Surface of the oceans affects climate more than thought

originally posted by: jrodDo you not think the scientists who study this have taken this into consideration in their current modeling?

No, they haven't, it says as much. Did you even read it or do you just not understand scientific information as usual?

Are you just trying to cast doubt on the overwhelming consensus of what the actual experts say about climate change and man's role here?

You are as predictable as it gets. I have never once asserted the above and it is a logical fallacy you attempt to interject into every climate thread you take part in.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, can we at least agree that we are only able to have this vigorous debate thanks to Al Gore(and Bill Clinton) inventing he Internet???

youtu.be...

He did that and proved manmade global warming....thanks democrats

-Christosterone

a reply to: yorkshirelad

The data will make things worse? You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what you are trying to discuss.

a reply to: Christosterone

The Hockey Stick graph is accurate, it was just slightly exaggerated by use of proxy data. Once real measurements were included it was still a hockey stick. Also, Al Gore is not a scientist.

a reply to: swanne

JRod is lying anyway. I've never done what he claims, he just gets lost in technical jargon.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Source: Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research

Abiotic source of Isoprene discovered:

Lyon/ Leipzig. The oceans seem to produce significantly more isoprene, and consequently affect stronger the climate than previously thought. This emerges from a study by the Institute of Catalysis and Environment in Lyon (IRCELYON, CNRS / University Lyon 1) and the Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research (TROPOS), which had studied samples of the surface film in the laboratory. The results underline the global significance of the chemical processes at the border between ocean and atmosphere, write the researchers in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Our current climate models which predict catastrophic climate change estimate ~2 Megatons of Isoprene a year, however this study shows that this abiotic source alone produces ~3.5 Megatons a year.

The recent publication of the teams from CNRS and TROPOS in Environmental Science & Technology provides indications how the climate models in the important details of the influence of isoprene could be improved.

Laymans terms: This finding means the earth will heat up nowhere nearly as fast as models predicted it would. They will have to be adjusted to take this finding into account.

Do explain how much isoprene cools the atmosphere.

How does the potential additional 3.5 megatonnes of isoprene compare to human emissions of over 30 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide?

How do you get that conclusion? Please fill me in; no layman's terms, the way you espouse the earth won't heat up. Got all weekend to read your reply. You'd better start making it up.
a reply to: raymundoko

originally posted by: raymundoko
Source: Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research

Abiotic source of Isoprene discovered:

Lyon/ Leipzig. The oceans seem to produce significantly more isoprene, and consequently affect stronger the climate than previously thought. This emerges from a study by the Institute of Catalysis and Environment in Lyon (IRCELYON, CNRS / University Lyon 1) and the Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research (TROPOS), which had studied samples of the surface film in the laboratory. The results underline the global significance of the chemical processes at the border between ocean and atmosphere, write the researchers in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Our current climate models which predict catastrophic climate change estimate ~2 Megatons of Isoprene a year, however this study shows that this abiotic source alone produces ~3.5 Megatons a year.

The recent publication of the teams from CNRS and TROPOS in Environmental Science & Technology provides indications how the climate models in the important details of the influence of isoprene could be improved.

Laymans terms: This finding means the earth will heat up nowhere nearly as fast as models predicted it would.

It doesn't mean that at all. Why would it?

Note that this process was occurring before human civilization of course.

They will have to be adjusted to take this finding into account.

True, and let's see what it does. It may make the understanding of clouds better, and improve the regional predictions of climate.

The overall physical forcing from additional greenhouse gases is still in effect.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: raymundoko
Source: Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research

Abiotic source of Isoprene discovered:

Lyon/ Leipzig. The oceans seem to produce significantly more isoprene, and consequently affect stronger the climate than previously thought. This emerges from a study by the Institute of Catalysis and Environment in Lyon (IRCELYON, CNRS / University Lyon 1) and the Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research (TROPOS), which had studied samples of the surface film in the laboratory. The results underline the global significance of the chemical processes at the border between ocean and atmosphere, write the researchers in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Our current climate models which predict catastrophic climate change estimate ~2 Megatons of Isoprene a year, however this study shows that this abiotic source alone produces ~3.5 Megatons a year.

The recent publication of the teams from CNRS and TROPOS in Environmental Science & Technology provides indications how the climate models in the important details of the influence of isoprene could be improved.

Laymans terms: This finding means the earth will heat up nowhere nearly as fast as models predicted it would.

It doesn't mean that at all. Why would it?

Note that this process was occurring before human civilization of course.

They will have to be adjusted to take this finding into account.

True, and let's see what it does. It may make the understanding of clouds better, and improve the regional predictions of climate.

The overall physical forcing from additional greenhouse gases is still in effect.

The increase in the emission of isoprene affects atmospheric chemistry. Isoprene reacts very rapidly with hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere making hydroperoxides that can enhance ozone formation. Meaning that with a much higher concentration then expected the ozone will be stronger. And yes that means it would extend the time it takes global warming to occur. But by how much I couldn't say they will have to run the models. But that doesn't mean it isn't occurring either there is significant evidence that shows we our negativily impacting our environment and killing the planet.

a reply to: Colbomoose

Where in the post do I say the earth won't heat up? You misread the post. I needed 30 seconds for this reply. You may need all weekend to brush up on comprehension though.

a reply to: mbkennel

Did you misread the post as well? The post does not contest warming, only that catastrophic climate models have to be adjusted and will no longer be catastrophic.

a reply to: dragonridr

And nowhere in my post or the sourced material does it contest warming. Just the models that predict catastrophic warming.

a reply to: Greven

Why do you join in climate discussions if you don't even know the answer to that question?

I am often shocked at how
shocked our scientists are.
They will argue until the cows come home about anything
that deviates even slightly from their precious models.

Yet time and time again when long term studies come to fruition
the headlines often read:
"Scientists in disbelief " Study leaves scientists baffled "
"NASA puzzled "
Regardless in short order they go right back to old dogma
with a new affirmation which is often swept under the rug with a
"Oh yeah, we knew that all along" .

Next up?
Solar variance and climate and coronal hole streams and major earthquakes.
Mark my words. Uyen..

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greven

Why do you join in climate discussions if you don't even know the answer to that question?

What a curious response. You're invoking the 'do your own research' idea, which if you're trying to convince someone of something, is rather poor form.

I'll repeat it again:

originally posted by: Greven
Do explain how much isoprene cools the atmosphere.

How does the potential additional 3.5 megatonnes of isoprene compare to human emissions of over 30 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide?

Can you answer the question or not?

My response was to your first part implying you don't know how isoprene cools the atmosphere. It's a disingenuous question because even armchair researchers know the answer. Your intent was clear.

a reply to: Greven

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: mbkennel

Did you misread the post as well? The post does not contest warming, only that catastrophic climate models have to be adjusted and will no longer be catastrophic.

The original research doesn't present evidence that the climate sensitivity predictions will be down by a large amount, or any significant amount at all.

I'm not an expert on this obviously but I've found a recent review paper on isoprene and climate. Text on page 6123 describes the positive forcing from isoprene, meaning that it contributes net to warming, and not cooling, and therefore if true isoprene levels in the future are higher than current models, the change is towards a result of more warming.

www.researchgate.net...

probably the more important isoprene oxidation pathway (
Tar-
aborelli et al., 2009
). Removal of OH reduces the rate of conversion
of NO
2
to nitric acid (HNO
3
) and thus contributes to the efficacy of
O
3
production.
Understanding of the OH-oxidation pathway is clearly incomplete:
field measurements at Amazonian sites show that above-canopy
concentrations of isoprene are lower than implied by leaf-level
emission measurements (
Greenberg et al., 2004
) but at the same time
OH concentrations are higher than would be expected at estimated
levels of isoprene emission if isoprene removal were taking place
through the OH-oxidation pathway (
Carslawetal.,2001;Tanetal.,
2001; Thornton et al., 2002; Karl et al., 2007; Kuhn et al., 2007; Butler
et al., 2008; Ganzeveld et al., 2008; Lelieveld et al., 2008; Hofzuma-
haus et al., 2009
).
Lelieveld et al. (2008)
have suggested that OH is
recycled during isoprene oxidation, thus maintaining high levels of OH
while removing isoprene. However, the proposed mechanism appar-
ently leads to an unrealistically low isoprene mixing ratios (
Butler
et al., 2008
).
Hofzumahaus et al. (2009)
have suggested that OH-
recycling may take place without involving reactions with NO
2
,which
would result in removal of isoprene without increasing O
3
production
and would this be consistent with observed isoprene mixing ratios.
The efficacy of OH-recycling is also important for atmospheric CH
4
concentration. OH is the major atmospheric sink for CH
4
and thus an
increase in isoprene concentration, by reducing OH concentration, will
increase the lifetime of CH
4
. However, if OH-recycling is significant
then the importance of isoprene as a sink for CH
4
will be lowered.
Model experiments to quantify the impact of isoprene on
atmospheric chemistry under modern (i.e. late 20th century)
climate conditions have shown that isoprene increases tropo-
spheric O
3
by about 4 ppb over the oceans, 8 ppb over tropical land
areas and 8–12 ppb over land in the mid-latitudes (
Wang and
Shallcross, 2000
). Similar impacts on atmospheric chemistry, and
its implications for climate, have been shown by
Folberth et al.
(2006)
, who estimated that this addition to the tropospheric O
3
burden produces a global mean radiative forcing of 0.09 W m

2
.
The magnitude of the radiative forcing is greatest in the tropics,
where the isoprene emissions are highest, with values of up to
0.15 W m

2
.
Folberth et al. (2006)
also show that isoprene produces
an 8% (or 0.7

10
5
molecules cm

3
) reduction in the global mean
OH concentration, which effectively prolongs the global mean
lifetime of CH
4
by seven months, and thus enhances the climatic
importance of CH4

In any case, consider this: suppose climate sensitivity (defined in terms of global temperature) were zero (it isn't). Does that mean that everything's OK? Surely not---given the known increases in energy forcing it means that the weather & climate patterns would still have to adjust by a substantial amount which could still pose significant problems.

a reply to: mbkennel

Well you definitely don't understand what you just quoted...

a reply to: raymundoko

OK, perhaps I don't. I saw that isoprene is a forcing, and the first post was a study showing that over the ocean the isoprene emissions may be higher than previously believed.

What is your interpretation, and do you have references from the literature supporting this that I could read?

originally posted by: raymundoko
My response was to your first part implying you don't know how isoprene cools the atmosphere. It's a disingenuous question because even armchair researchers know the answer. Your intent was clear.

All I'm getting out of this is that you are ridiculing someone asking a (in your words) simple question.

The question, again, is:

originally posted by: Greven
Do explain how much isoprene cools the atmosphere.

How does the potential additional 3.5 megatonnes of isoprene compare to human emissions of over 30 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide?

So far as I can tell, you cannot answer it. As you put it:

originally posted by: raymundoko
Laymans terms: This finding means the earth will heat up nowhere nearly as fast as models predicted it would. They will have to be adjusted to take this finding into account.

Why can you not answer to your assertion with some hard numbers?