-mass-destruction-methane-propaganda-the-architects-of-genocide-part-i/