This is interesting. I always thought VOCs were man-made and bad (ergo, water-based industrial sealants that are used in my industry because they emit less VOCs, if I understand it correctly).Also here another pulished in Nature article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7489/pdf/nature13032.pdf
Forests emit large quantities of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to the atmosphere. Their condensable oxidation products can form secondary organic aerosol, a significant and ubiquitous component of atmospheric aerosol1, 2, which is known to affect the Earth’s radiation balance by scattering solar radiation and by acting as cloud condensation nuclei3. The quantitative assessment of such climate effects remains hampered by a number of factors, including an incomplete understanding of how biogenic VOCs contribute to the formation of atmospheric secondary organic aerosol. The growth of newly formed particles from sizes of less than three nanometres up to the sizes of cloud condensation nuclei (about one hundred nanometres) in many continental ecosystems requires abundant, essentially non-volatile organic vapours4, 5, 6, but the sources and compositions of such vapours remain unknown. Here we investigate the oxidation of VOCs, in particular the terpene α-pinene, under atmospherically relevant conditions in chamber experiments. We find that a direct pathway leads from several biogenic VOCs, such as monoterpenes, to the formation of large amounts of extremely low-volatility vapours. These vapours form at significant mass yield in the gas phase and condense irreversibly onto aerosol surfaces to produce secondary organic aerosol, helping to explain the discrepancy between the observed atmospheric burden of secondary organic aerosol and that reported by many model studies2. We further demonstrate how these low-volatility vapours can enhance, or even dominate, the formation and growth of aerosol particles over forested regions, providing a missing link between biogenic VOCs and their conversion to aerosol particles. Our findings could help to improve assessments of biosphere–aerosol–climate feedback mechanisms6, 7, 8, and the air quality and climate effects of biogenic emissions generally.
I think AGW climate plays a extremely minor role! I think the sun and clouds and cosmic ray plays a major role in the climate!OKAY. I also read your CERN article again, and found the earlier article which explains those aerosols (see the link in the CERN article for that earlier article actually help cool it in the short-term through cloud formation). Those aerosols are other gases I guess that are emitted into the atmosphere which also help cool the earth. BUT it didn't say that man-made global warming doesn't exist or is dis-proven, just that projections have to be re-calculated to take them into account, which would mean LOWER temperatures (contrary to the earlier article which said that projections were underestimated, but that was before the discovery of these aerosols also emitted by trees which is covered in the CERN article).
From that same CERN Article:
Despite the findings, Mr Kirby stopped short of saying humans played no role in global warming, but stressed projected increases in temperature will come down.
He said: "Human impact is not going to go away.
"Temperature will still go up and warming will still occur. But now that we’ve got this important result that is going to pin down the pre-industrial atmosphere, it’s going to sharpen our results and shrink the range of predictions."
So they aren't saying that man-made GW is not real.
This is interesting. I always thought VOCs were man-made and bad (ergo, water-based industrial sealants that are used in my industry because they emit less VOCs, if I understand it correctly).
So we gotta plant more trees.
The good news is that if they revise their projections, it buys more time to find alternate energy sources that are cleaner. But we can't sleep.
The article does not dispute global warming.Researchers found trees may have been putting similar aerosols into the air as burning fossil fuels, long before the industrial revolution, meaning humans may have had less impact on the climate than we thought.
Scientists made the discovery during an experiment to create an artificial cloud that was thought could help cool Earth and reverse global warming.
A study published this week in the journal Nature has looked more closely at the tiny particles within clouds, known as cloud seeds, that help cool the planet and found they can be produced naturally.
The article CERN article never said tree contributed to global warming! Tree do consume CO2 and do emit O2 basic biology! Tree emits arsenal that help cool the planet when cloud is form! Don't You agree when you go outside the weather tend to be more cooler when there is cloud vs no clouds! Clouds block the sun!
Also here another pulished in Nature article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7489/pdf/nature13032.pdf
Forests emit large quantities of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to the atmosphere. Their condensable oxidation products can form secondary organic aerosol, a significant and ubiquitous component of atmospheric aerosol1, 2, which is known to affect the Earth’s radiation balance by scattering solar radiation and by acting as cloud condensation nuclei3. The quantitative assessment of such climate effects remains hampered by a number of factors, including an incomplete understanding of how biogenic VOCs contribute to the formation of atmospheric secondary organic aerosol. The growth of newly formed particles from sizes of less than three nanometres up to the sizes of cloud condensation nuclei (about one hundred nanometres) in many continental ecosystems requires abundant, essentially non-volatile organic vapours4, 5, 6, but the sources and compositions of such vapours remain unknown. Here we investigate the oxidation of VOCs, in particular the terpene α-pinene, under atmospherically relevant conditions in chamber experiments. We find that a direct pathway leads from several biogenic VOCs, such as monoterpenes, to the formation of large amounts of extremely low-volatility vapours. These vapours form at significant mass yield in the gas phase and condense irreversibly onto aerosol surfaces to produce secondary organic aerosol, helping to explain the discrepancy between the observed atmospheric burden of secondary organic aerosol and that reported by many model studies2. We further demonstrate how these low-volatility vapours can enhance, or even dominate, the formation and growth of aerosol particles over forested regions, providing a missing link between biogenic VOCs and their conversion to aerosol particles. Our findings could help to improve assessments of biosphere–aerosol–climate feedback mechanisms6, 7, 8, and the air quality and climate effects of biogenic emissions generally.
You think a lot of ignorant things none of which are backed up by any credible science.I think AGW climate plays a extremely minor role! I think the sun and clouds and cosmic ray plays a major role in the climate!
I think deforestation plays a role in the climate ! More cities are build and more trees are cut down which causes cities act like a urban heat island.This is interesting. I always thought VOCs were man-made and bad (ergo, water-based industrial sealants that are used in my industry because they emit less VOCs, if I understand it correctly).
So we gotta plant more trees.
The good news is that if they revise their projections, it buys more time to find alternate energy sources that are cleaner. But we can't sleep.
It certainly does, but that does not dispute or diminish the role played by carbon emissions.I think deforestation plays a role in the climate ! More cities are build and more trees are cut down which causes cities act like a urban heat island.
http://www.nature.com/news/cloud-seeding-surprise-could-improve-climate-predictions-1.19971You think a lot of ignorant things none of which are backed up by any credible science.
Originally Posted by FAST
Your grand fuji proclamation,...
,..."No credible scientist disagrees with human caused global warming",...period.
Even IF two magazines did state something to that effect,...who gives a shit if two magazines believe they are in a position to decide who is credible and not,...peer pressure is not democratic.
What the hell has your post got to do with my post that you quoted,...do you even read members posts before you run off at the mouth,...???You could prove me wrong by showing an article in a top journal like Nature or Science stating that global warming isn't real. But you can't. There's no such article.
You only find those articles in third rate journals with no standards or low standards.
Your use of the term "peer pressure" proves you don't have any fucking clue what peer review means.
That doesn't in any way dispute global warming. I note you didn't quote the next sentence:http://www.nature.com/news/cloud-seeding-surprise-could-improve-climate-predictions-1.19971
Molecules released by trees can seed clouds, two experiments have revealed. The findings, published on 25 May in Nature1, 2 and Science3, run contrary to an assumption that the pollutant sulphuric acid is required for a certain type of cloud formation — and suggest that climate predictions may have underestimated the role that clouds had in shaping the pre-industrial climate.
If the results of the experiments hold up, predictions of future climate change should take them into account, says Reto Knutti, a climate modeller at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich). For 20 or more years, clouds have been the largest source of uncertainty in understanding how manmade emissions affect the atmosphere, he says.
In addition to releasing carbon dioxide, burning fossil fuels indirectly produces sulphuric acid, which is known to seed clouds. So, climate scientists have assumed that since pre-industrial times, there has been a large increase in cloud cover, which is thought to have an overall cooling effect by reflecting sunlight back into space. And they have assumed that this overall cooling effect has partially masked the climate’s underlying sensitivity to rising carbon dioxide levels.
More related stories
The latest experiments suggest that it may have been cloudier in pre-industrial times than previously thought. If this is so, then the masking effect, and in turn the warming effects of carbon dioxide, might have been overestimated, says Jasper Kirkby, a physicist at the CERN, Europe’s particle-physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, who led one of the experiments.
Peer review is not a form of peer pressure. You're just fucking ignorant.What the hell has your post got to do with my post that you quoted,...do you even read members posts before you run off at the mouth,...???
1st you lie,...nothing new,...about what I have posted,...I have NEVER stated there was not Global warming,...
2nd,...You confirm once again that you can't comprehend that peer reviews can be a form of peer pressure,...if you would like me to explain it for you,...please let me know,...I'll try to dumb it down for you.
Peer review is a form of peer pressure. You're just fucking ignorantBlah,...blah,...blah,...:blah:
No it isn't. You're making a fool of yourself.Peer review is a form of peer pressure. You're just fucking ignorant
,...reviewed by his peers,...No it isn't. You're making a fool of yourself.
I think AGW climate plays a extremely minor role! I think the sun and clouds and cosmic ray plays a major role in the climate!
Climate always changes and we will have ice age then warm period and then cool period during the earth past history!
Here the 1.5 trillion dollar questions? Is worth spending 1.5 trillions dollar and later you found out the man-made GW play a very minute role!
An inconvenient truth: ‘Climate change industry’ now a $1.5 trillion global business
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/11/climate-change-industry-now-15-trillion-global-bus/
I google this question below:
What percentage of carbon dioxide is man made?
Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent.
The global average concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is currently about 0.04%, or 400 parts per million by volume (ppm).
Bottom line water vapour / clouds is one most important factor in green house effect!
Can you explain that?Peer review is a form of peer pressure. You're just fucking ignorant
You were right, and I quoted from it where it does not reject the notion of global warming, but acknowledges it.The article does not dispute global warming.
I'll look at this later PA. Thanks.
Published on May 25, 2016
Our planet’s pre-industrial climate may have been cloudier than presently thought, shows CERN’s CLOUD experiment in two papers published in Nature.
More information: http://cern.ch/go/8gk7
CLOUD shows pre-industrial skies cloudier than we thought
Video by CERN
https://youtu.be/8M3up6T9Zeg
Did you know that I used to be a very strong believer in global warming!
After watching this video ... I beginning to question everything!!
Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery
YOUTUBE.COM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ
Absolutely brilliant, ground-breaking research worthy of a Nobel Prize.
This proof to be what drive climate ..it not CO2 and it the SUN that affect the cosmic rays that impacts the clouds formations!
You do realize that is a journalists report, not an actual study right?
Yet you spam us with an article about the role of natural aerosols. Make up your mind.I think AGW climate plays a extremely minor role! I think the sun and clouds and cosmic ray plays a major role in the climate!...
