Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach (@WEschenbach on X, my own blog is here.)
Unsurprisingly, many of the issues first raised here on WUWT eventually get confirmed when science catches up.
For example, in 2010 I wrote a post entitled Floating Islands.
Many folks thought I was nuts … but then, six months later science caught up
Then in 2013 I wrote about parrotfish … and again I got lots of flak.
It took four years for climate to catch up to this one.
Today I noticed an interesting study about plankton. I got vindicated about plankton once before. I wrote that I disagreed with a 2013 study in Nature Magazine saying that global plankton had fallen by about 40%. I said that was nonsense, and I couldn’t say why.
Specifically, I said:
So where did Nature go wrong?
The short answer is that I don’t know … but I don’t believe their results. The paper is very detailed, in particular the Supplementary Online Information (SOI). It all seems well thought out and investigated … but I don’t believe their results. They have noted and discussed various sources of error. They have compared the use of Secchi disks as a proxy, and covered most of the ground clearly … and I still don’t believe their results.”
This time it took four years for science to wake up …
Be clear that I’m not the only person writing for WUWT who has had this happen, that science has caught up with ideas first proposed here. I’m just more familiar with my own work.
And to bring this up to today, here was another post of mine about plankton.
In that post, I quoted some authors saying that the color of the ocean affected the creation of hurricanes. I linked that to the amount of plankton in the water.
In addition, I said the following:
There’s another mechanism known to be at play as well. This is that certain common phytoplankton produce a chemical called dimethylsulfoniopropionate. Since no one can pronounce that correctly, it is always called DMSP. DMSP is an precursor chemical for the formation of aerosols that eventually become cloud nuclei. This increases cloud formation. So we have plankton helping build the clouds that cool the ocean surface.
The presence of plankton in the water warms the ocean surface. And clouds and hurricanes cool the ocean surface. What is the net effect of these two inter-related but opposed plankton-caused phenomena? Unknown, even as to sign. How does this net effect change, either annually, decadally, or longterm? Again, unknown.
Plankton emit chemicals that control the clouds in the skies, who would have guessed? And who would ever have thought that plankton would have the power to affect the formation of the world’s largest natural heat engine, tropical hurricanes? Talk about having your hand on the heat-loss throttle, control of hurricane formation by plankton has the smallest of life controlling the huge power of the largest of climate phenomena. How strange is that?
I note in passing that DMS (dimethylsulfide) is the precursor chemical of DMSP.
Upon further consideration, the most interesting thing to me was the following relationship:
warmer ocean → more plankton→ more DMSP cloud nuclei → more clouds → cooler ocean
A lovely example of yet another natural thermoregulatory mechanism.
And today, I stumbled across a study in Nature entitled “Role of methanesulfonic acid in atmospheric particle nucleation and growth” (paywalled of course). It highlights another cloud-forming chemical emitted by plankton, this time in colder oceans. The chemical is methanesulfonic acid (MSA).
It says that plankton emissions can accelerate aerosol particle formation up to ten-fold, and that this helps explain why current climate models underestimate cloud condensation nuclei over the Southern Ocean by more than half … and it specifically says that this has a cooling effect.
Not only that, but to close the circle, the precursor chemical for methanesulfonic acid (MSA) that is emitted by plankton is … wait for it …
DMS.
Plankton rules the clouds. Who knew?
Best to all,
w.
Your loyalty to WUWT, and your excellent science, are to be admired, Willis..!
I’m pretty shure that zombies would starve to death if they tried to feast on climatard’s brains… as they seemingly have none
DMS is the strawberry like aroma to avoid that some beers have.
One for gas chromatography…
G-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-A-A-A-L-L-L! ! ! ! !
WUWT deserves its own World Cup for its overwhelming scores on the field of science presentation and welcoming of debate about such, not the least of which is in the “stadium” of debate over so-called climate change and whether or not such is particularly meaningful to mankind given Earth’s history.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.
The science presented here gets vetted more thoroughly than does it in any of the once vaunted science journals.
the use of climate change is still legitimate for the wise and knowledgeable.
It is truly meaningful to humankind and the planet in general.
Current controversy has me always saying natural or normal in writing about the topic when it is an argument. I know it is tedious but outside of WUWT it is best to always refer to “climate warming or heating due to carbon dioxide emission from the burning of fossil fuels” = AGW etc.
Willis, from your [Why the Parrot fish should be the National Bird] article, and regarding NGOs…
Of late, NGO has become a dirty “word” (e.g. re: USAid), at least to me. This is yet another side effect of the Big Environmental Orgs destroying that which they claim to be worthy of saving. For them, (sorry but) it appears to have become another usual suspect case of “Follow the Money”.
BTW – you’re the man…
I refer to them as purveyors of poverty(POP). Their primary objective is to keep Africans poor.
Well done, WE. Well done.
I knew about DMS, but not MSA. Always something new here at WUWT.
It is unlikely that DMS is precursor to methane sulfonic acid (MSA). DMS readily reacts with ozone to form dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) which is completely miscible with water and would be removed from the air by rain and by absorption into surface waters.
CH3SCH3 + O3—> CH3SOCH3 + O2
DMSO could react with ozone to form dimethylsulfone which is also miscible with water.
CH3SOCH3 +O3 —> CH3SO2CH3 +O2
I don’t see any reaction pathway from DMS to MSA:
CH3SCH3 + O2 —> CH3SO3H ?
I recall that there are some bacteria that get blown into air by the wind from the earth’s surface and become CCN.
I don’t like these paywalls. The people’s tax dollars pay for the research, and they should be able to see what their tax dollars bought for free.
Thanks, Harold. From the Abstract:
“Dimethylsulfide (DMS; CH3SCH3) from marine phytoplankton is a major source of atmospheric sulfur. Its oxidation products include sulfuric acid (SA; H2SO4) and methanesulfonic acid (MSA; CH3SO3H), which has a higher yield than SA below 10 °C.”
I also find the following:
“Dimethylsulfide is converted to methanesulfonic acid through OH (and NO₃/Cl) initiated oxidation that generates sulfur‑centered radicals and oxyacids (MSIA, MSEA, HPMTF), which then oxidize further via peroxy‑radical chemistry to CH₃SO₃H; the detailed mechanism remains an active research topic but the main radical sequences are now fairly well constrained.”
Best to you and yours,
w.
Discharges of lightning generate oxygen atoms which could also oxidize the DMS. There many millions of lighting discharges everyday.
The most likely source of MSA is methanethiol, CH3SH. I just did Wikipedia search and found there are marine organisms that are a source of CH3SH, and it contributes about 25% to atmospheric sulfur.
Wikipedia has been hijacked by cabals of individuals with their own agendas. Do not trust anything climate crisis related without going to the reference given, do not believe anything at all that is not referenced!
When one’s observations and subsequent contemplations of cause > effect aren’t contaminated by entrenched ideology, rational conclusions can be reached, clearly presented and explained.
Thanks, Willis, and please keep up your informative work.
Hardly a win for WUWT. This is known as the CLAW hypothesis first published in Nature in 1987. See the article “Oceanic phytoplankton, atmospheric sulphur, cloud albedo and climate”. The abstract of which read:“The major source of cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN) over the oceans appears to be dimethylsulphide, which is produced by planktonic algae in sea water and oxidizes in the atmosphere to form a sulphate aerosol Because the reflectance (albedo) of clouds (and thus the Earth’s radiation budget) is sensitive to CCN density, biological regulation of the climate is possible through the effects of temperature and sunlight on phytoplankton population and dimethylsulphide production. “
Which was published a good twenty years before the same suggestion appeared on WUWT.
Right, so timely enough to be incorporated in the super-duper ocean atmosphere coupled climate models. Why wasn’t it then? That cooling aspect would play havoc with the polar amplification article of the faith.
we all know the answer to that question, Ed.
At this point in history -every- thought involving clouds, plankton and predestination vs free will has been thought of by -someone-. World population is 8 billion and most people look up at the same clouds.
(leading to ultimate conclusoins
IF false, then yeah that’s what I thought.
IF true, then so what?)
For those who may be interested in the topic here is the article you allude to in open access
https://climate-dynamics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/charlson87a.pdf
Kevin K:
Thx for the 1987 Nature link (includes James Lovelock as an author). Its actually an interesting read, and has none of the now obligatory “climate crisis” nonsense.
And it notes the idea of marine biota affecting clouds via sulfur goes back to a 1951 paper (see below).
———
From your link a few quotes:
“”It appears that, independent of the
rate of primary production, the warmest, most saline, and most
intensely illuminated regions of the oceans have the highest rate
of DMS emission to the atmosphere. This is a key fact to keep
in mind when discussing possible climatic feedback mechanisms.”
“We propose that sulphate aerosols derived from the sulphur
gases produced by the marine biota are important determinants
of cloud albedo [an increase of which they say cools] and, as a consequence, the climate.”
“It also seems likely that the rate of DMS emission from the oceans is affected
by the climate, thus closing a feedback loop. Although
we do not understand the details of the climatic feedback, it
seems that CCN from biogenic DMS currently act to cool the
Earth. It is possible that the Earth’s climate has been mediated
in the past (for instance, that this feedback has helped to
counteract the increasing luminosity of the Sun and/ or that it
has already counteracted the influence of the recent increase in
C02 and other ‘greenhouse’ gases). ”
—
[this paper references a 1951 paper that had similar ideas about ocean biota & sulfur;
Challenger, F. Adv. EnzymoL 12, 429-491 (1951). So it goes way back!]
If the paper is so good and beneficial, why not post a link as a benefit rather than for mocking purposes?
One of the papers quoted by Willis looked at hurricane paths and looked at the color of the ocean instead of the CCN impact.
Apparently they didn’t know about CCNs at all because that lack of analysis invalidates their paper. If you look at one effect in isolation then you get a skewed and incomplete view. Maybe you want to isolate an effect for analysis but in that case you definitely need to mention that and they didn’t.
So the upshot is that climate scientists don’t know the field and publish papers that come to invalid conclusions as a result.
Just a reminder, coral colour is determined by the organisms that are incorporated into the polyp and are quite varied. If colour is to be used as a proxy for plankton it needs to have quite a few wavelengths included to cover the range of species.
If you could find nothing new, fine for you. However, the real meaning of peer review which I learned 75 years ago in High School, that a report of importance needed INDEPENDENT replication at least once, and preferably several times, required later publications.
You are amongst scientists and engineers here, we love data, confirmed data and more data.
“They have compared the use of Secchi disks as a proxy, and covered most of the ground clearly … and I still don’t believe their results.” Secchi disks can’t be seen that good. I think I may still have one that was headed to the trash. Useful old way for measuring turbidity which is still difficult. I could not believe that someone would use it for measuring plankton but then again the ‘unbelieveables’ are soooo common. “Obviously it is not an actual measure of light penetration, but merely a useful, rough index of visibility.” From Welch, 1948.-“Limnological Methods. ” Did theirs give up formerly unknown measurables?
Very nice.
Three Cheers again for the WUWT Team. A special Thank-You goes out to Willis. Please keep the Good Work.
Willis,
Well done. You have scored better than I have. One of my postulates is that the teeth of people born after year 1980 are larger than before, thanks to CO2 fertilization. I quoted appearance of a former Prime Minister of an island offshore from eastern Australia, but people are reluctant to endorse the hypothesis.
You see more support from a search of “women with buck teeth”.
A secondary effect has emerged in my lifetime. Many women are now able to eat, talk, kiss, jog, drive while wearing a continuous smile to show off their handsome big white teeth. Will they grow in Chas Darwin style to have forever smiles? Noted especially in TV interviews where showing buck teeth designates attempted dominance.
(Disclosure: I have no upper teeth and am down to 2 lower teeth. Age wearies the body beautiful).
Geoff S
p.s. More seriously, I am hoping shortly to submit a rather major article on the state of Australia’s historic temperature records. Timing depends on co-author).
Good luck, Geoff. And I’m looking forward ro seeing your paper in print.
An equivocal extension of your tooth fertilization hypothesis, is that perhaps it explains the decline of reproductive fertility. After all, it had to go somewhere. 🙂
Check out vitamin D, rickets and than think about how fixed size teeth fit into variable sized jaws
🙂
What study has since more realistically assessed the phytoplankton population constancy, or decrease or increase for the near now?
My intuition is that there is a spectrum of life, a large number of species of phytoplankton which are in variable proportion to each other under different light, temperature and salinity conditions as well as proximity to water runoff from land. We need to count them all, or most of them.
Phillip:
Your intuition is likely correct. See the link supplied by Kevin K above where the authors say different phytoplankton have markedly different propensities for DMS production/emission.
We need to remember that CO2 in the ocean is also plant fertilizer.
And one plankton shall rule them all.
Great story, Willis. 🙂
Smart kid that Willis.
Control the plankton, control the climate.
Russ George’s offices were raided by Canadian SWAT teams because he showed how cheap and easy it is to control the plankton.
Scientists argue until they are blue in the face about how it is impossible. He did it. And the results were amazing.
YouTube “Russ George Heretics” if the link doesn’t work.
https://youtu.be/i4Hnv_ZJSQY?is=ijst4IZyPyJ3Alcb
Speaking of science catching up with the Green Blob Groupthink-
“They killed the hostage” Peter Ridd on Outsiders
Willis, thank you! This post was for me a master-class in getting up to date in the subsection of the environmental debate, coral reefs. In the process, it also reminded me of the disproportionate effect of landmass on the total mass of phytoplankton, water run-off from land providing all the necessary trace elements for abundant life, and particularly the biomass keeping the oxygen level in the atmosphere sustaining ALL the aerobic life on the planet, both land based and aquatic.