The science is settled except we only just realized that the benzene and toluene gas over the vast Southern Ocean were not man-made pollutants after all, but were made by industrious phytoplankton. For the first time someone went and measured the benzene and toluene in the water and discovered that instead of being a sink for human pollutants in the air above, the ocean was the source.
This matters because these two gases increased the amount of organic aerosols by, wait for it, between 8% and up to 80% in bursts. And all that extra aerosol matters, of course, because aerosols seed clouds, which change the weather.
And the expert climate models, upon which a $1.5 Trillion dollar industry depends on for its’ very existence, did not know this. If hypothetically there has been less phytoplankton in the worlds oceans in the last few decades, there may also have been less cloud cover, and thus more warming. But who knows?
The modelers are always saying climate change can’t be natural because they can’t think of anything else that could have could have caused the warming, then people keep finding another factor they forgot to put in the models…
“In any case “climate models will have to consider benzene and toluene emissions from the oceans if they want to get the clouds right in climate projections for both the past and the future,” says IQFR-CSIC researcher and head of the atmospheric modeling part of the study Alfonso Saiz-López.”
This is an image of rolling eddies of blooms of phytoplankton in 2017 between the Antarctic peninsula and South America. Like a giant artist was marbling patterns in the worlds oceans.
Southern Ocean drives massive bloom of tiny phytoplankton 2017. On January 13, 2016, the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) on the Suomi NPP satellite captured this view of extensive phytoplankton blooms stretching from the tip of South America across to the Antarctic Peninsula.*
Does this sound like a mature field ready to have a $7 trillion dollar carbon market set up around it?
New study highlights the impact of two new marine gases on climate models’ accuracy
PhysOrg
“If we don’t get the clouds right, we won’t get the climate right,” says Charel Wohl, ICM-CSIC researcher and lead author of the study. “We are just beginning to unveil the multiple ingredients that form cloud seeds,” he adds.
The work, published in the journal Science Advances, describes the first measurements of benzene and toluene in polar oceans and indicates that these compounds have a biological origin. Until now, their presence in polar marine air was thought to be a proof of the extent of human pollution from coal and oil combustion or solvent use, among others.
A biological origin
The only way to know how the atmospheric composition was regulated before the profound changes generated by human activity in the industrial era is to study those regions where the air is still clean, such as the polar areas.
To carry out the study, the team measured the concentrations of benzene and toluene in surface water and air during the course of two oceanographic campaigns: one in the Arctic and the other in the Southern Ocean. The distribution of these gases, their relationship to the amount of phytoplankton, and the fact that the ocean was constantly emitting them into the atmosphere rather than capturing them from it, led the researchers to conclude that they were of biological origin.
Then, by incorporating the data into a global atmospheric chemistry and climate model, the scientific team realized that benzene and toluene emitted by the ocean contributed significantly to aerosol production. This was especially true in the extremely clean and unpolluted atmosphere of the Southern Ocean, where these two gases increased the amount of organic aerosols by 8% and up to 80% in transient situations.
The ocean is a net supplier — it’s outgassing far more than it absorbs
From the paper: Benzene is the top row, and clearly, in this two month period in 2019 there are big fluctuations, which could affect cloud cover (Click to enlarge. ) The fluxes of gases are shown in C and D and most of the time the ocean is neutral or outgassing.
Fig. 2. Underway measurements from the Southern Ocean.
Hourly underway surface seawater concentrations and atmospheric mole fractions of benzene and toluene in (A) and (B), respectively. Interpolated air mole fractions are also shown in (A) and (B). The calculated sea-to-air fluxes are shown in (C) and (D). Positive fluxes indicate ocean outgassing, i.e., sea-to-air fluxes. The other plots show the wind speed (WS) (E), underway sea surface temperature (SST) (F), and Chl a and surface seawater salinity (SSS) (G). https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.add9031
This unique combination of measurements points toward a biological source for these two compounds previously thought to be predominantly released to the environment from anthropogenic activity.
Chlorophyll concentrations marks out where phytoplankton were in a three month period. The highest concentration blooms are marked in red.
Secondary Organic Aerosols (SOA) may have a big effect on cloud formation:
Concurrent high-resolution measurements in the surface seawater and the overlying atmosphere showed that both the Arctic and the Southern Ocean were highly supersaturated in benzene and toluene, and their emission fluxes rivalled those of other atmospherically relevant marine trace gases, such as isoprene or monoterpenes, although the particle yield of benzene and toluene is much higher than that of previously well-researched marine trace gases. Implementing these ocean emission fluxes in a global chemistry-climate model, we estimated that ocean-leaving benzene and toluene made substantial contributions to SOA mass concentration in the polar regions, with the largest effect over the pristine Southern Ocean (7.7% increase in SOA as the average effect and up to 77.3% increase using the highest measured emission flux).
Our findings also call for expanding both the measurements and the model representations of other, hitherto overlooked, gas precursors of SOA in the marine atmosphere
If phytoplankton have more of a role controlling Earth’s climate, then CO2 has less of a role.
REFERENCE
Charel Wohl et al, Marine biogenic emissions of benzene and toluene and their contribution to secondary organic aerosols over the polar oceans, Science Advances (2023). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.add9031
NASA Chlorophyll Concentrations in the Southern Ocean.
*Wikimedia. The image was built with data from the red, green, and blue wavelength bands on VIIRS, plus chlorophyll data. A series of image-processing steps highlighted the color differences and more subtle features, such as nearly a dozen eddies of varying sizes.
That’s the essence of the problem isn’t it?
Profound scientific ignorance.
When I went to primary school, back in the day when they used to teach useful things and not “gender theory” or “climate catastrophism” etc., we learned about the ever-changing nature of the world and Ice Ages etc..
Warmists have a very primitive, anti-scientific view of the world and think it never changes.
670
And as with all primitive peoples, when something happened which they thought was out-of-the-ordinary, they had to make sacrifices to their gods.
In the present case, the whole of Western Civilisation is their sacrifice.
690
“the whole of Western Civilization is their sacrifice”
I doubt they’ll stop there.
Decarbonization
Net Zero
If this were a bad Sci-Fi novel about evil aliens intent on the destruction of Mankind, these terms would be plot clues.
160
The Arrival (1996 film)
40
Thanks for the suggestion Brian. I just bought it plus the sequel.
10
That was the answer they wanted. They then had to come up with the question and hypothesis decades ago to justify that answer.
100
True.
They burnt the witches. Or stoned them. Or hung them out to dry.
St Anthony’s Fire was no more.
Ergo (or ergot): it worked.
Conclusion. Burn the witches.
00
When you ask a Climate Alarmist why it was so warm during the Age of the Dinosaurs and how did the Ice Ages start and finish you don’t get an answer. Let alone the warmer and cooler periods over the last 10,000 years. Funny that but they have computer models blaming CO2 on the the ‘Climate Change’ since the mid 1850s or so.
360
It just doesn’t matter anymore; humans can control the climate (Sarc)
140
Dave
The Leftists version of Science is that its a vending machine. Shove in the money and select the outcome , and out it comes.
Having been a scientist myself and done actual research at one point, you can’t pick the outcome, it just is.
This is yet another example where we have newly discovered processes which help explain what the Leftists idiotic models, only right for short periods of time, could not comprehend.
We need to call out the Lefts “money for hire” scientists who are nothing of the sort and are poisoning our ability to conduct proper research and put together proper policies.
220
Many or most of your scientists for hire reside in publicly funded institutions such as CSIRO, BoM and every university. Science has been bastardised for at least one generation.
70
Profound scientific ignorance??
Your description is so, so, wrong.
Surely you mean prolific, devious, immoral liars in the pockets of the likes of the UN & WEF.
60
That’s it! We’ll just have to drain the Southern Ocean! Not to forget the millions of tonnes of rotting fish that sink to the bottom and rot oops decay into oil and gas!
281
Fish-oil” by simple accumulation????
Not if you pick up uo the Russian (and other) scientists who run a VERY good case for “Abiogenesis” of “Petroleum”.
It actually makes more sense than stuff just rotting on an ocean floor and magically becoming crude oil.
Plants to coal actually makes a LOT of sense. Animals to oil, mot so much. Think of the boundary between the crust and mantle as a planetary chemical factory and …
Plate subduction plays a HUGE part in the behaviour of volcanoes (water-and gas content) and it may be part of a conveyor for the feeding of carbon and hydrogen on those subducted sea floors. THIS sort of stuff is why ACTUAL geology is a serious business. The planet is STILL cooling as it continues “coalescing” out of a big cloud of gases and dust, whilst scooping up huge blobs of frozen water and methane from unwary comets.
141
There are many arguments both for and against the hypothesised abiogenic origin of oil and gas. Perhaps there are some deposits from both.
60
Very soon there will be an IPCC Working Group set up to consider the production of phytoplankton and tax the rich countries causing this. As an Australian, I fear that we will be a deemed a major contributor.
However, South America will be exempted due to a yet to be defined control of Ocean currents that reduce phytoplankton.
180
Yes.
Australian “leadership” (sic) are fanatical followers of the anthropogenic global warming fraud and any and all UN and WEF decrees.
You can bet that the Australian Government response will result in the very worst of the worst for the Australian people. It will be even worse than the already-bad offerings of Biden, Trudeau, Sunak or Hipkins.
340
I don’t suppose we can get Racing fuel back now it’s not the evil thing we have been told?
01
Shell Racing A is methanol. That’s alright, in’t it?
And some acetone, so maybe it’s not alright.
00
Peter B:
We could counter with corals as CO2 sequesters.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2023/01/31/desert-dusts-convert-coral-reefs-into-carbon-storage/
50
And not to mention the copious amounts of Dimethyl Sulfide produced.. that give that “sea air” smell !
160
Saltwater by itself doesn’t have any smell, but the things that live in it certainly do. The rather stale, sulphury smell is dimethyl sulphide, produced by bacteria as they digest dead phytoplankton. At low tide, you’ll also smell chemicals called dictyopterenes, which are sex pheromones produced by seaweed eggs to attract the sperm. And on top of all this is the ‘iodine’ smell of the sea, which is actually the bromophenols produced by marine worms and algae.
340
I personally love the smell of newly cultivated soil – attributed to “geosmins”. Drive through any cropping areas around sowing time, wind down the window and enjoy. The other natural perfumes I have enjoyed in my professional life are the smell of flowering grapes in vineyards and faba bean crops at flowering as well. If you could synthesise and bottle the latter two you could make a fortune.
100
and the smell of rain.
Well, perhaps not so much last year.
00
All those lovely ocean smells 😉
https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/07/20/what-gives-ocean-its-wonderful-smell-vile-chemical-15667
120
Can’t models smells no money in it thus ignored.
100
Modellers won’t care. They have bills to pay and a gravy train to maintain to keep paying for their lifestyle. Seriously, on the government teat, how hard are they working as right now these clowns are just laughing their asses off at Joe taxpayer funding their BS largese.
250
Their entire Climate change fantasy should be starved of TRILLIONs $ funding ASAP.
I remember Sceptical scientists telling us decades ago that we still don’t understand cloud formations and we should not waste so much money until we did.
And of course they were too stupid to take any notice and happily wasted trillions of $ for no change in co2 levels or temperature or climate or the HOT SPOT or…….
260
IIRC at one stage Chiefio ran the Apple corporate Cray which was being replaced.
He got the OK for a grad student to use it on his project that was modelling one cloud. Took about a week.
10
There’s a story, almost certainly apocryphal, about Steve Jobs meeting Seymour Cray at a conference.
Steve, enthusiastic as always, told Seymour how great their new Cray supercomputer was, and how they were going to use it to achieve great things.
After he wound down a bit, he asked Seymour what they used.
“Oh, we have a Mac”
RIP Seymour and Steve, and of course the great dmr.
20
A phytoplankton bloom on earth exhibits similarities to turbulence on Jupiter. Proving beyond reasonable doubt that its only natural.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia25034-jovian-turbulence-and-phytoplankton-bloom-on-earth
91
This is a bit like scientists “discovering”, in about 1987,
about coral “bleaching” and coral spawning and then making
a big hoo-haa about it when the people of North Queensland
were using the dead coral for cement making and also painting it
in bright colours for the few tourists that used to venture
north. I remember buying some in the mid 60s.
Gotta hand it to them “scientists”, they’re really on the ball.
160
Re scientists “on the ball”
Find yourself a copy of R.V. Jones “Most Secret War” and, when you get to the “V2” chapter, read of the activities of the Duncan Sandys Committee on their attempts to unravel it.
If he had met “Ultracrepedarian” as a word he could have used it there (IMO)
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ultracrepidarian
10
Many more reasons why their CC fantasy is a very dead dodo and should be closed down before we waste even more TRILLIONs of $ for ZIP.
India, China and developing countries understand the data, but OECD countries continue to BELIEVE in their stupid fantasies.
https://mailchi.mp/8f66c5985348/lets-face-it-net-zero-is-dead-in-the-water-193775?e=dcbe0ef09b
130
Your link was most instructive Neville. I had not come across that newsletter before. Thank you.
10
The ‘Climate Change’ activist will now have to lobby for restarting the Whaling Industry save the planet.
Someone call Greta to start controlling the plankton.
150
It is obvious they don’t know what they don’t know.
160
Most of what we hear regarding the climate does not come from experts at all. Note – the following are NOT climate scientists; Al Gore, John Kerry, Joe Biden, King Charles the 3rd., David Attenborough, Emma Thompson, Leonardo di Caprio, Bill Gates, Antonio Guterres, Klaus Schwab, Greta Thunberg, Tim Flannery, Anthony Albanese, Chris Bowen……The list is almost endless, of course and gets longer every day. Just for clarity.
380
Yes Australia has its own ABC of ignoramuses : Albanese, Bowen, Chalmers
280
And of that list, only two, Attenborough and Flannery arguably are qualified scientists although out of their field, and some others may “identify” as scientists. Being post-modernists of course, they “identify” as whatever they want, but it doesn’t make them so.
200
Attenborough holds 32, yes, 32 university degrees. More than anybody else, apparently. Although in fact he only ‘earnt’ one through study – an honours degree in Natural Science from Clare College, Cambridge. The rest are ‘bestowed’by other institutions. Makes him sound much more qualified and ‘expert’, though.
120
He may be viewed as an expert by the elite but he is a purveyor of lies none the less. Attenborough saw what happened to David Bellamy when he called climate change ridiculous so he went all in on the scam to keep his job. Hardly a warrior for scientific principle.
20
Interestingly, they ALL have a “Solution” usually of the “final” variety, in search of any tenuously linked “problem”
POLITICAL SCIENCE”, it seems to “pay well”.
100
Those “Unknown Unknowns” strike again
20
I am waiting for climate “scientists” (sic) to discover the mix of aldehydes, esters and alcohols, typically of the six carbon variety, which are the stress signaling chemicals or “green leaf volatiles” released when plants are damaged, e.g. when grass is grazed or lawns are mown (that is the smell of freshly cut grass).
They are already trying to outlaw meat, so I guess lawn mowing will be outlawed next.
190
Geez David, if the threat of methane and “dont eat meat” wasn’t enough, now you mention ” green leaf volatiles”. What are you trying to do, give the climate alarmists more ideas? ” Green leaf volatiles” – even sounds bad.
120
Ross:
Get in first and call the climate alarmists ”Green leaf volatiles” . At least 2 of those apply.
70
Ross, Graeme No.3.
Take a look at the juxtaposition of your avatars…
40
I wonder whether the phytoplankton blooms help in moderating the earth’s temperature due to the increase in energy being received from the sun during the perihelion of the earth’s elliptical orbit (when the earth is about 5 million kM closer to the sun than at Aphelion). Perihelion occurs on 3rd January and, due to our closer proximity to the sun, the energy received from the sun is about 7% greater than on 3rd July at aphelion. The southern hemisphere has a considerably greater area of ocean than the northern hemisphere (81% compared to about 60%) which, apparently, helps to moderate the temperature of the earth and so, despite the increase in energy from the sun, the average temperature of the earth doesn’t show an annual cyclic change. I have been trying to find a scientific explanation. Could an increase in cloud cover caused by the organnic aerosols be a factor?
220
Cloud is poorly modelled, but we could hypothesise that more cloud is a cooling factor.
The focus will shift to dust entering the oceans and iron fertilisation. There was growth in plankton during glacial times, when Australia became a huge dustbowl.
https://www.imas.utas.edu.au/news/news-items/study-offers-solution-to-ice-age-ocean-chemistry-puzzle
80
All the action was happening in the tropics, not so much in the Southern Ocean.
https://polarjournal.ch/en/2022/04/22/not-a-fertilization-effect-caused-less-co2-in-ice-age-atmosphere/
40
Hmmm … the plot thickens.
‘We find that, although dust deposition in the central equatorial Pacific was two to three times greater in the LGP than in the Holocene, productivity was the same or lower, and the degree of nitrate consumption was the same. These biogeochemical findings suggest that the relatively greater ice-age dust fluxes were not large enough to provide substantial iron fertilization to the central equatorial Pacific.’ (Costa et al 2016)
10
Ideas can change. Anyway the effect of greater dust fluxes may have been countered by lower temperature of the water.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2023/01/31/desert-dusts-convert-coral-reefs-into-carbon-storage/
30
Benzene and toluene, eh? That’s interesting!
It sounds similar to the “CLAW feedback” mechanism:
These biological mechanisms are examples of the sorts of factors which are so poorly understood that attempts to model them accurately in GCMs (climate models) are surely hopeless. That simple fact spells doom to any rational hope of building reliable GCMs.
A “computer model” (or just “model”) is a computer program which simulates (“models”) real processes for the purpose of predicting their progression. (Other sorts of models also exist, such as mathematical models, and physical scale models; all models are attempts to approximately simulate, and thereby predict, reality.)
The utility and skillfulness of models is dependent on how well the processes which they model are understood, how faithfully those processes are simulated in the computer code, and whether the results can be repeatedly tested so that the models can be refined.
Specialized models, which try to model reasonably well-understood processes, like post-glacial rebound and radiation transport, are potentially useful, because the processes which they model are manageably simple and well-understood. Weather forecasting models are also useful, even though the processes which they model are dauntingly complex, and often poorly understood, because the models’ short-term predictions can be repeatedly tested, allowing the models to be validated and refined.
But more ambitious models, like GCMs, which attempt to simulate the combined effects of many poorly-understood processes, over time periods far too long to allow repeated testing and refinement, are of dubious utility, to put it mildly.
With regard to how they are made, climate models have a lot in common with sausages. I.e., you probably really don’t want to know. But if you can’t resist a peek, check out the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, which was one of the Climategate documents. It is 15,000 lines (93,000 words) of notes, apparently by a very frustrated Ian “Harry” Harris, who spent years trying to clean up UEA CRU’s convoluted climate data.
Even if the GCMs were very expertly and professionally written, they would still inevitably be unfit for purpose, because:
#1. They attempt to simulate very poorly understood and highly complex (often biological) systems, and
#2. They are untestable (in practical timeframes).
https://sealevel.info/models_wuwt_3025610.png
Untestable models even of simple, well-understood systems are problematic, because they place (certainly naive) faith in the ability of the modelers to code without making mistakes. But untestable models of enormously complicated, very poorly-understood systems are far worse. Even if they weren’t riddled with unintentional errors (as all large computer programs are), they still would inevitably reflect nothing but the assumptions & prejudices of their authors.
That’s not just my cynicism talking. We have proof that the GCMs are not fit for purpose. If anyone ever contends that GCMs do a good job of modeling reality, point out to them that the CMIP6 models differ from one another by a factor of 3.6 (!!!) in their baked-in estimates of ECS climate sensitivity. If the modelers knew what they were doing, that would be impossible.
https://sealevel.info/CMIP6_models1_150pct.png
APPEAL FOR HELP: (different topic.)
It is troubling to me that nearly all of the many online repositories of Climategate emails and other files have gone offline. In fact, I know of only one: the one which I have one on my website, here:
https://sealevel.info/FOIA/
It really needs to be mirrored somewhere else, for redundancy. If anyone reading this would like to host that mirror, I would be delighted to work with you to make it happen. Please contact me.
[Dave, some really interesting ideas there. Thanks. Best submit them in shorter sections in comments. It’s easier to approve and easier to reply to each point. We don’t normally publish really long comments. – Jo ]
90
Dave, I’ll simplify it for you. Modelling of complex systems is just estimated guessing, which at the end of the day is just guessing.
20
How about “an elaborate SWAG”?
00
Common Sense (Wisdom) tells us that there is much we do not know.
I don’t know how many of you know anything about Dungeons and Dragons (or other Role playing games) but they cleverly treat Intelligence and Wisdom as different things.
I know plenty of intelligent people who have sold their souls to CAGW, but none of them are Wise on anything.
120
Tim,
Yes. So many intelligent people being manipulated with ease .
60
Einstein said that we are like a child in an enormous library. Opening the first page of one book.
So many arrogant “scientists” who have no idea of anything and cannot understand that there is so much we do not know.
40
I read somewhere clever means you know tomato’s are a fruit, wise means you know not to put them in a fruit salad, or something like that anyway.
21
Along those lines is -(IIRC)
“Knowledge” is knowing what to do
“Training” is knowing how to do it
“Wisdom” is knowing when to do it
“Experience” is not doing it
60
The article should be sent to the CSIRO and particularly the head of the division which is sending an annual expedition to the Antarctic to find “signals” of climate change. Sticking to topic as well- Ned Nikolov (@NikolovScience) has been let back on Twitter. I probably learnt more about how the earth’s atmosphere worked by following him in 2 months, than I had ever learned from anyone else in probably 30 years. There was information that he passed on showing how different levels of cloudiness had affected the earth’s temperature in various decades. In particular, that period of warming between 1980 – 2000 ( roughly ) was associated with lower levels of cloudiness. The levels of cloudiness could be tracked by going back through satellite data. Cloudiness would appear then to affect the world’s weather/ climate in periods less than 100 years eg decades. Other forces affect climate long term, so periods of hundreds/ thousands of years. Then there are even bigger forces affecting climate in the thousands/ millions year considerations. CO2, of course, has no effect (or very little measurable effect in comparison) on the world’s climate. #climatescam.
170
Then a copy should also go to “The Christmas Turkey” of the Antarctic “iced up liner” episode – at UNSW IIRC
30
The fundamental problem with all models and most ‘climate science’ is that they don’t simply take incomplete data and then make outrageous extrapolations, or even that they mistakenly believe that CO2 is the enemy. No, the real problem is that the starting point for these people is the desire to ban all fossil fuels. CO2 is just the mechanism they hope to use in order to do that. Consequently, they’re only interested in measurements, data and modelling which support that objective.
In the same way that vit. D and Ivermectin could not be allowed to even enter the conversation, for fear people would choose them rather than the ‘vaccine’, any natural mechanism that might explain the warming they keep predicting has to be either buried, ignored or discredited. Whatever the question, the answer has to be ‘CO2’.
In other words, the ‘science’ is designed only to support the desired conclusion.
170
In blog comments a while back (I don’t remember which one) one of James Hansen’s “sacred figures” was mentioned with a question of how he got it.
One answer was “He really needed that figure so he just worked backwards until he got it”.
The hand of the weaver does control the loom.
30
Steve – Spot on !
If they really thought that CO2 was causing the planet to overheat they wouldn’t be just as keen to ban nuclear
If they really cared about our health they wouldn’t have banned Ivermectin , Hydroxychloroquine and muted mention of Vit D , Zinc and other useful things.
BTW : Jo’s article here is another interesting piece of the jigsaw puzzle.I guess some people are still doing actual science .
00
“If phytoplankton have more of a role controlling Earth’s climate, then CO2 has less of a role.”
I have read that phytoplankton produce half the world’s O2. That means they are a huge part of the biosphere which is where CO2 is converted into O2. We saw the massive phytoplankton blooms in the South Pacific after the NSW bushfires. That’s CO2. However the journalists called it ‘nutrients’. Rubbish. All the phytoplankton needs are CO2 and sunshine, like most plants. And living in the ocean H2O is a given.
So not only do phytoplankton control O2, by implication they are critically important for CO2 and now a host of other gases. And what it means is that man made CO2 which is quite tiny is even less important.
But what does define CO2 and O2 levels is solubility and the constant exchange of gases between the sea and sky over 75% of the planet. And the major gas everyone ignores is H2O which at 1% -4% is the third most important gas in the atmosphere above Argon. And clouds reflect most light including visible.
And the process of evaporation and re-absorption of H2O is much the same as for O2, CO2 and Toluene and Benzene and Methane except that H2O can fall as a liquid as well. Which means we have been barking up the wrong tree with trying to pin the 50% increase in CO2 on fossil fuels. Gas levels in the atmosphere are determined by Henry’s Law governing gaseous exchange based on solubility and primarily surface temperature. And Toluene is twice as soluble as CO2 which is 30x as soluble as O2.
This is a terrible blow to those who state categorically and without proof that CO2 levels are in large part man made, a completely wrong mantra which prefaces every discussion on climate.
171
And I have no idea why scientists who understand equilibrium do not point out that the proportions on either side of a barrier are independent of the total amount of gas. It is 50:1. So the alleged 50% increase in CO2 from fossil fuel would be distributed 49:1 ocean to sky leading to a 1% increase in tiny CO2 in the air. The only reason CO2 has gone up is slight recent average warming of the ocean surface which covers most of the planet.
120
Interesting that this pause in warming is not causing a rate change in the [CO2] increase.
212
It wont, because CO2 works in a delayed “lag” mode compared to earth’s temperature. In fact, C02 levels will probably increase in the short term because they are still in that lag phase as a result of earth warming which started around mid 19th century.
70
Or perhaps CO2 has nothing to do with miniscule temp variations over a number of years!
60
As it comes mostly from the oceans… “homogenised” urban land temperatures are meaningless to CO2 levels.
10
Interesting straight line for the last 50 odd years. When in the 19th centrury was there such a linear temperature increase that is reflected in the CO2 chart? Also, TdeF is implying that equilibrium of CO2 exchange is affected by the actual present temperature. Do you disagree and think that gases go in and out of the ocean/air according to 1800s conditions?
02
I guess it helps your confusion, that you are clueless about the thermal mass of the oceans.
00
Yes GA so what does that tell you ?????
41
What Is critical is is the temperature immediately over the water where the CO2 and H2O and methane and benzene and toluene and argon and O2 and N2 exchanges take place.
That is not the same thing as the artificial and manufactured ‘average’ air temperature over all land, all water, all terrain including Mount Everest, all the year all seasons, day and night and at all altitudes. Such a figure will not correspond except by accident to the temperature at any time or any place but a purely artificial and possibly meaningless construct from the point of view of predictive value for process but one which is argued to represent an imaginary average planetary air temperature presumably at a height over the ground at which humans live. That is not to say that simple conclusions cannot be drawn from such a magic construct but the implication for specific physical processes at the air/sea boundary is impossible.
Consider that water surface temperature changes very little, often only a few degrees summer to winter, night to day. While this water surface temperature has a massive effect on the weather, perhaps the largest single effect after solar radiation level, the effect of the air on the water is minimal. The idea that the earth heats the water and transfers ‘Global Warming’ is just ridiculous. Try heating your water with a hair dryer. You will only succeed in evaporating water, if anything.
It would not take much nett warming from the tropics to the poles to release a lot of CO2. So we have the remarkable quite precise correlation between the computed air temperature and both ocean oscillations and solar radiation level. CO2 by comparison is nearly a straight line, missing 9 inflexion points in the last 200 years. CO2 only correlates with recent small warming in that for a while both were going up at once. That is proof of nothing but it’s the only alleged proof for CO2 driven air warming, a warming which isn’t happening.
We need to be modelling the ocean currents, not the air. The climates are directly and totally controlled by the oceans, as if that wasn’t obvious. And CO2 evaporates just like H2O, the third biggest gas in the air and the controller of all weather. Predict El Nino and the other big currents and you would have a workable model. As it is no one can do so, so their models are rubbish.
130
So as a result of all this unsupported complex stuff you just gave us, we somehow end up with a near linear increase in CO2 for 60 years? Remarkable.
01
that’s total BS btw. Why not look at everything. Exclusing the air from study is stupid.
Oh wait. That’s what scientists do. They look at the whole system or particular pasts and don’t exclude something from study just because. Funnily enough is exactly what the scientists in the paper above did.
03
.
So GeeAye, if scientists don’t exclude things, how do ‘climate scientists’ explain previous warmer periods in history before the advent of industrialisation?
I’ve yet to see a warmist scientist actually provide an explanation but I’m sure you must have one … unless of course you just exclude these millions of years of history?
40
The science is
meddled withscuttledcensoredsettledconstantly evolving.The bullshart is constant though.
150
Excellent. They can now incorporate it into the models.
212
Models based on gases are wrong except for predicting tomorrow’s weather based on today’s.
Gases do not control the oceans, with the exception of water itself. The oceans control the gases, including water. Without the oceans there would be no weather. What gases are in the air are the ones released by the water. CO2 is extremely soluble, O2 and N2 are 1/30th as soluble. Toluene is actually twice as soluble.
It amazes me that anyone has concocted a theory that man controls the amount of CO2 in the air. It’s wrong.
80
The story of man made CO2 is based on two lies. Firstly that CO2 on average takes 80 years to be absorbed by water (Half life). I read the IPCC report and this incredible story of insoluble CO2 is not justified anywhere by anyone.
Secondly that the ‘biosphere’ for living things is limited to the first 100 metres of ocean, that the ‘deep’ oceans containing most of the CO2 do not take any part in the exchange of CO2. That almost all dissolved CO2 is trapped in the ‘deep’ ocean for ‘thousands of years’.
Odd then that the age of CO2 on the bottom of the ocean is 350 years when you can only get new C14 from the upper atmosphere and only 2% of CO2 is in the atmosphere. That could only happen if the deep ocean CO2 made it to the atmosphere, a 50:1 shot. So 350 years/50 = 7 year cycle time which shows that the CO2 on the ocean floor is unaware of the IPCC’s story that it does not take a holiday in thousands of years. And this corresponds very well with what scientists have know to be true for a century.
I can find no actual proof of any of the primary principles of the IPCC. That CO2 is insoluble, that the half life is 80 years or that the deep oceans play no part or even that the additional 50% of CO2 in the air is man made. It isn’t. That’s a science fact. What has always puzzled me is that you only hear this stuff from white haired retired scientists who cannot be fired. Or perhaps that shouldn’t be so puzzling.
100
Mischaracterised nonsense. If you really think these things you have failed to grasp anything about Earth science.
04
TdeF has more grasp on Earth Sciences than you will ever have. !
Everything TdeF has just said is provably correct.
[snip]
00
Yet you can’t come up with a simple counterpoint to anything he wrote.
Too difficult for you?
00
Where to start. Some idea that someone thinks CO2 is insoluble?
Which bit made enough sense to you that it can be refuted with any certainty of what he actually was trying to imply?
00
From JC II at #18 above
“The bullshart is constant though.”
One of the included parameters it seems
10
“They can now incorporate it into the models.”
Incorporating this “new” fact into their FAKED models is a total waste of time.
They need to start from very beginning, and get rid of CO2 warming, faked data (GISS et al) and any other unvalidated conjectures and other cluelessness that they have built into the current crop.
And find someone who knows how to program !
30
Why would they? What value would it provide? The science is settled, isn’t it? Or have you and your cult been telling porkies all this time?
10
Those models that doesn’t have any viable forecast skills in them the ones they use over and over while the future it forecast hasn’t existed yet.
Suuuure…….
00
No doubt this natural seeding of the clouds has been exploited via the Rain Making Control Act 1967. Maybe it’s time for another conspiracy theory about chem trails.
30
>”climate projections for both the past and the future”
Ignoring projections for the past(?), what of the future for all of us?
Will Steffen (deceased 2023) in 2015:
So – we can’t entirely predict the future when we’re living, and then we die anyway.
Looms for David Attenborough at 96. Author/producer of How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth? and A Life on Our Planet, actually advocates death (humans are a “plague on the Earth”) or at least a drastic reduction in population as patron for Optimum Population Trust”
I wonder, do aging climate scientists, environmental and population activists ponder their own finite mortality while prognosticating on “the future”?
60
Meanwhile, the weather in China breaks another record..
https://notrickszone.com/2023/01/31/1969-cold-record-broken-in-china-53c-snow-in-the-mediterranean-japan-hard-hit/
The extreme cold killing food animals in Afghanistan….
This will also be blamed on “Global Warming™”
70
Phytoplankton blooms in the sea,
Raising aerosol levels hugely,
Seeding clouds from below,
Good for skeptics to know,
But not for the I.P.C.C..
190
Keep the limericks coming Ruairi
50
In the history of the world in the last 550 million years, the only other time CO2 was as low as it is now was about 300 million years ago. It was at about 2000ppm about 175 million years ago and has been dropping since then until recently when it has fortunately started to increase again.
See figure 1 at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280548391_Global_Warming_and_Climate_change_causes_impacts_and_mitigation#pf3
20
Cloud over water that is cooler than 15C is a warming agent. The solidifying water lowers the emission temperature so less heat is lost. More cloud warmer, less cloud cooler.
The atmosphere of the higher latitudes in the South Pacific becomes once mass of condensing cloud as the water starts to cool. It is a means of limiting the heat loss.
40
That’s a valid point and to take it to its logical conclusion lets assume they put that in the models, do they model it correctly? When you consider they did not know it existed yesterday then how do we expect the modellers to understand it today? I suggest they don’t understand it today and hence cant model it correctly tomorrow.
The hubris on display by not only the modellers but also the model believers is staggering.
90
There is the line of argument that goes –
“What I said yesterday has no bearing on what I will say today. As will what I say today have on what I will say tomorrow”
60
While the bulk of carbohydrates (Hydrated carbon dixoide) produced by photosynthesis are long carbon hydrogen chains, I wonder if the carbon ring benzenes and toluenes are derived from the decay of cellulose as in most green plants. (Toluene is Benzene with a Methane attached, so methyl benzene)
The circular benzene ring is very close with one oxygen instead of a carbon. If so you would expect these gases to exist in wood fires, making of charcoal or coke, general decomposition as perfectly natural. If we are to spend our lives hunting down every trace gas which might have an effect on planetary temperature by blocking radiation either incoming or outgoing or both, we will end up with a lot of candidates. But nothing matches H2O in the atmosphere at 1%, close to the third biggest gas in the air and the major gas in the oceans. And at atmospheric temperatures, it can exist in three different from from gas to liquid to solid. So we focus on CO2, not clouds? Why?
People do not see water as a gas, but it is as much a gas as CO2. And in the deep ocean at pressure, CO2 is as much a liquid as H2O because it is so compressible. And you do not get ice or dry ice in the ocean because it’s never cold enough.
It’s almost as if people against the 20th century had to come up with a story that allowed the UN to vilify the industrial revolution which created the modern world. And as China raced to catch up, we were all being told to slow down and ship coal to China.
Now that China produces more CO2 than all other countries combined, no one says a thing. Which is why I keep saying it. And asking who is driving this fantasy of world destroying CO2? It’s utter nonsense. Ask the Chinese. It’s not just the Wuhan flu they invented.
80
China must have read this study and thought AGW a scam because they have begun importing Australian coal once again
50
I think they’ve known from the outset that CO2 is not a driver of climate and have acted accordingly. If the west was stupid enough to believe that falsity why should they follow? Their confidence in their assessment is shown rather clearly with their rate of construction of large, modern coal fired generators.
And all the west has done is suppress the truth. And let them take a commanding leap forward.
Cheers
Dave B
50
I think we have known from the outset, if our gov. was serious in saying CO2 is bad they would not be selling coal to the highest bidder would they. They only do it because they know most Australians think carbon pollution floats in the air like blankets trapping heat and are thus too stoopid to understand the complexities of international trade.
This allows them to demonise coal generators and miners whilst simultaneously exporting coal and the dim-witted populace are none the wiser, what a beautiful scam.
50
Coal use is rising in Europe (and the UK). Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, France (surprisingly but possibly just the problems with nuclear) and others. Poland never stopped and can export the electricity to Germany.
40
LOL
20
More ocean model problems
“Emperor penguin ESA listing in 2022 used Antarctic sea ice models known to be flawed”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/31/emperor-penguin-esa-listing-in-2022-used-antarctic-sea-ice-models-known-to-be-flawed/
50
So many unknown things it astonishes me scientists allow the science is settled meme to be used
20
The politicians knew that the scientists were in agreement
00
Computers are only ever as “intelligent” as their programmers are. Most computer software these days is rubbish (and it is getting worse) but there is so much easy money to be made. All you have to do to get comfortably rich quick is to say whatever ot is you are doing it is helping to save the planet.
Only a criminal mind could come up with such a scheme and that is what we have got wherever we look these days. What is it going to take to restore sanity? Freedom of speech and action must be preserved first and foremost to enable the truth to emerge in its own good time. What we mustn’t do is let them forget the myriad and foolish mistakes made over SARS-CoV-2 and start punishing the culprits with serious penalties including disbarment from responsible office ever again. Once these weak minded people begin to feel properly vulnerable their outlook will change.
20
Great article thank you so much
10
Maybe climate scientists are not of biological origin?
00
Wow, the drivers of cloud formation and rain are amazing- and a very poorly understood science considering Most life on earth depends on it. The one thing we know for sure about climate – the catastrophists have no idea what they’re talking about. Hope I live to see the day when we understand short term climate and rainfall. The long term ( Milankovitch cycles ) we know well – even if it’s ignored by cultists, the short term is much more complex
20
Good stuff, Joanne. I discussed the effects of plankton on clouds over a decade ago in a post here.
Your post above takes the information in my post to a whole new level.
My best to you and yours, thanks for all of your good work,
w.
10