It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Surface of the oceans affects climate more than thought

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Did you read the source or the referenced publication in that source?




posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greven

Did you read the source or the referenced publication in that source?

I'd like to, but clicking on either publication in the linked article in the OP gives a 404 error.

The article does not say how much it influences the climate, hence my inquiry.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: swanne

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


That is some bovine excrement!

You have misrepresented what the links you linked actually say or provide dead links then accuse someone who questions your shady debate tactics of being too stupid to understand your point or just lying. when it is you who is obviously full of lies.

I seriously wonderrr if you are even a real person....



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Bro, you don't even understand this thread...

a reply to: jrod



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I thought we knew everything about climate and human farts were causing the universe to implode?
edit on 10/11/2015 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   
YAY!
way to de'rail a post.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Bro, you don't even understand this thread...

a reply to: jrod



Nope....

You have claimed to hold an advanced degree in a climate/atmosphere related field yet couldn't produce a simple residence time calculation for CO2 or even H2O...


Instead of addressing an issue when called out on your BS, you resort to insults.

Me thinks you are a troll bot or one very sad person.
edit on 12-10-2015 by jrod because: n



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

You still don't see the idiocy in your request for me to do a residence time calculation? How is a AP level high school calculation going to prove anything about college? The sad part is you think it was a valid request.

Now to the content of this thread.

These are all direct quotes from the source:


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.



The oceans seem to produce significantly more isoprene, and consequently affect stronger the climate than previously thought.



The atmospheric chemists from France and Germany, however, could now show that isoprene could also be formed without biological sources in surface film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models



More isoprene is apparently produced on the border between ocean and atmosphere than previously thought. The gas contributes to the formation of clouds and has therefore influence on the global climate.


Now let's look at what you say:

a reply to: jrod

Do you not think the scientists who study this have taken this into consideration in their current modeling?


Obviously you didn't read the source, this was a previously unknown source of isoprene and it wasn't even known it could be produced abioticly. yet even later in the thread you again said:

a reply to: jrod

Seriously, do you really think the experts, the scientists who have studied this for decades somehow missed this, and thus the models and predictions are now all flawed?


Do you see the error with that question yet?

Then you tried to shift the topic, like you do in every thread:

a reply to: jrod

It is a reasonable and logical deduction that our addiction to burning fossil fuels caused a warming effect.


When that has NOTHING to do with the OP or the source. Neither deny that...

This is my favorite post by you in this thread:

a reply to: jrod

Surely you can dig through my post history and provide plenty of examples. How many scientific papers have you ever linked? Again: Zero. Did you finish all the Cosmos episodes?



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
You claim I didn't read the article when it is obvious you didn't read it, or intentionally misrepresented what the article actually stated.

I'm not wasting anymore time feeding a troll!



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Worth reposting to demonstrate how delusional you are.


originally posted by: mbkennel

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.




posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

pubs.acs.org...


This study clearly points toward a global impact of the interfacial chemistry at the air−sea interface. The existence of organic films on the ocean surface due to biological activities influences therefore air−sea exchanges in an unexpected significant manner, as interfacial photosensitized chemistry may represent a significant source of isoprene in the absence of any biological sources in the marine boundary layer.


Photosensitized production of functionalized and unsaturated organic compounds at the air-sea interface


This would represent a new chemical photosensitized source of precursors for radicals and aerosols, while our current understanding points only to biological sources for such unsaturated compounds.


edit on 12-10-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

You don't know what he posted either do you?



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

That's adorable. Usually you don't get embarrassed so badly this quickly, but I tire of you so I wanted to expedite the process this time around. I directly quoted the article and supplied the direct links above. I've read all of it, you haven't as usual.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Cute how you try to accuse mbkennel of not understanding the article too. That is someone who contributes great knowledge to these climate threads and clearly has a firm grasp of the science behind AGW.

Game over troll!



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

No, MKBennel confused a portion of an unrelated paper that discussed where radiative forcing was the highest (between the tropics) that also discussed Isoprene levels. The paper was NOT saying isoprene causes warming. It did say that Isoprene can destroy Ozone when nox isn't present. That paper was not related in any way to the papers in the OP and specifically refers to isoprene from biological sources, namely plants of both land and marine origin.

So sorry bro. You are dead wrong and the issue is you don't understand what mkbennel posted and he was simply confused as he admitted just a mere few posts later.


originally posted by: mbkennel
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?


So the issue is he did NOT see Isoprene is a forcing, it was simply contained in the same sentence as radiative forcing which was unrelated to the isoprene.

It is well known Isoprene is a cooling agent as it creates aerosols. It produces atmospheric haze and clouds. A few minutes of research on your part would educate you on this, but as usual your completely lazy nature shines through. Current models only take into account Isoprene from biological sources as they have been measured in controlled environments. This was a previously unknown source of isoprene and will require models to double or more the amount of isoprene climate models take into account.

Why are you arguing? Because you somehow think this is trying to prove we aren't warming or man doesn't contribute but that is just ignorance on your part. This is simply saying models are wrong (this is absolutely true, models are regularly wrong) and this could be a really big contributing factor to why.
edit on 12-10-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I missed that...my bad.

You still haven't convinced me that isoprene will cause cooling.

Sorry to come across as a jerk, I just feel like you are trolling here.

PS, the models are not doing a bad job.

www.skepticalscience.com...
edit on 12-10-2015 by jrod because: add link



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: jrod

No, MKBennel confused a portion of an unrelated paper that discussed where radiative forcing was the highest (between the tropics) that also discussed Isoprene levels. The paper was NOT saying isoprene causes warming. It did say that Isoprene can destroy Ozone when nox isn't present.


It does appear that the volatile organic (chemistry definition) compounds have multiple and complex effects.

Here is the text which lead me to believe that isoprene emissions is a forcing, acting through other chemical reactions.



OH is the major atmospheric sink for CH4 and thus an increase in isoprene concentration, by reducing OH concentration, will increase the lifetime of CH4.


CH4 is undoubtably a positive forcing greehouse gas. Increasing lifetime will result in increased concentration and forcing.

Next,


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 O3by 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 O3 burden produces a global mean radiative forcing of 0.09 W m2. 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 m2.Folberth et al. (2006)also show that isoprene produces an 8% (or 0.7105molecules cm3) reduction in the global mean OH concentration, which effectively prolongs the global mean lifetime of CH4 by seven months, and thus enhances the climatic importance of CH4.


Therefore I see the review paper (not the original one which showed increased abiotic emission of isoprene) describes two mechanisms whereby isoprene results in positive climate forcing.

Next, it describes increases in organic aerosols (much later section) which are a cooling influence, which I missed the first time. I did not see any quantitative estimates of balance.

The conclusion states in effect that current science modeling is not fully worked out yet.

edit on 12-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
So evolution isn't settled science. Gravity isn't either. Yet, you would be hard pressed to find a scientist who doesn't think Evolution and Gravity aren't fundamentally sound principles of science. So too is Man Made Global Warming. Sure there are those who disagree with Man made global warming just as Ken Ham and his "Scientists" Disagree about evolution but...

edit on 12-10-2015 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greven

pubs.acs.org...


This study clearly points toward a global impact of the interfacial chemistry at the air−sea interface. The existence of organic films on the ocean surface due to biological activities influences therefore air−sea exchanges in an unexpected significant manner, as interfacial photosensitized chemistry may represent a significant source of isoprene in the absence of any biological sources in the marine boundary layer.


Photosensitized production of functionalized and unsaturated organic compounds at the air-sea interface


This would represent a new chemical photosensitized source of precursors for radicals and aerosols, while our current understanding points only to biological sources for such unsaturated compounds.


Interesting, thank you, but I'm still trying to figure out how:

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.


In fact, I wonder what an author of the paper might say about it:

Overall, the three media reports “misinterpret to an alarming extent” the findings of the study, co-author Dr Christian George from the University of Lyon tells Carbon Brief:

“We didn’t make any statement about cooling effects. We showed just a new small detail that might have an impact on the forming processes of clouds.”

It is unlikely that higher-than-thought levels of isoprene are a factor in the recent slowdown in global surface temperature rise, as Delingpole’s article claims.

In fact, as isoprene only hangs around in the atmosphere for less than a month, its impact is mostly limited to regional or continental-scale climates, George says.

Similarly, these new findings are unlikely to affect projections for global temperature rise in the future, says George, though they will contribute to fine-tuning estimates on smaller geographical scales:

“Our study is a new brick that should help understanding our complex world, by providing new knowledge on air-sea exchanges, but it definitively does not question climate change, it just helps us understand its impact.”

The scientific evidence on manmade climate change is clear, concludes George, and their results do not cast any doubt on this:

“There is no question that the global climate will become warmer. The question is just how much, how fast and how the effects will change our lives.”

Curious, and also quite a different take on things. Well, how about another scientist on the matter:

So, if the oceans are producing more isoprene than scientists thought, could this “pose a serious threat to manmade global warming theory,” as Delingpole claims? The answer is “no”, Prof Piers Forster tells Carbon Brief, in no uncertain terms:

“To say that it is potentially important for climate change is so far from the mark as to be quite crazy.”

That seems to be a decidedly different conclusion.

So, how did you come to this conclusion... perhaps this way:

The story followed in the footsteps of similar articles on the Register and Breitbart, two websites which have a history of publishing climate sceptic articles. The Register said the new research meant “there isn’t as much urgency about the matter [climate change] as had been thought”. While a Breibart article by James Delingpole claimed it presents “further proof” that “the reason that all that predicted ‘global warming’ has failed to materialise is that it has been countered by the planet’s natural cooling effects.”

The Express and Breitbart quoted Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate sceptic lobby group, as saying: “Here is more evidence…that climate models…should never have been trusted in the first place.”


Recall, again, how much of a change we're talking about here:

While model simulations suggest the oceans produce around 1.9m tonnes of isoprene per year, the results of the new study suggest the ocean surface could produce between 0.2-3.5m tonnes of additional isoprene.

...an uncertain one: it could add anywhere from 10% to 180% to previously estimated isoprene levels.

So, suppose it was 180% higher:

But the paper isn’t saying that isoprene levels are getting higher, just that they’ve always been high, Forster says:

“The natural aerosol cooling could be 100 times bigger than our current estimate, but it would make no difference to climate change as it would stay more-or-less constant with time.”

Second, the paper refers to the amount of isoprene, not the extent of its cooling effect, Forster points out.

Hmm... a 10000% bigger than currently estimated cooling effect with no change to warming rather means that a maximum of 380% of currently estimated isoprene levels is pretty inconsequential.

Sorry. Try again.
edit on 18Mon, 12 Oct 2015 18:04:12 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago10 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Those quotes are saying it doesn't effect man made global warming, I didn't say it did...red herring argument ftw?

a reply to: Greven

Notice the key phrases over time etc. Your one quote even admits to the unexplainable slowdown in warming which contrasts climate models. All you did was reinforce my OP. Catastrophic climate models are wrong and continue to be wrong.

Also, I don't read either one of those sites you linked and I really, really, really dislike Breitbart.com.


edit on 12-10-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join