Sciencescienceclimatechangeisoprene

Sat Oct 10, 2015, 04:02 PM

Is the climate going to cool because of

isoprene (a VOC that is negative forcing) being released by the ocean. Interesting paper.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02388

I still think that cosmic rays originating outside of our solar system are far bigger forcings than CO2. All the GCM's don't take any of this in to account.

My question is what is the optimum global temperature for human civilization? Is that optimum temperature good for all other species? Likely not. And can we actually alter the global temp by reducing CO2 emissions? Likely not.

54 replies, 2973 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 54 replies Author Time Post
Reply Is the climate going to cool because of (Original post)
AZ0 Oct 2015 OP
Junglejim43 Oct 2015 #1
AZ0 Oct 2015 #2
AZ0 Oct 2015 #40
ProudNYSTaxPayer Oct 2015 #51
EGTrise Oct 2015 #3
AZ0 Oct 2015 #4
AZ0 Oct 2015 #5
Jack Burton Oct 2015 #7
AZ0 Oct 2015 #8
Jack Burton Oct 2015 #9
AZ0 Oct 2015 #10
AZ0 Oct 2015 #6
EGTrise Oct 2015 #11
AZ0 Oct 2015 #12
EGTrise Oct 2015 #13
AZ0 Oct 2015 #18
EGTrise Oct 2015 #26
AZ0 Oct 2015 #34
AZ0 Oct 2015 #36
EGTrise Oct 2015 #43
AZ0 Oct 2015 #44
EGTrise Oct 2015 #45
AZ0 Oct 2015 #46
AZ0 Oct 2015 #52
EGTrise Oct 2015 #53
AZ0 Oct 2015 #54
smalllivingeddy Oct 2015 #14
AZ0 Oct 2015 #17
smalllivingeddy Oct 2015 #30
AZ0 Oct 2015 #39
smalllivingeddy Oct 2015 #41
AZ0 Oct 2015 #42
magdrop Oct 2015 #47
AZ0 Oct 2015 #48
magdrop Oct 2015 #49
magdrop Oct 2015 #50
stupidicus2 Oct 2015 #15
misanthroptimist Oct 2015 #16
AZ0 Oct 2015 #19
misanthroptimist Oct 2015 #20
AZ0 Oct 2015 #22
misanthroptimist Oct 2015 #23
Jack Burton Oct 2015 #29
misanthroptimist Oct 2015 #31
AZ0 Oct 2015 #21
misanthroptimist Oct 2015 #24
AZ0 Oct 2015 #25
misanthroptimist Oct 2015 #28
AZ0 Oct 2015 #32
misanthroptimist Oct 2015 #35
AZ0 Oct 2015 #37
misanthroptimist Oct 2015 #38
Muzzlehatch Oct 2015 #27
AZ0 Oct 2015 #33

Response to AZ0 (Original post)

Sun Oct 11, 2015, 02:19 AM

1. I love these discussions by people that know as much about the issues

as my neighbors dog.

why don't you ask the scientists that study the issue.

No, not people paid by the extraction industry. Scientists. Not weathermen,scientists that study the issue.

Just wondering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junglejim43 (Reply #1)

Sun Oct 11, 2015, 04:39 AM

2. Did you read the peer reviewed paper I linked to?

Maybe your neighbors dog is smarter than you. Ever think about that?

The extraction industry pays me only $10,000 US dollars per post. Although the check is still in the mail. From 10 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junglejim43 (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 09:24 PM

40. Yes, let's look to science. You are right.

This is science...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #40)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 11:27 AM

51. As someone who has bowel issues

that absolutely is science. Just because they tell it in a silly way to sell things based on the science doesn't make it less right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Original post)

Sun Oct 11, 2015, 10:00 AM

3. Answer to question 1: Nope.

This is what the paper is discussing:
Isoprene is an important reactive gas that is produced mainly in terrestrial ecosystems but is also produced in marine ecosystems. In the marine environment, isoprene is produced in the seawater by various biological processes. Here, we show that photosensitized reactions involving the sea-surface microlayer lead to the production of significant amounts of isoprene. It is suggested that H-abstraction processes are initiated by photochemically excited dissolved organic matter which will the degrade fatty acids acting as surfactants. This chemical interfacial processing may represent a significant abiotic source of isoprene in the marine boundary layer.
There is no mention of finding "more" isoprene. The study addresses how isoprene is formed in the marine environment. But feel free to believe the bullshit put out by various Denier sites that count on fellow deniers not being able to figure this out on their own.

Your belief in the "cosmic ray" idea is also nonsense:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Your last paragraph is standard Denier nonsense. The problem is the speed of the change, not the direction or the amount. Your rejection of CO2 as the main driver of what is happening puts you firmly on the loony fringe of Denierism. Luckily, nobody who is making decisions about what to do cares what you folks think. Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #3)

Sun Oct 11, 2015, 02:46 PM

4. If you are going to go stupid

go full stupid and link to cartoon boy that likes to dress up as a Nazi.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #3)

Sun Oct 11, 2015, 05:33 PM

5. You do know that the site you linked to

was created by a self described unemployed cartoonist...
http://web.archive.org/web/20080213042858/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3

Science? Not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 11, 2015, 06:34 PM

7. A lot of the global warming acolytes seem to be cartoonists.

Peter Sinclair (Climate Crock of the Week) should have stuck to being a failed cartoonist. But he found religion and is now full on bat shit crazy with the global warming hoax. But now he is considered a 'climate expert' by doomers. And Al Gore invented the internet. And Hillary dodged sniper fire. And Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman. And Harry Reid hurt his eye exercising. And global warming is real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #7)

Sun Oct 11, 2015, 07:19 PM

8. global warming is not a hoax

The earth has been slowly warming for the past 22,000 years since the last ice age peak. Back then Toronto was under 2km of ice. The earth is going to continue to warm until it wants to cool again. No amount of human CO2 is going to change that. CO2 is not the climate change control knob, it is a political change knob.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #8)

Sun Oct 11, 2015, 07:35 PM

9. The hoax is the part constantly promoted and hyped by the doomers.

1. That human CO2 production has is anything other than a minuscule impact on global climate.
2. That human CO2 production will cause catastrophic results on a global scale.

Otherwise, I agree fully with you post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #9)

Sun Oct 11, 2015, 07:46 PM

10. Likewise.

I'm not really sure on ECS or TCS modeled #'s are any where close in the models, but I am pretty sure we will likely warm by 1C in the next 85 years. Plan for it and adapt. All bets are off if AMOC shuts down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #3)

Sun Oct 11, 2015, 06:09 PM

6. It is good that you can

cut and paste the abstract. Try reading the paper and the underlying implications. It's called science, but you likely know nothing of it if you link to John Cook. A self described non climate scientist who is a self employed cartoonist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #6)

Sun Oct 11, 2015, 08:06 PM

11. re:"Try reading the paper and the underlying implications. It's called science,"

What a complete, steaming load of horseshit. I did read it. All of it. There is nothing that implies "more" isoprene is going into the environment. Nothing. The study addresses abiotic mechanisms for isoprene production in a marine environment. Marine sources are a very minor part of the global isoprene production, but you knew that, right? Because you "read' and "understood" the article? Suuure you did.

If you have anything at all to paste from the article that you supposedly "read" and "understood" that says otherwise, then paste it.

Really. Back up your not very clever insults with facts.

Oh, that's right. You can't actually do that, can you? Well then, just toss out lots more insults; you can pretend you're being "scientific". Jack will agree with you, and I'm sure that feels nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #11)

Sun Oct 11, 2015, 08:52 PM

12. Dude, slow your spin.

Science is science. Read again, just because one paper makes your panties wet doesn't making so. Fucking go read a book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 12, 2015, 09:45 AM

13. In other words, you have nothing.

End of discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 12:46 AM

18. I love it when deniers of science

end the discussion after linking to a cartoonist to climate change. If you believe John Cooks tripe, you likely have no experience or education in the scientific method. Or you like group think bias science. John Cook et al's work has no basis in science and should be laughed at and ridiculed widely by true scientists. Which it has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #18)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 02:00 AM

26. Insults and personal attacks are fun, but you still have nothing.

Still waiting for your explanation of how the paper in your OP casts doubt on global warming.

And waiting.

And waiting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #26)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 07:53 PM

34. Reading comphrehension is hard for some, but don't worry

about isoprene as the earth is going to explode from a gigantic internal atomic explosion. This peer reviewed paper says so...
http://nujournal.net/core.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 08:22 PM

36. Okay, here is a cut and paste from the last paragraph of the discussion section

"may represent a significant source of isoprene in the absence of any biological sources in the marine boundary layer"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #36)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 11:07 PM

43. Your excerpt is missing a vital word that would make what you want it to say be true.

The word is "additional". Or it could be "new". Or "more".

Without that or a similar word, your excerpt means nothing except that abiotic isoprene production may account for a larger fraction of the previously observed marine isoprene than previously thought.

It doesn't mean that there is "more" isoprene than previously observed. Since you don't believe the authors of the study themselves, I'm sure you won't believe me either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #43)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 11:14 PM

44. key words

"significant source" not previously understood very well and not factored into GCM models. I do believe the authors are acting in good faith to protect their grant funding, but no I don't believe you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #44)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 11:30 PM

45. Of course you don't, you poor thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #45)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 11:38 PM

46. I am a poor thing because I don't believe you?

That is an odd thing to say, but whatever. Question for you, which I might actually believe your answer if you get it right: What is the optimal global average temp for earth to sustain all life currently existing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #45)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 05:49 PM

52. Awaiting your answer to the

optimal global ave temp. What is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #52)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 05:58 PM

53. You poor thing.

You seem really frantic to keep your fake reality from crumbling around you. I already responded to your nonsense questions upthread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #53)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 06:09 PM

54. Why do you keep saying "poor thing"

not sure if you are trying to be condescending or compassionately stupid. In any event, you still have not stated what you believe is the optimum global average temperature on earth. You got a number? Simple question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Original post)

Mon Oct 12, 2015, 03:03 PM

14. The rays originating outside of our solar system

are a given, and for many purposes, including anything other than emergency preparedness, can be accepted as almost a constant.

The isoprene article can be considered similarly.

In essence I read your post as an admission that you don't have anything worth posting with regard to human caused climate change so you're posting distractions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smalllivingeddy (Reply #14)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 12:38 AM

17. You should read up on the CERN work on cosmic rays and cloud formation.

Or just google cosmic rays for the wiki idiot version.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #17)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 02:44 PM

30. You seem to have utterly missed my point.

Cosmic rays have lots of affects.

Those affects have been occurring since essentially forever; they are not a new element in the dynamics of climate change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smalllivingeddy (Reply #14)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 09:19 PM

39. The science is not settled

and cosmic rays are no way factored into any GCM. Isoprene production is not constant. My post is distracting from what? Questioning the validity of CO2 is the climate control knob? If that is what you mean, then yes I am trying to distract you away from bull shit science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #39)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 10:58 PM

41. Forging Doubt

"Manufacturing doubt is not difficult, because in science all conclusions are provisional, and skepticism is intrinsic to the process. But as Oreskes notes, 'Just because we don't know everything, that doesn't mean that we know nothing.' We know a lot, in fact, and it is what we know that some people don't want us to know that is at the heart of the problem. What can we do about this pseudoskepticism?

"In Merchants of Doubt, close-up prestidigitator extraordinaire Jamy Ian Swiss offers an answer: 'Once revealed, never concealed.' He demonstrates it with a card trick in which a selected card that goes back into the deck ends up underneath a drinking glass on the table. It is virtually impossible to see how it is done, but once he move is highlighted in a second viewing, it is virtually impossible not to see it thereafter. The goal of proper skepticism is to reveal the secrets of dubious doubters so that the magic behind their tricks disappears."

Michael Shermer, March 2015 Scientific American

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smalllivingeddy (Reply #41)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 11:06 PM

42. Doubting or being skeptical of claims of climate doom

is much different than fully accepting what a doomer climate scientist is advocating. Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” That evidence is not there when it comes to climate doomsday predictions. The science is not settled.

And if the science is settled, what is the optimum global temperature of earth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #42)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 01:33 AM

47. What is so extrordinary about the greenhouse effect?

We've known about it for centuries.

You say the darndest things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magdrop (Reply #47)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 01:55 AM

48. Not sure if it has been centuries but

since about 1990 CO2 is the control knob. What is the ideal temp for the earth and how much should we turn down this CO2 control knob?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #48)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 08:37 AM

49. Of course you aren't sure, because it's true. Reality is what you have been brainwashed to doubt.

"Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier (/ˈfʊəriˌeɪ, -iər/; French: ; 21 March 1768 – 16 May 1830) was a French mathematician and physicist born in Auxerre and best known for initiating the investigation of Fourier series and their applications to problems of heat transfer and vibrations. The Fourier transform and Fourier's Law are also named in his honour. Fourier is also generally credited with the discovery of the greenhouse effect."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier





"Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. "

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm






"Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect."

http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm#ixzz3odggbfq7

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #48)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 08:54 AM

50. I think I understand what you might be confused about.

Although we were never able to actually measure the greenhouse effect until sometime in the late 20th century, we have known that it exists for a much longer period of time.

It's like saying that we have only known about electrons orbiting the nuclei of atoms for about two years since that was the first time that they were actually photographed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Original post)

Mon Oct 12, 2015, 06:28 PM

15. no, that's just the latest flat earther idiocy

which is not a whole lot different from the debunked claims about cosmic rays

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 12:21 PM

16. Sorry, your idea is nuts



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #16)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 12:49 AM

19. Missing some forcings?

Too simplistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #19)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 12:51 AM

20. No, it's not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #20)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 12:58 AM

22. Says you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #22)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 01:02 AM

23. No, says reality...

...and the fact that you cannot demonstrate that it is incomplete.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #19)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 12:05 PM

29. The chart is bullshit.

It comes from the IPCC AR5 report. You can find it in a few places. Full report on page 14. Also in the supplemental tech material. Probably elsewhere. It is a typical 'baffle 'em with bullshit' strategy. Produce voluminous material with lots of charts and write the supporting text in a way that is tedious to follow.

Here is the the only key bit of info one need know about this graphic:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/supplementary/WG1AR5_TSSM_FINAL.pdf
Figure SPM.5 (and Figure TS.7) plots Radiative Forcing (RF) estimates in
2011 relative to 1750 and aggregated uncertainties for the main drivers
of climate change. This figure is different from similar figures shown in
previous IPCC report SPMs (though an analogous figure was shown in
Chapter 2 of AR4) as it evaluates the RF based on the emissions rather
than the concentration changes. An emitted compound changes the
atmospheric concentration of the same substance but may also impact
that of other atmospheric constituents through chemistry processes.

In other words the doomertists are trying to show the differences in CO2 emissions between 1750 and 2011. Not the actual differences of concentrations in the atmosphere which would be the metric that matters if one were actually trying to portray the cause in climate change. But since the IPCC doomertists are actually just a bunch of socialist weasels trying to promote a global government they focus on the emissions because it supports their malthusian anti-capitalism and the industrial revolution was evil mindset.

NEVER EVER believe a doomer. Most are too stupid to understand what they are saying. The rest are deliberately misleading the public to promote their socialist ideology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #29)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 04:35 PM

31. You nitwit

Increased emissions will cause increased concentration. Since the concentrations are already being measured and we know how they change...oh, FFS. There's no point in explaining any further. You've already tuned out and formulated your next fake conspiracy.

You conspiracy theory types are just getting lazy at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #16)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 12:56 AM

21. This looks like a chart that would have gone in

AR5 chapter 8. It looks different from what went in figure 8.15. What is the source of your chart?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #21)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 01:03 AM

24. Right click on the image

You're welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #16)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 01:11 AM

25. Uhm, right clicking gives they same image

with no attribution. When you right clicked it to save to image it lost its attributes likely. Just a source would be nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #25)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 08:20 AM

28. Sigh

Oh, good lord. The image is AR5 Working Group I Figure SPM-5.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #28)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 07:45 PM

32. While I've read the AR5 WG 1, 2, & 3 chapters I don't read the

summary for policy makers as it is pure bull shit. It is written by politicians for politicians. With that said, I totally discount this chart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #32)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 08:21 PM

35. You discount it for non-viable reasons, you mean

Either demonstrate precisely where and how it is in error or get off the pot. It is a bit simplified, but is in no way in error.

Here is a link to all figures from WGI, show the error in the SPM on the basis of that information

Interestingly, I don't read much in WGII and almost nothing from WGIII.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #35)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 08:30 PM

37. What? II & III are the most important

in my opinion wrt what the fuck is going to be written in the bull shit SPM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #37)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 08:41 PM

38. WGI is the actual science

WG's II is a bit speculative (impacts, vulnerability, and adaptability) and III is more speculative still (mitigation).

In WGII I am most interested in impacts and vulnerability.

In WGIII I'm interested in very little. Any mitigation that occurs will be the result of processes other than science. I skim that section but seldom find anything interesting to me.

Your observation about the SPM has some validity, imo, however the figure posted is a synopsis of several figures from WGI. Therefore, your complaint is moot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Original post)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 06:55 AM

27. You should check the earlier thread on this, and the response by one of the authors

to the right wing 'this changes everything' nonsense:

Factcheck: Aerosols research misinterpreted to ‘alarming extent’, says study author

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:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-aerosols-research-misinterpreted-to-alarming-extent-says-study-author/
http://www.discussionist.com/101812243

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Original post)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 07:46 PM

33. Odd that this paper did not cite

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescienceclimatechangeisoprene