Surface of the oceans affects climate more than thought

a reply to: raymundoko

well you did say this:

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 you stand by this?

You seem to be implying this finding is a material change in the climate sensitivity from anthropogenic greenhouse emissions. The scientists directly involved in this issue sure appear to be saying that 'no the results don't disqualify the current understanding of global warming and its future'.

They had the opportunity to say something rather like what you said, and did not, and seemed to say something quite the opposite in overall message of what you originally said. Evidence:

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.”

I do stand by that, and your quote is about man made global warming. Nobody is denying it stops man made global warming. My quote says models will need to be adjusted and so does the professor you quoted. Quit grasping at straws. Catastrophic climate change models are wrong. Even Greven's quote of the scientist clearly shows models had it wrong for current trends and warming has slowed. The question isn't how man effects the climate or what will happen, it's how fast will it happen and what will change for humans.

You also seem to be confused. Forster (who you and Greven quoted) was not in any way involved in the study.

a reply to: mbkennel

Edit: here is a quote from the actual scientist which Greven (probably intentionally) left out of his quote:

To put it in a nutshell: There is no question that the global climate becomes warmer. The question is just how much, how fast and how large the effects will change our live.

Now go through my post history and you'll see that's always been my viewpoint. Specifically the how much and how fast.

originally posted by: raymundoko
I do stand by that, and your quote is about man made global warming. Nobody is denying it stops man made global warming. My quote says models will need to be adjusted and so does the professor you quoted.

Is there a material, large in magnitude, change expected in global warming expected from human activities as a result of this new understanding?

Every expert appears to say 'no'. You said 'yes'.

Quit grasping at straws. Catastrophic climate change models are wrong. Even Greven's quote of the scientist clearly shows models had it wrong for current trends and warming has slowed. The question isn't how man effects the climate or what will happen, it's how fast will it happen and what will change for humans.

Is there evidence this new result changes the climate sensitivity predictions, overall, in a material way?

To put it in a nutshell: There is no question that the global climate becomes warmer. The question is just how much, how fast and how large the effects will change our live.

Does this new result mean that current climate sensitivity understanding, globally and in quantitative magnitude, (not regionally and in smaller magnitude) is substantially wrong?

The same experts scrambling to explain the slow in warming that doesn't match their models?

a reply to: mbkennel

originally posted by: raymundoko
Those quotes are saying it doesn't effect man made global warming, I didn't say it did...red herring argument ftw?

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.

I'm sorry, but when your OP says this:

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.

How does this quote reinforce it:

"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."

I would say it destroys such an assertion.

Perhaps you could prove otherwise by giving some hard numbers as to how much this additional isoprene would change the climate?

Last words of your quote. "Constant with time" means even if it takes more time we will still heat up...

Now what does my statement say?

a reply to: Greven

originally posted by: raymundoko
Last words of your quote. "Constant with time" means even if it takes more time we will still heat up...

No, the scientist means that the amount of aerosol cooling would stay more or less constant with time.

Therefore the current climate we are in already takes into account the effect from these chemicals (as it has to, it's physics!), and change in future climate level and velocity depends on what is going to change, increased greenhouse forcing from increased greenhouse gases, and not what is not going to change.

Now what does my statement say?

a reply to: Greven

You originally stated that this new result will cause a substantial downward change in the current estimates of future global warming velocity.

It's clear you believe this new research to be a material change to estimates of climate change---and it's clear that experts in the field do not. It also isn't clear what your position is----do you believe that with more aerosols the short-term rate of increase will be lower but the ultimate equilibrium climate to be the same as current? Or do you believe that both will be lower?

You haven't explained your physical mechanism, and why your analysis is better than theirs. Your're not clarifying your position well either. Please restate your position anew, specifically how (as in mechanistic physics) this new result means that the currently predicted velocity of global warming will be materially lowered, and why the other scientists are incorrect.

I agree that the result will be useful for refining more advanced climate models but the effect will be better predicting regional influences rather than global trends.

a reply to: mbkennel

The author of the study disagrees with what you said and I quoted him...

He said it was "Substantial" and that models will need to be updated. You quoted someone not even involved with the study and you misunderstood their point.

this new result means that the currently predicted velocity of global warming will be materially lowered

Are you missing the point? Climate models are ALREADY wrong and warming has ALREADY been lowered. Measurements don't match models. That is why people think warming has slowed; Because the models had it getting hotter more rapidly. What the scientist is saying, and you are failing to understand, is that the atmosphere is how it is an we are warming, finding a new source of isoprene isn't going to change that since we are physically measuring it and know we are warming. The rate of that warming is what is being questioned and the author of the paper said that and I have him quoted above.

It also isn't clear what your position is----do you believe that with more aerosols the short-term rate of increase will be lower but the ultimate equilibrium climate to be the same as current? Or do you believe that both will be lower?

More aerosols? Who said there are more aerosols? Aerosol levels are what they are, we just discovered another source of them and it so happens to be one that causes cooling. Since these aerosols were already there it won't stop warming or change the ultimate end game. What WILL change is climate models, and I believe specifically models which predict catastrophic (i.e. rapid) climate change trending warmer, since this previously unknown source was not included in models. I think we will get just as hot as we think we will and sea levels will decimate coastal cities. I just don't think it will happen by 2020, 2050 or even 2100. I think we have plenty of time to adapt and create a game plan without fear mongering the current public and wasting money.

Edit: Hell, even the title of this thread was lifted from the scientific organization who partnered to create this paper.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Last words of your quote. "Constant with time" means even if it takes more time we will still heat up...

Now what does my statement say?

a reply to: Greven

You - yes, you specifically, claim that the earth will not heat up as fast as models predicted.

HOW MUCH less?

Give us some numbers. Stop with this hand-waving. If you are as adept at this subject as you claim, prove it.

You do realize it already isn't heating up as fast as models predicted right?

a reply to: Greven

a reply to: raymundoko
By how much?

a reply to: Greven

What, you want me to publish a paper and build a model on ATS? What is the purpose of your question? Are you upset that this new found source of isoprene causes cooling? It doesn't change AGW. The only thing it changes is fear mongering. Do you engage in fear mongering?

When you ask how much do you mean how much are models off today? There are plenty of articles you can go look up to educate yourself on the ever changing models without me having to hold your hand through the process. You weren't even committed enough to find an alternate source for the papers in the OP when the link didn't work for you and you had to have the provided for you.

Are you asking how much lower I think this source of isoprene will lower models? We'll have to plug it into the models to get that information. I guarantee you it will lower all models simply based on a cursory look and knowing how VOCs affect the atmosphere and wording in the paper itself. The very scientists who wrote the paper said what I previously quoted about figuring out how fast change will happen. The title from the organization suggests this effects the climate more than previously thought and in the paper the lead scientist says it is significant.

Surely if I was wrong you would have hundreds of counter arguments from scientists stating this will not change models? Surely you can find those very recent and pertinent links?

a reply to: raymundoko
You make a claim - you provide a source (or data to back you), upon request. That's how argument and discussion works.

You've claimed that this (rather unclear in size) new source of isoprene "means the earth will heat up nowhere nearly as fast as models predicted it would."

In the course of this discussion, I've been attempting to find out what "nowhere nearly" means. I've continued to ask, since by your claim you are asserting knowledge in this. I say this because your source does not claim what you do. I even looked at what had been written elsewhere about the paper - and another scientist dismissed the findings as inconsequential, which counters your point.

When I pointed this out, you said he wasn't the author, therefore it didn't matter or something and also it helped your OP (it really didn't). So, I continued to ask you, in hopes that I might find the answer to the claim that you had put forth.

Instead, you would write a long-winded rant contending that I am "upset" (haha), that I ought to look it up myself (hahaha), that I wasn't committed to tracking down sources you cited (elsewhere than where you cited them, hahahaha), that scientists would have hundreds of counterarguments to something they hadn't seen (this message board post, hahahahaha)...

At least I finally got an answer:
You just don't know.

Compare:

originally posted by: raymundoko
This finding means the earth will heat up nowhere nearly as fast as models predicted it would.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Are you asking how much lower I think this source of isoprene will lower models? We'll have to plug it into the models to get that information.

Hoax bin this garbage. Your attitude and behavior is beneath this site.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greven

What, you want me to publish a paper and build a model on ATS? What is the purpose of your question? Are you upset that this new found source of isoprene causes cooling? It doesn't change AGW.

Is that a retraction?

The only thing it changes is fear mongering. Do you engage in fear mongering?

Does this change climate sensitivity, whether equilibrium or short term (e.g. decades) to increased greenhouse forcing by a substantial amount in the downward direction, to be concrete lowering at least 50%, ("nowhere near" is the phrase you used) from predicted estimates?

a) yes
b) no
c) I don't know

If you answer (a), what is the

a) physical mechanism
b) literature evidence to support a) and the quantitative rough estimates.


I will answer how I see it. The new finding means that there is more isoprene than previously believed and the sources are different, in particular more ocean sources. Current climate already includes the true physically existing amount of isoprene, so therefore if there's more isoprene than currently used in computations, and isoprene is net cooling (I saw both cooling and warming mechanisms), then it must mean that other effects are more warming than currently believed.

Therefore the effect on future climate depends on (a) the quantitative magnitude of the heating and cooling effect of isorprene vs other effects, and (b) the amount that isoprene will chagne with increasing temperature, and why.

Since the land sources were the previous important sources of isorprene from biological activity and now ocean chemistry is now more important, it appears at very first sight that future isoprene concentrations will be more similar to now than in previous understanding because the ocean chemistry will be more stable than biological feedbacks.

But I don't see evidende that (a) is very strong and especially that (b) is at all signficant. The quotes by other experts, in my reading appear to be saying that (b) is NOT likely to be significant, and therefore the import of this finding on global (vs local) climate is not going to be strong.

originally posted by: raymundoko
You do realize it already isn't heating up as fast as models predicted right?

a reply to: Greven

What happens when you look at oceans?

raymundoko is suggesting the addition of somewhere between 0.3 and 3.5 megatons of isoprene changes things significantly.

Estimates of worldwide isoprene (C5H8, about 68 u) annual emissions (mostly natural) total somewhere between 400–600 TgC (teragrams of Carbon, which has a mass of 12 u). A teragram is equivalent to 1,000,000 metric tons. 1,000,000 metric tons is a megaton. Thus, a teragram is a megaton.

So, that's 400-600 megatons of Carbon (Hydrogen is significantly less, at about 1 u... so it's 12% of isoprene's mass). That works out to around 454-681 megatons of isoprene emitted annually.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Our current climate models which predict catastrophic climate change estimate ~2 Megatons of Isoprene a year

If our models are underestimating isoprene emissions by 20000+%, I think there are more problems with them than your measly claims.

Again, this ought to be binned.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: raymundoko
You make a claim - you provide a source (or data to back you), upon request. That's how argument and discussion works.

You've claimed that this (rather unclear in size) new source of isoprene "means the earth will heat up nowhere nearly as fast as models predicted it would."

That is correct.

In the course of this discussion, I've been attempting to find out what "nowhere nearly" means. I've continued to ask, since by your claim you are asserting knowledge in this. I say this because your source does not claim what you do. I even looked at what had been written elsewhere about the paper - and another scientist dismissed the findings as inconsequential, which counters your point.

First, your scientist did not deny that this will cause models to have to be reworked nor that isoprene caused cooling. He DID deny that this means there won't be global warming. So you have taken a quote and twisted it to fit your narrative as nothing in the source paper or my post denies global warming is happening. This is a logical fallacy on your part.

When I pointed this out, you said he wasn't the author, therefore it didn't matter or something and also it helped your OP (it really didn't). So, I continued to ask you, in hopes that I might find the answer to the claim that you had put forth.

Incorrect. MKBennel thought you quoted the author, I corrected him. I also didn't say it didn't matter, so this is hopefully a simple oversight on your part and not a lie. I also corrected both of you as to the context of his quote, specifically pertaining to global warming.

Instead, you would write a long-winded rant contending that I am "upset" (haha),

You are...

that I ought to look it up myself (hahaha), that I wasn't committed to tracking down sources you cited (elsewhere than where you cited them, hahahaha),

You didn't. The links worked perfectly fine for the first few days of this thread. It took me 2 seconds to find alternate sources on google. This was intentional lazieness on your part.

that scientists would have hundreds of counterarguments to something they hadn't seen (this message board post, hahahahaha)...

You think this is the only place this is being discussed? After I posted this it showed up on Judith Curry, Watts Up With That, and as someone here showed even on Breitbart. Yet where is the outrage and denial as to the implications of this study?

At least I finally got an answer:
You just don't know.

I don't know exactly, that is correct, which is why I won't give the exact numbers you are looking for. We will need the models to be updated, but the insane cooling abilities of VOCs is well known and scientifically documented.

Hoax bin this garbage. Your attitude and behavior is beneath this site.

How interesting. You were completely wrong in that thread. Perhaps this explains your behavior. Have you been harboring resentment towards me for totally dismantling you in that thread? That has now gone through the utmost scrutiny, and the officer has been unequivocally exonerated. You shouldn't hold on to so much hate bro. It's clouding your judgement and ability.

a reply to: Greven

What is this thread about? Biological and Abiotic sources of Isoprene.

Despite this potential importance, large discrepancies still exists
between emission flux measurements, so-called “bottom-up”
methods11,27 and the “top-down” approach which tries to
combine in situ observations and simulations14,27,28 with fluxes
ranging from ~0.1 to 1.9 Tg C yr−1 and ∼11.6 Tg C yr−1
,
respectively.11,18,29,30 There is therefore a clear need of
identifying possible sources of isoprene, including abiotic
processes

8 We have used the
same value of k = 2 × 10−9 cm3
/s for all masses excepting
isoprene, which has a value of k = 1.94 × 10−9 cm3
/s.39
Uncertainties in our data may arise from systematic errors in
the concentration determination because the accuracy for
compounds concentration has been estimated using calculated
values for the collision rate constant which should equal the
reaction rate constant within ±30%

Arnold et al.,27
combining satellite maps of the global distribution of
phytoplankton functional type and new measurements of
phytoplankton-specific isoprene productivities, found a mean
“bottom-up” oceanic isoprene emission of 0.31 ± 0.08
(1σ)Tgyr−1
, while modeling produced a “top-down” source
estimate of 1.9 Tg yr−

Considering your paper is from 2009, you now you have to take the findings of the new paper and that number jumps to ~2 to 5.5.

a reply to: mbkennel

I can see my reflection?

originally posted by: raymundoko

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: raymundoko
You make a claim - you provide a source (or data to back you), upon request. That's how argument and discussion works.

You've claimed that this (rather unclear in size) new source of isoprene "means the earth will heat up nowhere nearly as fast as models predicted it would."

That is correct.

In the course of this discussion, I've been attempting to find out what "nowhere nearly" means. I've continued to ask, since by your claim you are asserting knowledge in this. I say this because your source does not claim what you do. I even looked at what had been written elsewhere about the paper - and another scientist dismissed the findings as inconsequential, which counters your point.

First, your scientist did not deny that this will cause models to have to be reworked nor that isoprene caused cooling. He DID deny that this means there won't be global warming. So you have taken a quote and twisted it to fit your narrative as nothing in the source paper or my post denies global warming is happening. This is a logical fallacy on your part.

Does this new result change climate sensitivity, whether equilibrium or short term (e.g. decades) to increased greenhouse forcing by a substantial amount in the downward direction, to be concrete lowering at least 50%, ("nowhere near" is the phrase you used) from predicted estimates?

a) yes
b) no
c) I don't know