Surface of the oceans affects climate more than thought

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.

Good catch!

Maybe now the models can be reconfigured to be more accurate.

The sound of settled science....
Bbwwwaahahaha!

originally posted by: raymundoko
Our current climate models which predict catastrophic climate change...

...are garbage, and findings like this prove what all of us who are skeptical of the models (which are always over-dramatic and don't come to fruition) intuitively know.

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.

Jumping to conclusions here?

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

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?

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.

The article states 0.2 to 3.5 so you are cherry picking values.....I wonder why?

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.

Where in that article are the "laymans terms" stated. You have invented these. It does state that Isoprene affects cloud formation and the new findings need to be added to climate models for more accurate modelling. Nothing more than that. For all we know the new data could make things worse.

a reply to: jrod

Your argument is akin to as child saying that "mommy is right, she is always right".

The article clearly shows that the climate experts and their "absolute consensus of truth" were missing important information.

Science is supposed to evolve. That means that yes, sometimes, even scientists do not hold the absolute picture. No one is omniscient, unlike what many are keen to make you believe.

The same process of constant evolution is present in physics. Just recently this field has been shaken by the discovery of B meson anomalous decay, which means we must figure out what is the variable we missed in the Standard Model. We are adult enough to accept the new data and revise our models accordingly. Why are you so resistant to the same application of the scientific method when it comes to climate?

a reply to: swanne

You are misrepresenting what I wrote.

Don't like the message, bash the messenger!

edit to add :
I see you like the tu quoque approach....you are guilty of what your are accusing me of.

The OP loves to attempt to cast doubt on what the science is telling us about climate change.

originally posted by: jrod

Don't like the message, bash the messenger!

Perhaps you should have applied these exact words yourself before you bashed the OP, hm?

Your first reply to OP:

originally posted by: jrod

Jumping to conclusions here?

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

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?

So scientific of you.

originally posted by: jrod

I see you like the tu quoque approach....you are guilty of what your are accusing me of.

No. You attacked by using the appeal to authority argument fallacy. When I pointed it out to you, you accused me of "bashing" you.

The OP loves to attempt to cast doubt on what the science is telling us about climate change.

Perhaps. But this thread is not about the OP's personal opinion. It is, if I recall correctly, about a new variable in oceanic influence over climate.

Furthermore, unlike some, I am not afraid of people casting doubts. If a scientific theory is strong, it should survives these doubts. If the theory gets falsified, then a true scientist must accept this eventuality. What I do fear is a "scientist" who does not even has the guts to doubt his belief - in fact this situation is called an ideology.

a reply to: swanne

SO intead of addressing why the OP is right, wrong, or just plain misleading you resort to taking up space and time with he said she said accusation.

Tu quoque is the correct fallacy for what you are doing here.

Appeal to authority is not valid on my post, I made no claims of being an authority on this subject matter.

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?

All that I see here is the OP and a handful of AGW deniers are grasping at straws to cast doubt on what the actual scientists and experts are telling us about AGW.

a reply to: jrod

So in your opinion, a consensus automatically means that these scientists hold the absolute truth, and that their authority on the manner cannot be questioned? How is that definition different from an ideology?

Appeal to authority is not valid on my post, I made no claims of being an authority on this subject matter.

It seems you do not even know what the appeal to authority argument fallacy is.

An appeal of authority argument fallacy occurs when someone assumes a particuliar authority ("A") to be always right on a particular topic. From Wikipedia:

"A" is an authority on a particular topic
"A" says something about that topic
"A" is probably correct

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?

Duh! Scientists are not Gods - they hardly are omniscient. Of course models are still a bit fuzzy - there is no perfect model in existence in the fields of hard science. This is why science proposes models after models - the next always improving on the last. Science is not static, it evolves each time a new detail, a new variable is discovered.

Omniscient scientists - I mean, really?

a reply to: swanne

Swanne, just let it go. You'll never get anywhere with Jrod on the issue of climate change. I learned that a long time ago.

I think the bottom line that should be derived from the OP is that the models, as is constantly proven, are flawed and should not be cited in true scientific discussion on climate change because they are based on information that is always needing updated and is found to be incorrect.

This is something that most people can accept--some, disappointingly, fight it, kicking and screaming the entire way.

Just walk away slowly and don't make any sudden movements...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yet people like you will just ignore the overwhelming evidence that man is indeed causing significant changes to our planet's environment.

Radiative forcing is scientifically valid, CO2 causes radiative forcing, as a result of man's addiction to burning fossil fuels we have observed a 40% rise of CO2(280ppm to 400ppm[source: NOAA]).

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

originally posted by: Bluntone22
The sound of settled science....
Bbwwwaahahaha!

There is no such thing as settled science!!!

But but but but but.....Al Gore....hockey stick graphs...polar bear cubs....
Anyone who doesn't believe in manmade global warming should be put in jail...
Or at the very least a "camp"...
You know, a concentrated one full of unenlightened Neanderthals who dare question "established" science...
Also, George W. Bush and Halliburton killed the dinosaurs...
-Christosterone

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I got to go anyway. I need to update my model...

originally posted by: Christosterone
But but but but but.....Al Gore....hockey stick graphs...polar bear cubs....
Anyone who doesn't believe in manmade global warming should be put in jail...
Or at the very least a "camp"...
You know, a concentrated one full of unenlightened Neanderthals who dare question "established" science...
Also, George W. Bush and Halliburton killed the dinosaurs...
-Christosterone

Interesting. Your sarcastic post mentioned Al Gore like the people who actually accept AGW mention Al Gore on the regular, when in fact it's always the deniers that bring up Al Gore as a reason for why it's not real. Believers couldn't give a # about Al Gore. He's not a scientist.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

My post wasn't sarcastic....George W. Bush(aided by dick Cheney of course) caused the Maunder Minimum, killed the dinosaurs and helped create manmade global warming...
This is science...not sarcasm....also noaa is totally not doctoring climate data to fit their agenda....again, I say that with a straight face..
Thanks for reading.
-Christosterone

a reply to: Christosterone

Whatever. I'm not going to play this childish game with you.