When it comes to climate change, a new study finds that our fear over the planet’s health may be “greatly overestimated.” [emphasis, links added]
For the first time, researchers have found oceans help cool global temperatures more than anyone previously thought.
Specifically, sulfur gas produced by marine life emits a second compound that significantly cools the planet. The discovery will help create more accurate climate models and provide another tool to slow global warming.
With almost three-fourths of Earth covered by oceans, the waters capture and redistribute the Sun’s heat. The latest study in Science Advances shows the process goes much deeper than that.
The oceans also create sulfur gases that create particles to cool the Earth, such as brightening clouds that reflect heat.
The new compound released from sulfur gas is known as methanethiol. It has not been detected before because it is extremely hard to measure.
Additionally, much research has been done on warmer oceans, while polar oceans are the emission hotspots.
Microscopic plankton living on the seas’ surfaces emit a type of sulfur gas known as dimethyl sulfide. This gas is the one responsible for the stinky smell in shellfish.
Once sulfur gas reaches the atmosphere, it oxidizes and produces small particles called aerosols. These aerosols reflect solar radiation into space, lowering the heat on Earth.
Plankton also releases methanethiol.
The authors quantified the amount of methanethiol released into clouds over the Southern Ocean and observed an even greater cooling effect.
The cooling impact on the climate is bigger than expected and works the opposite of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, which absorb heat.
“This is the climatic element with the greatest cooling capacity, but also the least understood. We knew methanethiol was coming out of the ocean, but we had no idea about how much and where. We also did not know it had such an impact on climate,” says Dr. Charel Wohl, a researcher at the University of East Anglia’s Centre for Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, in a media release.
“Climate models have greatly overestimated the solar radiation actually reaching the Southern Ocean, largely because they are not capable of correctly simulating clouds. The work done here partially closes the longstanding knowledge gap between models and observations.”
The authors note that the new research helps create more accurate climate models, refining their understanding of the ocean’s role in cooling the planet.
These models include those that predict what would happen to the Earth when the global temperature rises by 1.5 ºC or 2 ºC, with results influencing current climate change policies.
The researchers grouped up all measurements of methanethiol in seawater and added them to measurements made in the Southern Ocean and the Mediterranean coast.
Using seawater temperature collected from satellite data, they then used statistics to calculate their results. [Each year] methanethiol increases marine sulfur emissions by 25%.
“It may not seem like much, but methanethiol is more efficient at oxidizing and forming aerosols than dimethyl sulfide and, therefore, its climate impact is magnified,” says Dr. Julián Villamayor, a researcher at the Blas Cabrera Institute of Physical Chemistry in Spain.
The team also added marine methanethiol emissions to a climate model to measure their effects on the planet’s radiation.
The impact is more visible in the Southern Hemisphere, where there are more oceans, and fewer humans burning fossil fuels.
While sulfur aerosols are important in cooling the planet, the authors note that human behavior will determine whether the Earth continues to warm.
h/t Lewis D.
Read rest at MSN
This 10 Years left to Save the Earth load of total Malarkey has been going on since the First Earth Day back in the 1970’s but so far the Earth isnt bothering to abide by the mindless rantings from a whole bunch of Eco-Nutcases with Afalfa Sprouts between their Teeth
A lot of words above without data or physics to validate them.
As a physicist and professional engineer I obviously can have no possible understanding of the data according to Mr Bunton, who is obviously an expert on what physics is. I have only spent 16 years focused on researching this subject, and the energy aspects of legislation, since retirement – so can’t know anything. But I will suggest a few things based on the old fashioned science of definite theories you can prove using observations that are well tested, with the reminder that if he has no facts and physics to improve on this assessment, perhaps he should consider his position.
As regards the role of the oceans. The trace gas stuff is really not the elephant in the room. Its the water. The oceans contain over 95% of the Earth’s surface energy, absorbed from solar insolation, over 2 years of 340W/m^2 of incident solar energy in the top 200m. Easy physics.
The oceans provide the major cooling feedback to any warming radiative perturbation to the earths energy balance, by CO2 GHE for example. The dynamic energy balance of the Earth in space , between Solar furnace and absolute zero of space, has been held within a temperature range of only 10 deg K in gradient of over 6,000K, over 500Ma, by this dominant control of climate.
FOr the whole Earth energy system to be stable, energy in must always equal energy out. See NASA charet to understand the steady state model of this control balance. I will now consider how it must vary with internal temperature.
Temperature is whatever it must be to deliver this balance, at whatever enrgy level applies at the time, and this changes by +/- 40W/m^2 through natural orbital cycles. In the case of the oceans there are two cooling effects that dominate this control feedback.
The first is the 70% of direct terrestrial radiative losses to space, so that’s 70% of the total 58W/m^2 terrestrial radiative cooling losses to space, which 40.6W/m^2 varies at around 1.4% per degree of surface temperature change per the Stefan Boltzman law. That is 0.7W/m^2 deg K.
To this we add the largest negative feedback of surface energy loss to space, by evaporation at 84W/m^2 of latent heat, which later becomes “sensible” thermal energy on condensation in the Troposphere and is then lost radiatively to space, and this varies at 7% per degree K so provides negative control feedback of 6W/m^2 deg K. So thats 6.6W/m^2 of the total negative feedback of heat loss from earth in response to a 1 deg K surface temperature change. If you consider the climate models claimed effect from AGW per the IPCC is 1.6W/m^2, then the effect of this oceanic feedback is to rebalance the enrgy in and out by a warming of only 0.24K. Not 1.5K.
And there is more cooling feedback from the atmosphere and land, so the effect of AGW since 1850 is probably less than 0.2 K, evn when the 2W/m^2 deg K positive amplification of water vapour GHE as suggested by NASA is included. NOte that when they add this in, they don’t include the much larger negataive feedback from water vapour by evaporation…..
All this is on the evidence of observations we know we know, and the measured variability of those absolute measured feedbacks of the static energy balance with temperature.
nb: AS a quick note, energy flows from hotter to colder places by the second law of Thermodynamics. Once it leaves the ocean surface it is resuming its interrupted thermodynamic journey on a one way trip from the Sun to the near absolute zero background entropy of space. Now as lower frequency LWIR, not light energy, but the same amount of energy. So heat energy does not circulate in the atmosphere and return to heat the oceans. It is lost from the oceans and the atmosphere, leaves Earth as radiation, and heads for colder space which can’t get enough of it. The air circulates, but comes back down cold and empty of WV, its now water in clouds, rain, etc. . That’s called convection. Earth’s climate and heat loss system depends on adiabatic convection to transfer heat to space, mainly in the tropics, mostly by latent heat.
I have written this up at some length here: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4950769
The Balance of the Earth: An Empirical Quantification of Earth’s Energy Balance
These are well known knowns, it’s just they are not mentioned when the system is being described by limited atmospheric models promoted by limited climate “experts”. A GCM model of the internals of the atmosphere can only guess at the temperature effects of radiative perturbations, because they offer no absolute way to describe the effect a radiative perturbation has on global temperatures. Its like knowing the power of a room heater but not knowing the rate of heat loss from the room. Or is the doors are open. Hopeless.
ECS is a simple guess which simply ignores natural change and the major negative feedbacks as above, because they have not yet understood the system control must be an enrgy balance in space, not a temperature control system, The Earth has no means of controlling temperature.
Temperature is a simple consequences of the continually changing dynamic energy balance that is the control of Earth climate. CO2 GHE isn’t.
Also obvious if you reflect on how this must work between a thermonuclear furnace and a cold place, where energy balance is the only way to ensure stability naturally, and is self regulating. The fact there are oceans to evaporate as well as radiative losses, means Earth has a much stronger, more sensitive feedback response to the temperature anomalies created by radiative perturbations, so can maintain its temperature balance within a much smaller range – because of its 70% ocean cover.
The oceans have control, but it’s not the trace gasses, it simple latent heat of water in a convective transport.
E&OE. CEng, CPhys, MBA
Sorry, a lot more words, but WITH numbers and applied physics you can correct with laws and data. If you have them..
Not everyone knows that a degree K (Kelvin) is the same as a degree C (Celsius). The difference between the two scales is that Kelvin has its zero at absolute zero, and Celsius has its zero at the freezing point of distilled water.
Fantastic explanation,
A dynamic equilibrium for all trace gases regulates the amount of the unreacted trace gas in air above ocean surface versus the amount of the unreacted trace gas in ocean surface. The equilibrium is a function of the temperature of the surface. The solubility of all trace gases in all liquids is inversely proportional to the temperature of the liquid surface. The solubility of all unreacted trace gases in all liquids increases in direct proportion to the partial pressure of the unreacted trace gas above the liquid surface. The ratio (or partition coefficient) for each gas /liquid combination is a constant at a given surface temperature. The constant is unique for each gas/liquid combination and is a function of the molecular weight of the trace gas; the function is the inverse of the square root of the molecular weight of the gas. All gases are continuously bombarding the surface and simultaneously being absorbed and emitted; the rate of emission vs absorption is the key variable.
Total BS
Oceans are not cooling anything
Oceans are absorbing heat
The effect of oceans is already included in satellite temperature ata. This BS study does not change anything
The exact causes of climate change are just a list of suspects. No one. knows exactly how much each variable affects the climate
Why this study is BS is from the study itself:
“Study Limitations
The team acknowledged the scarcity of historical data on MeSH concentrations, with most measurements taken during the summer months. Their global emissions estimates relied on statistical models, which inherently carry some uncertainty.”
So glad you showed up to show us how smart you are. Although you’ve not responded to previous requests on how you know so much on the climate scam given your degree in some engineering degree and an MBA, hardly the background to be such an expert on all aspects of the climate scam.
Your character attack does not refute any claims made in my comment.
Whatever effect oceans have on the climate has ALWAYS been included in UAH satellite data since 1979
This study is a model based guess on the effects of oceans that looks at a minor element of their climate effects. The study authors admit to limited data availability. This is just a new guess to replace an old guess. That is junk science.
There are knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. What will they stumble over next?
Settled science? Bah humbug…..