Since global warming is attributed to human activities since the 19th century and in particular to the emission of GHG wouldn't be interesting to also know the increase of energy produced since the 19th century (for which we centainly have a record) and wasted in various types of radiations (more difficult to quantify) and their impact onto climate change ?
Thank you in advance for sharing your experience and expertise.
Kind regards
Hi Guy,
My apologies but I am not willing to get into yet another interminable debate with Ken on his pet theme of the impossibility of doing anything about global warming. This seems to happen on every question posted on ResearchGate that has even the remotest relevance to AGW.
You conclude with the two remarks:
"Are these hypotheses unreasonable?
Would it be possible to make an experiment worldwide without any geoengineering?"
To the first, I would say there is another anglophone scientist you may not have heard about called William of Ockham (1288 - 1347). He proposed the principle known as Occam's Razor which arrgues that the simplest solution is the best solution. So global warming caused by an increase in carbon dioxide needs no further causes.
To the second question, my reply is that we are already involved in a major geoengineering experiment, which is changing the Earth's climate. Isn't one enough? Won't another make things even worse?
The paper “Role of anthropogenic direct heat emissions in global warming” by Fei Wang, Xingmin Mu, Guangju Zhao, Peng Gao, and Pengfei Li, suggests that anthropogenic radiation play a great role in global warming. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1512/1512.00934.pdf
Sir, with all due respect, this comment doesn't answer my question.
On the other hand, these data are averages and do not take into account ‘hot spots’, concentration of GHG (not only CO2), concentration of radiations of all kinds including microwaves, over inhabited regions that are producing dramatic and catastrophic meteorological and health effects.
Moreover, as you know thermodynamically driven phenomena including physiological ones occurring on this globe are following Arrhenius’ type of relationships therefore small changes in temperature may have dramatic effects on weather and on life or death as most people have noticed.
Further, these averaged data and their rate of increase have also been increasing since the 19th century.
Sir, for a start, I’ll be satisfied if you could only provide me with a slightly more detailed answer than the one that Prof. Glodeanu shared so kindly.
And I agree with you that the averaged data you shared are not precise enough and do not start from the 1800’s. Do you think it is a question of methodology or/and a problem of epistemology?
Your question is;
"What is the relative anthropogenic radiation contribution to global warming?"
.
This has never been quantified. However, the radiative forcing associated with the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 has been measured to be 0.2W/m2/decade - (or 0.01W/m2/per 6 months);
Feldman, D. R., Collins, W. D., Gero, P. J., Torn, M. S., Mlawer, E. J., & Shippert, T. R. (2015). Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO₂ from 2000 to 2010. Nature, 519(7543), 339-343.
Some of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 may have been anthropogenic, therefore some of this forcing may be anthropogenic. However, note that a forcing may not necessarily translate into any net surface warming..
If you want to relate and comare this forcing to natural forcing changes, you will find that it is minuscule. For example, the natural forcing from eccentricity alone at ground level is +15W/m2/per 6 months (July-Jan.)
This one natural forcing alone is therefore 1,500 times greater than the forcing due to increasing atmospheric CO2 during the same time period.
Thank you for sharing this reference sir.
However, your statements still don't contribute more than the appropriate answer to my question made by Prof. Glodeanu .
The anthropogenic contribution to global warming is the only one we are responsible for and the only one we can realistically act upon by reducing all types of emissions.
It would be foolish to think that we could act on the natural one besides by creating chaos in the climate.
About the off topic answers, I am under the impression that global warming due to carbon dioxide (among other GHG) produced by anthropogenic activities is not yet accepted by:
1- some people in the scientific community
2- some powerful people in the political community
3- some powerful economic deciders and economy makers
and even less accepted will be that radiations produced by anthropogenic activities (AHE to make it as simple as in the paper) can be a significant factor in global warming.
Please, correct me if I have been misled by your comments that I felt somewhat not appropriate with regard to my present question.
However, to solve such a delicate problem it has to be clearly and completely presented otherwise the solutions won’t be up to the challenge.
We are now at this point due the indifference then turmoil it has generated for more than a century among some greedy, arrogant, not knowledgeable sceptics, only interested by accumulating money and power, waiting that nature takes care of our mess. As time went by, it has making the problem increasingly harder to solve as you correctly pointed out due to the growth of the global population. Since the inception, the irresponsible consumerism and lack of respect for nature that is now deeply rooted in most minds and it is going to be very complicated to make the proper decision without making things worse than good for the best of all living beings and for our own sake.
As you may have noticed, I have started answering your last question in some other discussion on that topic and I may be formulating a more precise answer to your first question later.
Again, please, correct me if I have been misled by your comments that I felt somewhat not appropriate with regard to my present question. What is your personal position about the causes of global warming or climate change regardless of the accuracy of the data?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/search?qs=relative%20anthropogenic%20radiation%20contribution%20to%20global%20warming&show=25&sortBy=relevance
Human civilization will continue to use new sources of energy; the convenient classification of the evolutionary aspects of our energetic abilities is addressed by the Kardashev scale
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
Presumably, after civilization reaches level one on the Kardashev scale, it will not only be able to use the entire solar input but also to control the undesirable consequences of energy consumption. But this vision belongs to the sphere of speculations.
Guy,
In answer to your question, it is possible that the human contribution to global warming is greater than 100%. That is because at present the planet should be cooling as a result of the natural Milankovitch cycles.
I think it does contribute. Florian Glodeanu's link doe give some insightful estimates
Ken,
this is a forum for scientific discussion, not a place for posting newspaper headlines.
The full story from your first headline is here:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180705110027.htm
which is the press release from a peer reviewed paper in Nature Geoscience cited at the end of the article, and available on ResearchGate here:
Article Palaeoclimate constraints on the impact of 2 °C anthropogeni...
So you are going to continue driving your gas guzzling SUV despite it may cause sea level to rise by six meters wiping out Bangladesh, Holland and Florida?
Ken, You are not answering the question. The question is "What is the relative anthropogenic radiation contribution to global warming?"
If you want an answer to what we should do about sea level rise, open you own question on ResearchGate. Meanwhile, your cuttings are just more fake science. What are they supposed to prove? 190 years ago the Glorioso islands were though to be about 15 feet above sea level on average. Now they are know to 19.5 feet on average. So what?
My forecast is based on the peer reviewed paper I cited, but which you obviously have not read because it does not fit with your denialist agenda.
Parts of Florida and Bangladesh are subsiding, but that only makes the threat from sea level worse. People affected by flooding in Florida will be able to escape to the rest of the US, but the Bangladeshi are fenced in by the Indians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh%E2%80%93India_border#India%E2%80%93Bangladesh_barrier
Are you happy for over 150 million people to be drowned, while you sit on your hands?
Guy,
It was not clear to me whether your question was about the proportion of global warming caused by the trapping of radiation by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gases, or the heat produced by the burning of fossil fuels to produce those gases.
The later question is answered in this Ted talk by Jim Hansen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWInyaMWBY8 along with many other points, which makes me wonder if Ken has any grandchildren.
Spoiler, about 7 mins 40 secs in, Hansen explains that the heat produced by the greenhouse gases is about 20 times the amount of heat produced by all humanity.
Ken, it is not the politician Al Gore, but rather the scientist James Lovelock who influences me.See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Vip-PbuZQ
Alastair,
Thanks for sharing Jim Hansen's presentation
Alastair,
Thanks for sharing Jim Hansen's presentation.
The french public has not heard of him and James Lovelock's interview. Unfortunately, I must admit, neither do I.
He his a brave physicist indeed and the Venusian inspiration is what is inspiring my question also.
Further, I am concerned about the inscreasing contribution of the anthropogenic microwaves: that is what's motivating my question.
However, I am not closed to anyother type of radiation as a cofactor with the massive amounts of chemicals that are released in the atmosphere as I started to hypothesize in another question.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Would_you_consider_the_release_of_chemicals_into_the_atmosphere_ethical_in_the_attempt_to_control_global_warming_due_to_anthropogenic_activities?_ec=topicPostOverviewAuthoredQuestions
That is why I would simplify the problem by taking into account every energy production as a cofactor to GHG.
Are these hypotheses unreasonable?
Would it be possible to make an experiment worldwide without any geoengineering?
Hi Guy,
My apologies but I am not willing to get into yet another interminable debate with Ken on his pet theme of the impossibility of doing anything about global warming. This seems to happen on every question posted on ResearchGate that has even the remotest relevance to AGW.
You conclude with the two remarks:
"Are these hypotheses unreasonable?
Would it be possible to make an experiment worldwide without any geoengineering?"
To the first, I would say there is another anglophone scientist you may not have heard about called William of Ockham (1288 - 1347). He proposed the principle known as Occam's Razor which arrgues that the simplest solution is the best solution. So global warming caused by an increase in carbon dioxide needs no further causes.
To the second question, my reply is that we are already involved in a major geoengineering experiment, which is changing the Earth's climate. Isn't one enough? Won't another make things even worse?
Hi, Guy and others,
The question " What is the relative anthropogenic radiation contribution to global warming?" cannot be answered. The amount of variables, natural (almost 4,000 active volcanoes, natural greenhouse gases, solar irradiation, CO2 sequestration) or not natural, Earth x Sun, produced "burning" energy x produced atmospheric CO2, greenhouse effect x greenhouse gases albedo, El Niño La Niña, CO2 biochemical sequestration, Polar currents x polar ice melt, and so on, do not allow anybody to say what is really going on. No one has yet quantified the actual anthropogenic radiation contribution to global warming. all we have are punctual researches indicate it is a possibility but they are ignoring the other variables and some of them are not take into account.
Ales tried to point out that any small variation of Sun's activity and we'll burn or freeze independently of what we did.
Kenneth is pointing that even if it was a man-made warming it is insignificant, 0.83°C ±0.5°C, specially compared to what happened in Earth's past.
And, please, for God's sake, 0.83°C ±0.5°C means an measurement error of 60.24%. There is more error than measurement. The physical meaning of such error is that NOTHING CAN BE SAID OR PREDICTED.
Engineering works with an error of 2.5% and Dams are broken down, roads are carried by anomalous rains, aircrafts blow up, Builds fall down, and so on. What may some one really say with an error of more than 60%????
Jorge,
Thanks for clarifying everyone's position.
1- I agree will all of you that that if the phenomenon is solely due to astronomical and geological cause then geoengineering is futile and further it does worse than good.
2- If not it does worse than good.
3- How accurately have the scientist measured the solar activity and other geological causes?
4- Oddly, the phenomenon seems to have its inception with the beginning of the industrial age.
5-I hope that we can agree that the most accurate data and reliable data that we have are about human activities since these days.
Therefore what I was suggesting is at the same time:
1- Stop all geoengineering experiments rather than start another one.
2- Don’t do any artificial carbon sequestering.
3- Try to have a drastic limitation of energy production which could prove the hypothesis of the anthropogenic cause and amplitude to the climate chaos.
In particular, I’d like to verify the microwave hypothesis.
Is this an unreasonable thing to ask or do?
Hi, Guy,
3- How accurately have the scientist measured the solar activity and other geological causes? I do not know for sure the accuracy that astronomers and geologists usually apply to their measurements, but I can tell you that if a geologist tells you that there is oil 4,000 meters under the ground, you can dig, there will be oil there. Same way if an astronomer says that a comet no one can see will be visible, 30 minutes after midnight, last saturday next month, you can be sure that you will see it there. When we say or measure something we are precise, we do not simply suppose. But as long as I can see, suppositions and personal feelings are very much being applied in respect to fossil fuel global warming.
4- Oddly, the phenomenon seems to have its inception with the beginning of the industrial age. This is not true. An uncountable number of events of a cyclic global warming and cooling have been registered in the geological data. Kenneth is the whole time remembering that. 11 thousand years ago the last glacial era finished. Global climate got warmer. after a certain time it started to cool and after wards to warm up again. One hundred years in 10 thousand years is 1%. If this is the natural cycle, 100 years in front or before is hard to indicate precisely. In medieval ages there was a very cold period known as Little Ice Age (LIA). Some say it started in the XVI Century and ended in the 1st half of the XIX century. Some say it has happened in the period between XIII until XVII Centuries. I mean, If we had a LIA it natural to suppose that temperature will increase again some day, isn't it? Maybe it is happening now .
5-I hope that we can agree that the most accurate data and reliable data that we have are about human activities since these days. Well, I believe that men change data for many reasons. Therefore, I think geological data is more reliable.
Therefore what I was suggesting is at the same time:
1- Stop all geoengineering experiments rather than start another one. I think this is not going to happen. A lot of people are now depending on the research, money, politics, etc, that is surrounding this so called "global warming due to fossil fuel burning". Anyway, I believe that science can not stop. And that even doing the wrong things new technology will arise from all these research being done now. And we cannot forget that most of the researchers are seriously investigating the climate changes.
2- Don’t do any artificial carbon sequestering. Why not???? Let they do it, please. If they manage somehow to do it we will be full of new technologies. Same if they don't. Let they try. Science must go on. It needs to do wrong to learn how the right is done. There is already a lot of salaries, scholarships, funds, supports, etc, everything depending on ideas like this. It causes no harm except bad money usage, if it is so. New useful ideas will be obtained from all this attempt to avoid the unavoidable.
3- Try to have a drastic limitation of energy production which could prove the hypothesis of the anthropogenic cause and amplitude to the climate chaos. We cannot drastically reduce the global energy production. As Kenneth says not without giving up of our way of living. we need heating or cooling our houses, we need transportation, we need energy for almost everything we do. And besides that, we human being do not simply give up. We fight to change or finish undesirable conditions. We create a new condition to continue existing or we adapt ourselves to the new natural conditions that will maybe come, if it is really changing and if the change will really be so drastic as is being noticed. I don't think so. I think that all that has been done till now will not change the fact the nature is stronger than us.
On the other hand, we don't need to reduce energy production to find out whether global warming is men made or a natural phenomenon. 13C/12C ratio seems to be a nice marker. And it already seems to indicate that atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising due to natural phenomena although they say the opposite. There is also oxygen isotopes to be thought about, but till now it is not very informative.
In particular, I’d like to verify the microwave hypothesis. If by "microwave hypothesis" you mean radio frequencies and so on, I think this is a waste of time. Microwaves seem to cause direct harm to living beings better than warming the planet. But it is maybe another source that must be added to the whole.
About comparing with Venus, I think you will have problems. Venusian CO2 is totally accumulated in its atmosphere while here on Earth it was almost all of it fixed in rocks. Venus has no oxygen and no ozone's layer. Its water is in form of atmospheric water vapor. UV is much stronger there then what we receive here on Earth.
Jorge,
Venus is just there for understanding roughly the phenomenon. It is only there for inspiration. It has always inspired humankind.
In France, there is a popular saying: “Comparaison n’est pas raison”.
It is unreasonable to compare the data with Venus atmosphere. Further, it is the only planet in the solar system that spins counter clockwise…
It is not yet determined.
It is characterized by a high scale of uncertainty. Except GHG, also aerosol direct and indirect effects must be taken into account. Especially, the indirect effects have the highest uncertainty on the climate change assessment.
Your question, What is the relative anthropogenic radiation contribution to global warming? I am going to suggest that land clearance, especially when you remove by grazing or plowing, the insulating native grassland cover and expose bare soil, that bare soil is perhaps the largest indirect anthropogenic contribution to global warming? There have been many discussions on the topic at https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_land_clearance_causes_climate_change_and_how_it_could_better_manage
An image that I can contribute, are the measured difference in the Mojave desert of a single native grass and soil surface temp, attached.
Ales,
When I left the USA in 2003, I brought with me a book that is not perfect but that I think is correct: Engineering Companion, McGraw-Hill’s, ISBN 0-07-137836-7 and for my rough computations utilized the conversion factor 1 kWh=3600 J for comparison with the paper share by Florian.
And I used the scaling factor 1TWh=10^12 kWh. Please, correct me if I am making a mistake.
Since I can speak only for myself, due a good but tough education and to epigenetic causes I am 1,70m, and weight 65kg.
My average earnings since my birth in 1965 was below what’s called now the poverty level in France. The year of my birth, if I can trust the data shared previously, the GDP per habitant in France was $9320/h and the energy consumption was 1284 TWh. In 2016, the respective data were: $38760/h and 2743 TWh.
For my safety, in December 2014 I had to move to Roanne, “La Ville du Futur”, 46° 02′ 12″ nord, 4° 04′ 08″ est
The landlord’s son was working at EDF the French energy company. I rented a 40m2 apartment. When I went to the EDF company, I asked the employee to be on the lowest tariff possible since I was not wasting energy. It was not possible. According to their computations and statistics I had to be on a 6000kWh/y on a gaz tariff (heating-cooking-water). Their tariffs have a base price and a proportional price. Like every other energy company in France, the former increases when one is consuming less energy and the later decreases when you’re consuming more. You understand with regard to our problem this is counter-productive. And you can apply this to almost every goods as I discussed elsewhere. For electricity, almost only computer and energy saving class A fridge I had a 2kWh counter.
For a reason that I don’t know, she also told me: “Vous allez souffrir”…
After two years of discussions, they finally put me on a tariff below 6000kWh/y and they would pay me back for what they overcharged me. For gaz, actually I was about 3000kWh/y. I had no car. I travelled only to look for a job. I don’t recall my electricity bill since they do everything to confuse people but if I look for it I could probably find the exact data. I reckon it was below 2000kWh/y. Since I was on welfare my ‘earnings’ were less than 500€/month let say for the sake of the simplicity of the computation $500month. Let’s add to that $400/month for the rent. That would make a living with $10800/y.
Now: 5000kWh/y * 70 millions inhabitants would make 350 TWh/y for France in 2016…
If I take into account a 70% extra waste of energy it still makes 1557 TWh/y.
I can’t believe it. Please, help me and tell me where I am making a mistake.
Kenneth, If you Google the "area of the earth's area covered by cities", it is 1/3 of 1%, whereas hot deserts cover 100 times that much, 1/3 of all of the land masses, making the hot deserts the largest "heat islands" on the planet!
If I understood Graig properly, his first claim was that creating bare soil by cutting wood does increase the “heat islands”: (Anthropogenic)
However, deserts have always been around because of the Coriolis force. Roughly the enclosed image give an idea about that. (Natural uncontrolable)
I agree with Kenneth that anthropogenic “hot spots” as I called them previously are due to our energy production and consumption. (Anthropogenic)
The study of forcing a climate system by the direct release of anthropogenic heat should be based on high resolution data. Some progress in this area has been reported by Yang et al. (2017): “A new global anthropogenic heat estimation based on high-resolution nighttime light data”
https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2017116
According to the discussion presented in the above study, we can provide a positive answer to the original question, at least for regional scale issues.
Despite the fact that direct heat from anthropogenic sources is equal to 1% of greenhouse gas forcing, it remains the main factor affecting the boundary layer structure and precipitation patterns in cities. Direct heat release also affects atmospheric chemistry and implicitly has significant effects on health. According to references 9 and 10, the urban heat island in Asia even modifies large-scale circulation systems. All of these effects will increase in the near future considering then current trend of energy consumption.
Kenneth,
To the deserts have not always been here. Our North American deserts are man-made-were originally native grasslands only 200 years ago, like you can see in Dr. Humphrey's paired photos at and the Middle Eastern deserts only about 2,000-5,000 years old caused by the domestication of sheep and goats, and the That desert maybe only 1,000 years old or less, created by grazing animals and unirrigated agriculture.
I am going to suggest, like a city heat-island effect, that the air temp over a barren hot desert can be amplified by the bare soil, wherever the insulating native perennial grasses have been removed.
Then, the bare soil can become a heat sink for the sun, absorbing it deeply and then radiating it back to keep the nights warm also, like what is happening in Death Valley today. When I measured the bare soil temps. around that single grass plant in the Mojave, I was surprised how deep into the bare ground, that the sun's heat was absorbed?
Craig,
I agree that people are amplifying the desertification.
And I agree that the soil is a heat sink that is amplifying the problem.
In december 1986, I visited the petrified forest National park.
On the same trip, I drove through the Death Valley.
Indeed, it was a great experience.
However, this was not man made.
Kind regards
“Facts are False, Interpretations are True
How many times have we been told to only look at the facts when making decisions. The million dollar wisdom; there are no facts only interpretations.
It’s a fact that sun rises in the east, but it is an interpretation where the direction east is.
It is a fact that apple falls at the ground but it is an interpretation that it falls due to gravity.” V. Kashyap
To illustrate this you will find a picture were you could change the word “True” by “False”.
No illusion, no delusion.
Alastair,
Thank you for your constructive answers.
Now, I am understanding better the pollution that Sir Towe has brought into these questions about climate change :(
No apologies were necessary from you.
1-” He proposed the principle known as Occam's Razor which argues that the simplest solution is the best solution. So global warming caused by an increase in carbon dioxide needs no further causes.”
Indeed, the simplest solution is the best solution that if the problem is properly understood. Carbon dioxide is only the tip of the iceberg so to speak. By a simple principle of interaction of all phenomena, the global warming (effect) due to anthropogenic activities we are witnessing has multiple causes that multiplying factors. These have an unique origin the over consumption in particular the over production of cheap energy.
2-“To the second question, my reply is that we are already involved in a major geoengineering experiment, which is changing the Earth's climate. Isn't one enough? Won't another make things even worse? “
The type of experiment I am proposing is a cut back in energy production as suggested by my previous comments.
Would that be considered as geo-engineering?
For example, if during summer time the occidentals would shutdown 1/3 of all energy production (indifferently from its source) and raise by 1/3 its price; would that have a significant impact enough to see a change or make measurements?
If not what type of experiment in that line of thought would lead occidental countries toward a proper energy, resources, goods, and food management?
Would that meet the Occam’s Razor principle?
Kind regards
Guy
Interpretation of the facts has to do with your depth of knowledge or subject matter.
Passion and value that your decision will create intelligence out of your action.... what we call experts.
An experts is someone who has make more mistake than the other person. Our decision is evolving on global warming.It will take another twenty years to get to the fundamentals. One thing is sure. The solution is biologicals.
Dr Otaiku,
I agree with you, however over time the accumulation of mistakes in geo-engineering can have dire consequences. Geo-engineering is a path chosen to keep doing business as usual. I consider it as a dead end path.
Dans les champs de l’observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés. In the field of observation, chance favours only the prepared mind.
— Louis Pasteur
Inaugural Address as newly appointed Professor and Dean (Sep 1854) at the opening of the new Faculté des Sciences at Lille (7 Dec 1854)
Kind regards
The perspectives of solutions should be converged.
Biogeochemistry holds the keyword.
Also, definition of sustainability from singularity may help give indicators of solutions. Big data science may also help.
So are the designs of weather stations appropriate to identify causes of global climate change, or not?
7 months ago
Alex Kralj Added an answer
>"What is the relative anthropogenic radiation contribution to global warming?" Well, the whole "primary" heat power produced by our civilization is approximately 25 TW. -
-- HOWEVER that number may be only 5% of the other 95% that is contributed due to humans plowing and abandoning and laying bare the hot desert areas of the planet, and their grazing animals over time, stripping off the native vegetation, once again exposing bare soil, heat that soil up like an oven and can then absorb the sun's heat very deep into the soil, and then radiate it back to heat the air.
See my measurement of that action, and the ability of a single native grass plant to insulate the soil, to keep the bare soil from increasing the surface temperature by 38 deg. F. at http://www.ecoseeds.com/cool.html, from 88 deg. F. to 126 deg. F.
What if just by replanting the barren desert with their native grasses, we could cool the surface of the planet by almost 40 deg. F. ? That alone, might allow us to turn the clock backwards on global warming--instead of increasing by 4 deg. F. (2 deg. C), we could perhaps go back 10 deg. F. or more in the summer across the current hot barren desert acres of our planet--when we insulate the soil with natural vegetation once again?
I agree that 25TW may not look like much compared to the sun radiation and like you suggested there is a multiplying effect.
This figure is only a marker of human activity. The issue is how and why we use and dissipate all this energy. If it was just for keeping and acceptable/environment for people to have a decent quality of life (warm houses, reasonable transportation, seasonal food obtained by unforced farming) it would not have such an impact on the ecosystem.
However, a few unreasonable people are utilizing excessive cheap energy wasting it by forcing over consumerim and destroying ecosystems faster than they can think with more powerful tools before they will realize the impact of what they are doing.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." A. Einstein
From a recent personal experience, this quote resonates particularly in me with regard to the present discussion. Last month, I attended a general assembly of the local association of forest exploitation. It was almost all about economics and education.
Price of the wood, price of the bark of the wood that was about 1€cts/t or even less (the way it is sold, actually could have been negative), the cost of reforestation, the cost of research, the cost of education …
About the topic of education, the people in charge were concerned the lack of interest of student for the profession of lumberjack because the generation Z was interested by playing Gameboys and with joysticks...
The solution was to invest in simulators to attract and train future lumberjacks to use powerful machines controlled by joysticks…
What will next be on the drawing board?
When your ancestors had time to cut trees with an axe they had time to appreciate the beauty of nature, then they joined forces and used saws they still had time to appreciate the beauty of nature, and each other, then they start utilizing chain saws and started to lose their senses due to the overly loudly noise and they got excited by the speed and power of these tools and by the money they were able to make, they started exploiting nature rather than living in harmony with it.
Further, people who lack this experience of the beauty of nature at best considers it as a resource, exploits it, and fears it because they cannot possibly understand it when they spend their life in cities and decides without their senses what’s the price of not a tree but rather the price a cubic meter of wood, using a joystick, or a stupid cool phone. Giving power to uneducated people is nonsense and criminal. You don’t get that sense just going for a week once in a while in a National Park. Einstein was correct, Teddy was also correct although not perfect.
To fight climate change, just hide 'minerals' (sand, concrete, rock, dried clay, streets, roofs,….) using vegetation?
Example:
Just measure the surface temperature of asphalt exposed to direct Sunshine (e.g. 53.1°C; May 17, 2017; 13:18) versus asphalt in shade caused by tree canopy (e.g. 27.7°C; May 17, 2017; 13:18) with a difference of a couple of meters between the measuring points and with an air temperature in shade of 24.9°C
What I am suggesting by my answer, is maybe we are focused on the wrong issue-- the amount of CO2 being produced--instead we could at least measure how our removal of natural vegetation that insulates billion of acres of hot desert, could be a much bigger factor contributing to global warming overall?
And then if we plant those hot barren desert back with their local native plants, how big of an impact would that make, in lowering overall global temperatures?
That is where this radiant-heat question is so important, because these discussions need to include, where we let our domesticated animals strip the natural vegetation to dirt, that cause the bare soil to be 40 deg. F. hotter than it would if the natural vegetation was growing on that spot.
And if the natural vegetation was left there and protected to insulate the soil, the soil surface would probably always be at least 2 deg. F. cooler that the existing air temp.
Instead of trying to get rid of tons of CO2, why not turn down the overall earth's thermostat, by dialing down the desert soil-surface temperatures by 40 deg. F. or more, with the natural vegetation that already grows there?
See the attached image of a single native grass plant in the Mojave desert doing that exact insulating property, and eliminating the bare soil from becoming a heat-radiator? The grid is in 2 inches, and the temps. are in deg. F.
At a short-term basis, it is much more easy to massively plant trees adapted to local environmental conditions also preventing monocultures to take the dynamic characteristics of the environment into account than to remove CO2 from the atmosphere using ecological engineering, right? And I do not only have the desert in mind...
Great idea Craig! Great question Guy!
Marcel--Thanks for your reply.
What I am suggesting is like down a layer of insulation on top of the barren hot desert areas of our planet. The little one foot tall native grass plants have an insulating value, that keeps the sun heat from ever being absorbed by the soil. Then, all the sun can do in that area, is heat the air, instead of heating the soil to maybe 40 deg. F. -- hotter than the air temp. can ever get.
Furthermore, the local perennial native grasses put more carbon into the soil than any other drylands-plant habitat does across the planet. That is why we love perennial grassland soils for our farming, because they are so full of the lovely, rich organic matter, like the soils of Kansas, Iowa, and California's central valley for example.
So to conclude, the local native grass plants insulate the soil, so that the sun's heat does not get trapped by the bare soil, and then it does not radiate back to heat the air more, and the grass roots sequester more carbon than any other drylands plant community, and the grasses by cooling the air should also make more rainfall, which in turn make more native grasses to grow, and so on.
We restart the natural ecosystem cycles and eliminate a huge source of radiant heat from the planet. My guess is we could bring down on a local scale, then a world-wide scale, the maximum summer temperatures at least 5 deg. F. if not more, like close to 10 deg. F.
And you do not need to replant a massive area to trial this out, this kind of system is already functioning in Oman in the mountains of Salalah where the natural vegetation was allowed to remain on a 5 x 30 miles scale, and is the only place in Arabia where the Indian monsoon rains are able to fall each summer.
You can see the difference in temps. from the attached charts, when you do not have vegetation in Riyadh, or if you still have the native vegetation around Salalah. Just a few hectares replanted densely with the local native grasses, will show an immediate local change in the weather, and then the climate over time.
Basically, the native grass plants, and trees and other natural vegetation, are acting as radiant heat barriers. However, when you look up the methods to rate the insulating "R-values" of materials, it is very difficult to rate radiant heat barriers.
What I would proposed, is to measure the surface temperature of bare soil that is away from other vegetation by three feet, in deg. F, And then, measure the surface temp. in deg. F. underneath the grass plant or tree, and also the air temperature three feet off the ground.
I like the deg. F. because 100 degrees in the environment means so much to all of us, and when it is over 100 degrees, we know that is a threshold we do not want to cross, and is really bad.
Then, a "Vegetation Radiant Heat Insulating" scale and numbers could be put together, working those three numbers into an equation. You would want to include the air temp. because the relationship between the two surface temperatures may change as the air temperature is higher or lower.
If there is any of the 26 followers of this question, is working in a hot dry climate somewhere, and could take one specimen of a perennial grass, and get these three numbers across a wide range of different air temperatures? Then, we might be able to put together a formula to measure the "Vegetation Radiant Heat Insulating" effects of different plants, using a consistent measurement technique and scale.
Craig,
would you mind to share with us how you contour plots were obtained?
conditions, equipments, simulation, etc ...
Have you corresponding vegetal density and type of vegetals over the same surface.
It would be interesting to have actually pictures a visible wavelength side by side with pictures in infrared at different times of the day at the specific location.
Very simple--I took a $10 digital kitchen thermometer, and measured the soil surface temperature of the top 1/2 inch deep, on a 2 inch by 2 inch grid, then used photoshop to color in the temperature isolines on 2 deg. F. intervals.
The Desert Stipa plant plus the shade it produced, acted as a perfect radiant thermal barrier, picture of plant attached. Every hot arid desert of the world have their own native perennial grasses, that could be replanted for this purpose.
The very surprising factor, was the hot temp. in various depths in the bare soil, that the sun's heat was being absorbed very deep. Whereas a small grass plant acting as a thermal barrier, that soil was actually 2 deg. F. cooler than the air temp.
So if we use the deg F. scale, and measure the surface temp. that day and time was a high of 126 deg. F., and using the maximum insulating effect of the plant at 88 deg. F., then subtract, we could get a rough Vegetation Radiant Heat Factor of 38, which means it stopped 38 degrees F. of potential radiant heat from getting absorbed by the ground.
Craig, you may be interested watching the adaptation of Jean Giono's short story “The man who planted trees” into an short animated film by Frédéric Back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Planted_Trees. or “Walkabout” by Nicolas Roeg.
However, I don’t know how realistic is this?
A hanfull of people are destroying whole ecosystems without spending much money or efforts for a quick gain, while others are spending millions of dollars to save extinct species such as the Asian rhino.
Your project sounds like trying to maintain or revive desert (extinct living areas) artificially against much mightier forces.
Desert area are, by definition, uninhabited and it is quite counterproductive to force the evolution of live there without disturbing it elsewhere. If the plants did not adapt by themselves to their location changing artificially the location’s condition is not sustainable (ie farms in deserts). This type of terraforming actually contributes to global warming due to forced evaporation and interaction between GHG and radiations. Water vapor is the most abundant GHG. We are more likely able to venusianforming or later to martianforming it by forcing any change.
I understand that it is not your approach but it is related to it and to one of the angles of my question.
I understand that simple shading may damp the temperature below the shading area. Actually, in some desert zone around solar panel in solar plants or wind farms, providing appropriate conditions, one can find some “weeds” that are starting to grow where previously there were not vegetation. Wouldn’t that maybe a better way to go about it?
Hot arid deserts can be easily replanted with their own local native seeds, if you do it right the first time--I am not suggesting anything artificial, only replanting what is naturally there already.
We were able to produce 100% native cover in a desert in only six months after planting, in an area with only 10 inches (25 cm) of annual rainfall, with zero irrigation and zero future inputs--Just Sow and Go. If you look at http://www.ecoseeds.com/greatbasin.html that is my largest desert planting so far, a 100-mile gas pipeline north of Reno.
What we would be doing, is just bringing those desert areas, back to their pre-domesticated animals grazing natural conditions, when they existed as grasslands and savannah, about 5,500 years ago in North Africa, and from the Middle East to western Indian, and through the Gobi desert, and about 300 years ago in the USA in the Pacific Northwest and Great Basin and 1,000 years ago in our Southwest.
You do not want to add water to the deserts, you want the native plants of the deserts to create their own water, and they do that by 1.) When rainfall does occur, they trap it and store it with their roots, rather than the water being wasted when it creates flash floods, 2.) They lower the air temperature, which then helps the dew point to form rain clouds, 3.) When you also add the native plants that are Pseudomonas-bacteria hosts, those help amplify any rain cloud formation for the area, 4.) They start soil-building, which helps more native plants to grow, and 5.) They cover the soil, keeping it from becoming airborne, and eliminating the atmospheric dust clouds which are the most powerful rain cloud killer on the planet.
The planting could all be done in one year, all dependent on the amount of local native seeds you have produced in bulk, but the planting needs to be protected by hiring the people who originally grazed or farmed those areas, and pay them with the carbon credits being generated by those new grassland plants.
Once this method is trailed in several currently barren, hot desert areas around the world, there will become an awareness that replanting the natural vegetation to cool the planet and increase the rainfall in those areas, is going to be a million times more valuable for us, that using those marginal lands for farming or grazing in the future.
For example, our Great Basin in the United States, has its native grass understory almost grazed to extinction, leaving just the shrubs, and the shrubs are burning at the rate of two million hectares a year, because exotic annual grasses have gotten established where the perennial natives once lived, and then you are left with a barren moonscape. (Knutson, K et al 2014 Journal of Applied Ecology 51, 1414-1424 "Long term effects of seeding after wildfires...")
Instead of grazing that area to a moonscape, what if the entire Great Basin, had its native grasses replanted, and then become the carbon sequestering site for the CO2 produced by the rest of North America? And, parts of the Sahara could be the carbon sink for Europe, and the That desert, the carbon sink for India?
All I am suggesting, is we do trials across the planet in hot desert areas on very small scales, using the local native seeds. We did our original test plots for under $10,000 for the 100-mile pipeline for example.
The minimum good effect of replanting the local native plants, would be to lower soil erosion, and help slow down flash floods events, like replanting the wadis first. However, we may also enjoy lowering the local maximum temperatures in the summer, like the vegetation above Salalah does every summer.
Then, when we do the radiant heat measurements, we may come to realize how valuable each of those plants could be, a million time more than if we had our livestock eat them, or plowed them up to plant a field of wheat, for example.
Alternatively, you may be interested in the work by Miles Silman trying to understand how trees are adapting or not to climate change in the Manu National Park rather than trying to change climate by keeping the species where they were 10 years ago or more. As a summary, you may be interested by chapter 8 “The Forest and the trees” of the “Sixth Extinction: an Unnatural History” by Elisabeth Kolbert, even though this book is somewhat biased because it doesn’t stress much on what appended in most of the other extinction before human beings were around since this is still highly speculative.
So here is a Table 3.1 about the major deserts of the world. And when global warming increases over time, those areas are going to increase their temperatures also, and maybe go over the thresholds that un-air-conditioned humans can survive in?
So it just makes sense, to turn the thermostat down in those areas first, the deserts which are contributing the most radiant heat to the overall global warming picture?
So, we could set up test plots first in the northern hemisphere deserts where we have the Indian monsoonal moisture going over it each summer, and producing unbearable high humidity heat waves, instead of cooling rainfall--like most of Arabia, the Sahel, the Sinai desert, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Australia and the Thar-Sindh desert.
You can see in the Youtube video of the That desert, that it was a forest with a grassland-shrub understory not too long ago, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsSr2eHvR2A - So instead of utilizing these lands for grazing, if the local people could be paid to restore the grasslands, we could get rid of that unwanted radiant heat.
Then, you can see the NOAA outgoing radiation in watts per m2 for the mean between July-Sept. in 2009. What if just be replanting the local native plants, we could lower the outgoing radiation by 100 watts per square meter, how might that impact on the overall global warming, or could it start the process of reversing that trend?
I suggest that all the military people in this world start to plant trees and eventually take care of them. Their role is to protect the people, right?
It is incredible that all these huge military Investments that could also be used to create a better world have been Evolved to protect humans against other humans…. .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-uU8Wxczp4
Craig,
As I mentioned before the Petrified Forest was not created by anthropogenic activities.
You may be inspired by Miles Silman’s work by observing the evolution of the plants in the Mojave or in the Borego deserts (there are actually national parks there) before making any forced and sterile intervention such as described in “Chapter 11: The Rhino Gets an Ultrasound » of the Sixth Extinction.
Due to climate change, local amount and time of the precipitations are changing thus what may have been adapted 10 years ago in the Mojave may not be now. You can assist the adaptation of the vegetation by displacing them were they can survive you cannot force them to stay where they are, and certainly this process will not change the climate. There may be some other reasons for the low density of vegetation in these places that may not be due to direct people interference but are just natural limitations.
It has always been the other way around: after extinctions, (new or different) species adapted to the new conditions. The difference is that people have reduced diversity and the ability for adaptation of new species. Some believe that moving around the world a few “valuable” plants have increased the local biodiversity. I have doubts about that since in some cases they have competed and wiped out endemic local species.
Marcel,
The utilization of military forces to help creating livable place for everyone is an interesting proposition that might contribute to prevent war fighting for food or forcing people to leave their traditional homeland that is no longer able to sustain them due to climate change.
It would be cheaper than building and selling weapons. However, considering the prevalent politico-economic philosophy, I don’t believe it will ever happen.
I have been musing with the idea of measuring the impact of anthropogenic activities onto “climate change” with ground base equipment for a while and your former comment was interesting. It is quite intricate. It could be as expensive as a multimillion euros whole lab anchored on the ground and lifted by a “Montgolfière” at various heights in specific locations when weather conditions would permit. Maybe you could starts an interesting RG project on this topic and what could/should be measured.
Kind regards
Guy
To fight climate change, just hide 'minerals' (sand, concrete, rock, dried clay, streets, roofs,….) using vegetation?
Example:
Just measure the surface temperature of asphalt exposed to direct Sunshine (e.g. 53.1°C; May 17, 2017; 13:18) versus asphalt in shade caused by tree canopy (e.g. 27.7°C; May 17, 2017; 13:18) with a difference of a couple of meters between the measuring points and with an open air temperature in shade of 24.9°C
What would have been the air temperature inside a weather station placed at different heights above heated asphalt versus shaded asphalt with and without wind also given that heated air has a vertical trajectory?
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=no+one+alicia+keys+Youtube&view=detail&mid=62F172D01941F78BE08D62F172D01941F78BE08D&FORM=VIRE
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=no+one+alicia+keys+Youtube&&view=detail&mid=8A975FE7C785C0668B1F8A975FE7C785C0668B1F&&FORM=VDRVRV
1.) Not suggesting moving any native plants around the planet, just increasing the local native plants that still exist in the hot desert parts of the world.
2.) See the striking difference between having vegetation and not having native vegetation from the two pictures from Oman, from my http://www.ecoseeds.com/cool.html
3.) Yes, "hiding" the minerals with the local vegetation is what the cities are doing right now by planting trees, and also by other means, like putting solar panels on their roofs, which then shade the roofs. And using "cool roofs" as suggested by our US Dept. of Energy at https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/energy-efficient-home-design/cool-roofs
A cool roof is "one that has been designed to reflect more sunlight and absorb less heat than a standard roof." They go on to say, "A cool roof under the same conditions could stay more than 50°F cooler and save energy and money by using less air conditioning." So putting on a "cool roof", would help stop the creation of "heat-islands" in cities for example, and would stop the storage by the roof of that radiant heat.
I think this question will help us focus on the issue of radiant heat, which is what the greenhouse gases are trapping. We can turn down the earth's global warming temperatures using both methods, lower greenhouse gas production, and at the same time, turn down the amount of radiant heat coming off of bare soil and other surfaces.
Dear Craig,
I prefer the green peninsula!
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=no+one+alicia+keys+Youtube&&view=detail&mid=AF4F86F3C51CE7FFB71DAF4F86F3C51CE7FFB71D&&FORM=VDRVRV
It would also be nice to better isolate internal living spaces against temperature fluctuations
Cheers!
Insulation is part of the solution, another part is low energy house warming/cooling with traditional techniques such as warming “puit canadien”or similarly cooling “puit Provençal” utilized in future low energy or passive houses. There have been much development made lately in this field and implementations maybe impressive and effective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_chimney
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-energy_house
However, long term maintenance and health issues encountered with these techniques are not quite solved yet.
Emirates have experimented building a impressive sustainable city from ground-up in the deserts with cogeneration solar-natural gas energy and a cooling towers inspired from traditional local techniques. The life in such cities may have many constraints that some people are not ready to endure.
Further, these examples won’t prevent people from over-consumerism.
Design of weather stations evolve in time without taking soil composition under the weather station into account?
http://www.npl.co.uk/upload/pdf/20141209-npl-ukas-harrison-burt.pdf
Not more than a 'slow' scientific approach
If an average increase in ambient/air temperature would be 1°C at a continental scale during the last 50 years, what fraction of this average increase in ambient/air temperature might be attributed to an average change in weather station design and/or an average change in the composition of the soil surrounding a weather station?
Any quantitative data or analyses available?
Social approach: What fraction of the people that monitored weather stations at a continental scale used to estimate climate change had a profound formation in science practice?
Answering all these questions are important because it might provide arguments about how to manage landscapes and cities in order to manage dynamics in air temperature at the level of living spaces?
http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2019/02/12/20002-20190212ARTFIG00037-le-retour-de-la-taxe-carbone-defendu-au-sein-du-gouvernement.php
As a "cure" for global warming, perhaps in addition to a "Carbon Sequestering Credit" offered for putting carbon away, a "Radiant Heat credit", for as many watts per square meter you lower, say by replanting deserts with their local native plants? I think this question about radiant heat, may be one of the most important questions to investigate, regarding global warming.
So, can anyone reading these answers, set up a small scale test plot later this year, to test out this "Radiant Heat Credit" idea. I am planning on doing more work in the Nevada desert this year, and you can see the planting I did earlier, where we produces 100% native cover in six months in 8-10 inches (20-25 cm) of annual rainfall at http://www.ecoseeds.com/greatbasin.html
Useful besides planting trees and bushes?
Article Fighting global warming by climate engineering: Is the Earth...
Example (Biomimicry):
For walls of buildings that are exposed to direct sunshine, would it be useful to simulate tree canopy structures so that each individual surface (e.g. simulating a tree leaf) in a mosaic of surfaces (simulating tree canopy) is oriented in a different direction to alter thermal radiation patterns?
Craig,
What kind of fertilizer did you use to enrich the soil? Preferably there should be a natural cycle of soil fertilization, right?
For organic matter I use sawdust, and nitrogen can come from many organic sources, but always organic. The phosphorus always comes from bone meal.
Potassium and micronutrients come from mined materials, like potassium sulfate for example. Calcium can come from limestone deposits. All depended on what part of the world, and what the local sources are.
Instead of shade on building, why not install solar panels that will sop up that heat, shade the building, generate electricity, and also lower the cooling need of the building in summer?
Every flat roofed commercial building in the West and Southwest of the USA, should have solar panels covering those roofs, and every flat roof building in a place like Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, likewise.
Dark colored flat roofs should have a severe annual "Radiant Heat tax" placed on them, then white colored roofs also a minor annual "Radiant Heat" tax, then a 100% tax rebate for the cost of installing roofs with solar panels, and when you have solar panels, you also get an annual tax deduction.
Attached is the examples from three cities--both Los Angeles commercial building, and Beijing China--no solar panels, flat black roofs. Riyadh, flat roofs that are at least white, but still no solar panels.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02810-8
..assessments based on ground observations, such as those from flux sites and meteorological stations typically have insufficient spatial coverage to derive conclusions at the global scale.
...satellite observations are increasingly used to produce data-driven diagnostics at large scales because they combine global coverage with the high resolution required to assess local changes in vegetation cover.
They quantified the total effect on the surface energy balance resulting from all vegetation changes that have occurred during the period 2000–2015, and then translate this effect into a change of 0.23 ± 0.03 °C over the concerned land. Agricultural expansion is most responsible for this increase, due to a decrease in evapotranspiration that is not compensated by an increase in albedo. We further show how all potential transitions towards croplands or grasslands raise local temperatures irrespective of the vegetation originally present. Similarly, converting tropical evergreen forests to any other vegetation cover results in a warming of the local climate.
https://skepticalscience.com/The-albedo-effect.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02810-8
While deforestation systematically results in higher radiative fluxes leaving the surface, the balance between shortwave reflected and longwave emitted radiation changes depends on forest type. Deforestation of needleleaf trees show a stronger increase in reflected radiation, partly because these ecosystems are predominantly located in the Northern hemisphere, characterized by extended snow cover periods, but also because needleleaf trees are typically darker than their broadleaf counterparts. The vegetation type that replaces the forest also has an effect: for example, the reduction in latent heat flux is stronger when tropical forests are converted to grasslands than when converted to croplands, suggesting that croplands have more access to water in the analyzed areas, possibly because of irrigation.
Thus, in the Mediterranean region, should dark coloured Aleppo pine forest or other pine plantations that decorate streets be replaced by less dark coloured broad-leaved oak forest?
Thus, in the Northern hemisphere with extensive snow cover, should pine tree Density be lower by increasing the distance between individual pine trees also to allow other types of less dark coloured vegetation to develop between the individual pine trees?
Anthropogenic radiation in a democratic world of voters deciding who will rule this world? Who truly cares about the future?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh3i3vWgPyk
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change