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: 5
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

www.nodc.noaa.gov...

No 'pause'.
edit on 16-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

It has to be 50% to be nowhere near? Why isn't 15% sufficient?

a reply to: mbkennel


No 'pause'.


Where did I say there was a pause? For the life of me I can't find that anywhere...slowdown does not equal pause.
edit on 16-10-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven


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.


Binned? Did you even actually read the paper? I don't think you did. From the source:


Thus, it is now possible to estimate more closely the total amounts of isoprene, which are emitted. So far, however, local measurements indicated levels of about 0.3 megatonnes per year, global simulations of around 1.9 megatons per year.


So because you are completely not understanding this discussion you think it should be hoax binned? I don't think that is how it works.

FYI, Here is the full paper you read the abstract of if you want to read the whole thing.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
That is correct.

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.

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.

You are...

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.

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?

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.

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.

Then why do you keep skirting it?

I don't really care what the scientist wrote beyond countering your argument. You are weaseling out of answering, again - trying to point at some tangent as a deflection. I wanted to know how much "nowhere nearly as fast" means.

Lies are something you would know well. You know, lies like this:

originally posted by: raymundoko
All you did was reinforce my OP.


No, I've been laughing at you for most of a year now. You think you know what's going on in others' heads, and it's amazing.

Yes, "lazieness" on my part for noting that your sources did not work. Uh-huh.

Quite frankly, scientists have better things to do than go combat arguments on message boards of websites that will refuse to believe their work regardless of what they say.

First, you said that the Earth wouldn't heat up nearly as fast as models projected. Now you confirm that you don't know. Therefore, you don't know and you are speculating at best - or lying at worst. Insane cooling abilities of VOCs... ah, another claim. Perhaps you can back that up? Maybe something like how much forcing isoprene is responsible for?

You misinterpret what I find objectionable. It's a bit sad that ATS lets you get away with things I illustrated in that past thread - so both members and mods might know how you behave a bit better. Subtle jabs and insults, continued demeaning when you yourself are ignorant of something, etc. I've been punished for far, far less - twice for one post, even (that one still amuses me). You refused to admit you are wrong there, refuse to admit you are wrong here, and instead try to turn it around to say someone proving you wrong is, instead, wrong.
edit on 18Fri, 16 Oct 2015 18:40:54 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago10 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greven

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

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.

What about it?

In case you didn't notice, the IPCC has an estimate of 503 teragrams of Carbon from isoprene (aka 571 megatons) generated by biological sources (vegetation)... which is already in models.

Do explain why even an additional 0.3 and 3.5 megatons of isoprene (0.05% - 0.6%) means something drastically different for models.
edit on 18Fri, 16 Oct 2015 18:42:17 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago10 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Binned? Did you even actually read the paper? I don't think you did. From the source:

So because you are completely not understanding this discussion you think it should be hoax binned? I don't think that is how it works.

FYI, Here is the full paper you read the abstract of if you want to read the whole thing.

Ah, there's the raymundoko we all know and love. Dismissive and with a superior attitude even while not knowing what he's talking about.

Your quote suggests that global simulations only consider 1.9 megatons of isoprene a year. If that's truly representative, then there are far worse problems with models beyond a missing 0.3~3.5 megatons of isoprene.

That quote is not in my source, but instead yours. Given that the IPCC estimates around 579 megatons of Carbon from isoprene, I rather doubt that models use such a low figure.
edit on 18Fri, 16 Oct 2015 18:39:37 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago10 by Greven because: a less than symbol was screwing everything up



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: mbkennel
It has to be 50% to be nowhere near? Why isn't 15% sufficient?

Would you say adding 0.05%-0.6% isoprene to modeled emissions would be sufficient to alter warming such that it was 'nowhere near' what models projected?

If so, I think we have radically different definitions of what 'nowhere near' means.
edit on 18Fri, 16 Oct 2015 18:52:03 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago10 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
It sounds like you need to take this up with the authors of this peer reviewed published paper. Surely if they were wrong about simulations the paper would have been retracted by now? Chances are you, the armchair researcher reading abstracts on Google, are the wrong one. It seems like you don't understand even the abstract of the paper you quoted. I linked you the entire thing if you want to tackle it.

a reply to: Greven



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
Hahaha, is that all you have left? I can't believe you got a star for that.

More attempts to shirk responsibility. More dismissive remarks with no substance. What don't I understand about the paper I cited? Seems like you're clinging to a hope that you're right somehow.

You. Are. Wrong. The estimates of annual isoprene emissions are far in excess of the mere ~1.9 megatons that you keep harping on.

The estimates I cited aren't even new estimates - just revised from old ones.
ISOPRENE EMISSION FROM PLANTS

In fact, free isoprene is widespread in nature, and biogenic isoprene from plants is very important, both for plants and the atmosphere. Recent estimates suggest that isoprene emission from plants is among the most important biosphere-atmosphere interactions. The total hydrocarbon flux from the biosphere to the atmosphere was estimated by Rasmussen & Went in 1965 to be 432 Tg C yr. The estimate for global isoprene emission is now about 500 Tg C yr


Yet again you, do not know what you are talking about, but continue to demean others while sticking to a wrong position. Just like that thread I posted as an example of your behavior towards others members. Why your behavior is tolerated on ATS, I do not know.

Just to drive home the point - Estimates of global terrestrial isoprene emissions using MEGAN (Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature):

They showed that the posteriori isoprene emissions are generally higher at northern mid latitudes but lower in the tropics compared to the Guenther et al. (1995) estimates. The posteriori annual global isoprene emission estimate is 641 Tg isoprene which is only 7% higher than the MEGAN estimate for 2003. The posteriori biomass burning HCHO sources are higher by a factor of 2–4 over the regions with significant biomass burning except for India.


Note that this is, specifically, measured in isoprene emissions (rather than me back calculating it from Tg Carbon). Note that it is in the range I calculated. Recall that Tg = megaton, thus: '641 megatons of isoprene' estimated in this study.

Far, far higher than the 1.9 megatons of isoprene. What say you now?

e:Actually, I think I found your error. You just need to read better, because you quote this:

Thus, it is now possible to estimate more closely the total amounts of isoprene, which are emitted. So far, however, local measurements indicated levels of about 0.3 megatonnes per year, global simulations of around 1.9 megatons per year.


But you forgot something important... the 1.9 megatons/yr is a previous estimate for emissions of isoprene from the oceans:

Using satellite products to scale up data on phytoplankton-specific isoprene productivity to the global oceans, we infer a mean "bottom-up" oceanic isoprene emission of 0.31±0.08 (1σ) Tg/yr. By minimising the mean bias between the model and isoprene observations in the marine atmosphere remote from the continents, we produce a "top-down" oceanic isoprene source estimate of 1.9 Tg/yr.


Meanwhile, total emissions are estimated in this paper above at 641 megatons of isoprene a year. The additional finding for a source is merely a rounding error when compared to overall annual emissions of isoprene.

Such a simple mistake on your part led to a long, pointless discussion and clinging to positions based on entrenched beliefs. How sad.

I wonder what denier source you got this from, but it really doesn't matter... Hoax bin this garbage.
edit on 10Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:08:24 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago10 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
No, I discussed where the isoprene being talked about came from: Marine plant life. I even asked you what was being discussed In this thread to try and make you think about it. I even quoted and bolded it...however you deceptively used a quote of mine that did not contain the the text about oceanic isoprene even though two others did. Hopefully it wasn't intentional...

You are also confusing total emission with how models are made. Models are made with an average at any given time in the atmosphere. Again, I linked you the full paper so you can learn beyond the abstract you quoted.

a reply to: Greven


edit on 17-10-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-10-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
No, I discussed where the isoprene being talked about came from: Marine plant life. I even asked you what was being discussed In this thread to try and make you think about it.

Ah, so desperate... trying to weasel away again when you say stuff like:

originally posted by: raymundoko
What is this thread about? Biological and Abiotic sources of Isoprene.

Hmm I don't see a 'ocean' in there...

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.

...or a qualification here from you. The only reasonable way your pronouncement could be interpreted is within the context of you assuming total emissions.

You are predicting this based on the equivalent of a rounding error of global isoprene emissions.

You.

Are.

Wrong.

I want to draw special attention to this amazing thing you've written:

originally posted by: raymundoko
You are also confusing total emission with how models are made. Models are made with an average at any given time in the atmosphere


When your source - the entire basis for your inane claim says this:

By minimising the mean bias between the model and isoprene observations in the marine atmosphere remote from the continents, we produce a "top-down" oceanic isoprene source estimate of 1.9 Tg/yr.

Note, specifically, the Tg/yr. You know, an annual total.

e:

originally posted by: raymundoko
I even quoted and bolded it...however you deceptively used a quote of mine that did not contain the the text about oceanic isoprene even though two others did. Hopefully it wasn't intentional...

By the way, I did a Ctrl+F for "ocean" throughout this thread... and you somehow never directly mention "ocean" before this post (aside from title of the OP). It is found within quotes of articles in the OP and two different posts, but you never distinguish between it and other emissions.

Amazingly, not once do you do this, yet now you claim you were only discussing ocean isoprene emissions and I guess we are supposed to just ignore the rest of the biosphere to give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to your claims. Quite astonishing, really.
edit on 13Sat, 17 Oct 2015 13:21:28 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago10 by Greven because: I just had to add this...



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
So let me get it straight. It's in the title, I quoted it specifically, yet that's not what I was talking about? How angry are you? If I quoted something of course that is the context it should be related in...

You jump to logical fallacies to prop up your narrative including an out of context quote by an unrelated scientist.

And are you suggesting that a small % increase of a specific gas can't cause temperature change? Pot, meet kettle. That's the whole basis of AGW concerning carbon...

a reply to: Greven



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
So let me get it straight. It's in the title, I quoted it specifically, yet that's not what I was talking about? How angry are you? If I quoted something of course that is the context it should be related in...

You jump to logical fallacies to prop up your narrative including an out of context quote by an unrelated scientist.

Hahahahahahahaha! Look at this guy, ladies and gents. This is amazing.

My narrative, huh?

originally posted by: raymundoko
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.

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.


Maybe you forgot about this post:

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: jrod

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.


Zoom in:

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.


Whoops. You seem to have forgotten that oceanic isoprene is a fraction of a percentage of isoprene emissions. Or to qualify it. Or to distinguish between "marine"/"ocean" and other emissions before me noting your mistake.


And are you suggesting that a small % increase of a specific gas can't cause temperature change? Pot, meet kettle. That's the whole basis of AGW concerning carbon...

Lemme ask you once again:

Do explain how much isoprene cools the atmosphere.

edit on 13Sat, 17 Oct 2015 13:42:10 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago10 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Let's lay this all out on the table so people don't get lost in this idiocy.
1) raymundoko claims "the earth will heat up nowhere nearly as fast as models predicted it would."
2) To back this claim, he cites a new source of (0.3-3.5, which he shortens to) ~3.5 megatons/yr of isoprene.
3) To further back this claim, he compares that 'new' isoprene to the accounted for 1.9 megatons/yr of isoprene.

Problem?
1.9 megatons/yr is only marine biological sources.
Total global emissions of isoprene are 200 times that at the low end of estimates (~450-~670 megatons/yr).



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

In any case, this isn't a newly emitted source of isoprene, as if there has been a change, it is a newly discovered fact of the natural world.

As a scientist, it's important to think about causality and quantitative magnitude.

If, next one assumes that isoprene is net cooling, then if there in truuth, is more than previously believed, then for the current and historical climate the total warming effect must have been just a smidge larger than previously believed.

Finally the policy question relevant to public discourse and not scientist-only technical model calibration is what is the effect on estimates of future climate given that there will be a strong source of unnatural emission for at least a century or two corresponding with increased heat forcing. As the cooling influence from this mechanism is likely to stay the same in first order, discovering that it is slightly higher than previously understood doesn't alter the sensitivity computations of climate in a material way as far as I can tell.

Sensitivity computations of climate rely on "what is the net effect of changes from physical mechanisms, such as changes in vapor and cloud patterns, as the system responds to increases in base level forcing from increased greenhouse gases." [most important and obvious one: warmer air is able to hold more water vapor and that's a greenhouse gas and so the warming is amplified; next clouds reflect more visible energy flux and so if cloud cover increases that would mask warming in the areas where such things happen, the large scale biological response is less predictable, etc, the dozens/hundreds are central parts of ongoing climate research.]

There is no strong evidence that I have yet been made aware of that the new understanding of the isoprene is either quantitatively large in magnitude and influences climate sensitivity overall in magnitudes similar to the known mechanisms to warrant a change in the overall policy message.
edit on 17-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join