Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Earth's Natural Coolant Twice as Powerful as Climate Model Algorithm

2 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Guest


Guest

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/609497/Climate-change-shock-Earth-s-natural-global-coolant-discovered

Research has identified a natural system where volatile organic compounds (VOC) are emitted into the air from the sea.

These VOCs cause the climate to cool and may explain why world temperatures have remained stable for around 15 years, despite widespread claims that global warming is out of control.

The German government's Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research found a key VOC known as Isoprene, which was only thought to have been produced by living organisms such as plankton, is actually also created by the sun hitting chemicals at the top of the ocean.

Measurements had estimated 1.9 megatons of isoprene was emitted each year but the new, groundbreaking discovery shows an increase of between 0.2 and 3.5 megatons annually.

Critics of climate change say the research - published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology - throws previous estimates of rising temperatures into doubt.

Instead, they claim, it suggests any man-made damage is being countered by the planet's natural cooling processes.

Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: “Here is more evidence of what we have known for some time: that climate models simply do not mirror the reality of a chaotic system – and that they should never have been trusted in the first place."

The report shows isoprene is produced from non-living chemicals in the sea. After rising into the atmosphere, these help create clouds, which reduce temperatures.

LITR said: "Atmospheric chemists from France and Germany can now show that isoprene can also be formed without biological sources in the surface film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models.

"The new identified photochemical reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models."

Sal

Sal

You couldn't misinterpret that report any worse if you tried.

What has been found is a possible new source for aerosols.

What has not been found is any measurable increase in aerosols.

This finding effects the trends not at all.

Guest


Guest

There are more holes in the CLimate change errrrrrrrrr global WARMINGMONGERING theory than a new block of swiss cheese.

Sal

Sal

Boy, this one died quickly.

An introduction of facts, some argle-bargle from PeeDawg, and flat-liner.

Guest


Guest

Introduction of fact? Lol... you didn't introduce shit... or I guess one could say you did. I can't learn for you.

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:Introduction of fact? Lol... you didn't introduce shit... or I guess one could say you did. I can't learn for you.

Zero increase in aerosols measured.

A new source of aerosols found.

Zero effect on modeling.

You may want to let this sink to the bottom again, random internet guy.

Hahahahahahahahahaha .....

Guest


Guest

You're not making any sense. " Measurements had estimated 1.9 megatons of isoprene was emitted each year but the new, groundbreaking discovery shows an increase of between 0.2 and 3.5 megatons annually." Even if you're taking about absorptions and saturations in the atmospheric particle dynamics (as I have describing the effects of co2 in the stratosphere as an unaccounted variable)... that has little to nothing to do with the underestimated output of isopreme (another variable).

Sal

Sal

It's pretty simple.

Aerosol levels are measured in the atmosphere.

Isoprene is not a aeresol, but may impact their formation.

A new source of isoprene has been discovered, but that has zero impact on levels of aerosol in the atmosphere which have remained constant.

Ergo, no impact on modeling.

Guest


Guest

Lol... no effect on modeling doesn't mean no effect on climate or temperature or atmosphere. A model is just a test for a theory. In real science if the model doesn't work you reassess and reevaluate. The model isn't the holy grail.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

PkrBum wrote:Lol... no effect on modeling doesn't mean no effect on climate or temperature or atmosphere. A model is just a test for a theory. In real science if the model doesn't work you reassess and reevaluate. The model isn't the holy grail.

Oh quit being such a 'denier' pkrbm.....  I am still waiting for someone to step-up and make Landfill Salad for dinner, and then come back here and tell us about it. It should be a colorful array made from breakfast's banana peels, potato peels from last night's dinner, orange peels, strawberry tops, and carrot and celery scrapings. So far there have been no takers.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:Lol... no effect on modeling doesn't mean no effect on climate or temperature or atmosphere.

Yes, actually that's exactly what it means.

The measure of aerosols in the atmosphere has remained steady.

Because, they may have discovered something new about what contributed to the measure does not change the equation a wit.

This really isn't that hard to understand.

Guest


Guest

You don't know what you're talking about... there is nothing static in atmospheric particulate. It's a highly dynamic constantly evolving environment. It's makeup and exchanges are certainly not "settled science"... those are theories.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

Sal

Sal

I do know what I'm talking about, because the authors of the study that your article cited explained it.

They said your article is full of shit.

Then they explained why.

Do you not own a google machine?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum