Geenland Melt Tied to Plume

[Lord of Planar]

It means human are having a measurable impact on the climate and the results of which may not be good for us so we should start to act in such a way that we moderate our effect on the climate.

In my viewpoint, the largest affect we have on the climate is due to land use changes and pollution. Not CO2.

I agree, in a sense. We must act now to stop other countries from building dirty fossil fuel plants. If they insist on building more, we need to insist they do it with cleaner technology, or boycott Chinese goods and other nations goods. Afterall, it is our need of goods increasing their wealth and demand for power. If they don't comply, we need to stop increasing the demand from our end.

I often do it. I note you didn't have any references cited in this particular post of yours.

Not from my perspective. Maybe my questions are too tough for you.

Maybe you came through an education system that had little demands...

 

[istodolez]

In my viewpoint, the largest affect we have on the climate is due to land use changes and pollution. Not CO2.

It's good to have opinions. No doubt land use IS a significant factor in anthropogenic climate change.

Not from my perspective.

It's good to have opinions.

Maybe my questions are too tough for you.

Or maybe you just don't read my posts in your thirst to hurl insults at me. As has been shown many times now you are often in error with your declarations about me.

Maybe you came through an education system that had little demands...

I made it further through the university system than you did, apparently. So I guess if the entire US educational system is lacking in your view then it makes you look a bit worse for that.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What if land use changes are the greatest effect we have?

 

[Tim the plumber]

It means human are having a measurable impact on the climate and the results of which may not be good for us so we should start to act in such a way that we moderate our effect on the climate.

Only significant impact of increased CO2 and warming;

 

[istodolez]

Only significant impact of increased CO2 and warming;
View attachment 67311571

You forgot to also include this from the NASA discussion about this very illustration:

While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.

The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

SOURCE

 

[istodolez]

What if land use changes are the greatest effect we have?

Not all land use changes have a net positive forcing. So this will work best if we just totally IGNORE all the data related to greenhouse gas forcings.

That's the best way to approach science that doesn't help us "feel good".

 

[Lord of Planar]

You forgot to also include this from the NASA discussion about this very illustration:


SOURCE

So...

Samson Reiny is simply a science reporter. He studied journalism at Berkley. Reporters often put their own bias and spin on things. The Nature Climate change article he cites says nothing about CO2 being the chief culprit of climate change .

It took me some time to find the article. The link on the NASA page is not correct. Here is the paper.

Web:

Greening of the Earth and its drivers - Nature Climate Change

Satellite records combined with global ecosystem models show a persistent and widespread greening over 25–50% of the global vegetated area; less than 4% of the globe is browning. CO2 fertilization explains 70% of the observed greening trend.

www.nature.com

PDF:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004.pdf

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not all land use changes have a net positive forcing. So this will work best if we just totally IGNORE all the data related to greenhouse gas forcings.

That's the best way to approach science that doesn't help us "feel good".

First off, I'm trying to get you to think outside the box.

I said "what if!"

I'm simply trying to make a point,m that you deny.

Yes, land use changes can provide either increases or decreases. So can the responses to CO2.

 

[istodolez]

So...

Samson Reiny is simply a science reporter. He studied journalism at Berkley. Reporters often put their own bias and spin on things. The Nature Climate change article he cites says nothing about CO2 being the chief culprit of climate change .

It took me some time to find the article. The link on the NASA page is not correct. Here is the paper.

Web:

Greening of the Earth and its drivers - Nature Climate Change

Satellite records combined with global ecosystem models show a persistent and widespread greening over 25–50% of the global vegetated area; less than 4% of the globe is browning. CO2 fertilization explains 70% of the observed greening trend.

www.nature.com

PDF:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004.pdf

I don't know what you mean by the link on NASA not being correct.

But the bigger point is that, yes, CO2 may be leading to greening, but why would that mean it can't have other effects which we KNOW it is capable of?

If the CO2 is sufficient to lead to this "fertilization" effect why wouldn't it also lead to warming? Is it just because you don't want it to?

 

[istodolez]

First off, I'm trying to get you to think outside the box.

I prefer to hang with the data.

I'm simply trying to make a point,m that you deny.

What have I denied?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I don't know what you mean by the link on NASA not being correct.

But the bigger point is that, yes, CO2 may be leading to greening, but why would that mean it can't have other effects which we KNOW it is capable of?

If the CO2 is sufficient to lead to this "fertilization" effect why wouldn't it also lead to warming? Is it just because you don't want it to?

I said " The link on the NASA page is not correct. " Meaning it does not take you to the paper it speaks of. Typical... You recite a piece of work without checking their source material. If you tried, you would have known the link doesn't take you to the paper.

I specified a quote in the paragraph you took, and pointed out they were the words of the journalist. Not contained within the paper.

This is an example of the journalist misleading the readers, and you bought it hook line and sinker...

 

[longview]

I don't know what you mean by the link on NASA not being correct.

But the bigger point is that, yes, CO2 may be leading to greening, but why would that mean it can't have other effects which we KNOW it is capable of?

If the CO2 is sufficient to lead to this "fertilization" effect why wouldn't it also lead to warming? Is it just because you don't want it to?

I think the second sentence of the paper says it all.
"Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. "
What we know is that green leaves, absorb lots of high energy photons in the .35 to .5 um range, and store the absorbed energy to sugars.
The question would be if the vast additional greening would compensate for the increasing CO2 capturing additional 15 um photons.
From an energy perspective, each .4 um photon has as much energy as 37, 15 um photons, so leaves absorbing blue light is much more energy efficient
than CO2 slowing 15 um far IR light.

 

[istodolez]

I think the second sentence of the paper says it all.
"Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. "
What we know is that green leaves, absorb lots of high energy photons in the .35 to .5 um range, and store the absorbed energy to sugars.
The question would be if the vast additional greening would compensate for the increasing CO2 capturing additional 15 um photons.
From an energy perspective, each .4 um photon has as much energy as 37, 15 um photons, so leaves absorbing blue light is much more energy efficient
than CO2 slowing 15 um far IR light.

I don't think it's a race to see who can absorb more energy plants or atmospheric CO2. Rather that we know that more CO2 has currently led to more warming at the surface. Yes, perhaps more green leaves will absorb a different energy photon, that doesn't really change what CO2 is doing. CO2 is absorbing in the longer wavelength region so that 0.4um photon is likely not of significant interest to the CO2, if I am understanding correctly. So the relative efficiency of energy absorption between leaves and CO2 wouldn't seem to really be much of a significant factor in this analysis.

 

[longview]

I don't think it's a race to see who can absorb more energy plants or atmospheric CO2. Rather that we know that more CO2 has currently led to more warming at the surface. Yes, perhaps more green leaves will absorb a different energy photon, that doesn't really change what CO2 is doing. CO2 is absorbing in the longer wavelength region so that 0.4um photon is likely not of significant interest to the CO2, if I am understanding correctly. So the relative efficiency of energy absorption between leaves and CO2 wouldn't seem to really be much of a significant factor in this analysis.

You are not seeing the whole picture then! AGW is about energy imbalance. Every unit of energy stored by green leaf surfaces, is not available to be re emitted as long wavelength IR.
As I said each photon of blue (.4 um)light absorbed, is worth 37 photons of 15 um. (3.099 eV vs .0827 eV)
In addition, the leaves reflect lots of green and yellow photons, that are not highly absorbed by the atmosphere.

 

[istodolez]

You are not seeing the whole picture then! AGW is about energy imbalance. Every unit of energy stored by green leaf surfaces, is not available to be re emitted as long wavelength IR.

But since most of the energy hitting the earth from the sun is re-radiated back out from the earth's surface as IR I'm still not seeing how this dramatically changes anything. Certainly not enough to make a huge difference.

Any 0.4um IR photon coming in from the sun or up from the earth's surface will be absorbed by the leaves, but the CO2 isn't really interested in those photons preferring the 15um photon for absorption. I'm not seeing how this is going to be a significant offset for global warming.

 

[Threegoofs]

You are not seeing the whole picture then! AGW is about energy imbalance. Every unit of energy stored by green leaf surfaces, is not available to be re emitted as long wavelength IR.
As I said each photon of blue (.4 um)light absorbed, is worth 37 photons of 15 um. (3.099 eV vs .0827 eV)
In addition, the leaves reflect lots of green and yellow photons, that are not highly absorbed by the atmosphere.

And here’s what’s happening with energy imbalance.

 

[longview]

But since most of the energy hitting the earth from the sun is re-radiated back out from the earth's surface as IR I'm still not seeing how this dramatically changes anything. Certainly not enough to make a huge difference.

Any 0.4um IR photon coming in from the sun or up from the earth's surface will be absorbed by the leaves, but the CO2 isn't really interested in those photons preferring the 15um photon for absorption. I'm not seeing how this is going to be a significant offset for global warming.

The only energy that is re radiated as IR, is energy that is absorbed and re emitted, energy absorbed and stored as sugars, and energy that is reflected
as visible light, is by definition NOT re-radiated as IR!
The greening up of Earth is observed from a satellite in space, so the green light is directly reflected, as is all of the visible spectrum observed from space!
Green leaves, Blue Oceans, even the desert sands, reflect large quantities of visible light.
If it appears as part of the visible spectrum from space, it is almost certainly reflected light!

 

[istodolez]

The only energy that is re radiated as IR, is energy that is absorbed and re emitted, energy absorbed and stored as sugars, and energy that is reflected
as visible light, is by definition NOT re-radiated as IR!
The greening up of Earth is observed from a satellite in space, so the green light is directly reflected, as is all of the visible spectrum observed from space!
Green leaves, Blue Oceans, even the desert sands, reflect large quantities of visible light.
If it appears as part of the visible spectrum from space, it is almost certainly reflected light!

My point being that the wavelengths of the photons matters in this case. Your comparison of the difference in energy of the two photons (0.4um and 15um) using E=hc/Lambda makes good sense but it still matters what the photons are that you are tracking. CO2 is interested in only certain wavelengths and photosynthetic processes are interested in different wavelengths.

If you are proposing that the IR photons are up or down converting then you have a means of balancing it out, but as Threegoofs noted we DO see warming happening. So increased greening clearly isn't doing much to ameliorate that.

I guess I don't see how this will matter much. We cannot deny the FACT that added greenhouse gas (eg CO2) is leading to increased warming. This really isn't even marginally controversial.

So, yeah, maybe more CO2 leads to a greener earth, that's great. Maybe it will increase the uptake of CO2, but we are still warming and that's largely due to our activities.

 

[longview]

And here’s what’s happening with energy imbalance.

View attachment 67311634

Do you think your graph is of Earth's Energy imbalance? (It Is a Global Mean surface temperature anomaly).
The actual Energy imbalance has been declining for several years.
Decadal Changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation and the Earth Energy Imbalance
" Also the incoming solar radiation is decreasing. As a result, over the 2000–2018 period the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI)
appears to have a downward trend of −0.16 ± 0.11 W/m2dec. The EEI trend agrees with a trend of the Ocean Heat Content
Time Derivative of −0.26 ± 0.06 (1 σ ) W/m2dec. "

If we are still warming, it is an artifact of the latency of the cause and effect, the other side of the ECS latency curve.

 

[Threegoofs]

Do you think your graph is of Earth's Energy imbalance? (It Is a Global Mean surface temperature anomaly).
The actual Energy imbalance has been declining for several years.
Decadal Changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation and the Earth Energy Imbalance
" Also the incoming solar radiation is decreasing. As a result, over the 2000–2018 period the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI)
appears to have a downward trend of −0.16 ± 0.11 W/m2dec. The EEI trend agrees with a trend of the Ocean Heat Content
Time Derivative of −0.26 ± 0.06 (1 σ ) W/m2dec. "

If we are still warming, it is an artifact of the latency of the cause and effect, the other side of the ECS latency curve.

‘If you can’t explain the obvious, baffle them with bullshit’. - unidentified denier.

 

[longview]

My point being that the wavelengths of the photons matters in this case. Your comparison of the difference in energy of the two photons (0.4um and 15um) using E=hc/Lambda makes good sense but it still matters what the photons are that you are tracking. CO2 is interested in only certain wavelengths and photosynthetic processes are interested in different wavelengths.

If you are proposing that the IR photons are up or down converting then you have a means of balancing it out, but as Threegoofs noted we DO see warming happening. So increased greening clearly isn't doing much to ameliorate that.

I guess I don't see how this will matter much. We cannot deny the FACT that added greenhouse gas (eg CO2) is leading to increased warming. This really isn't even marginally controversial.

So, yeah, maybe more CO2 leads to a greener earth, that's great. Maybe it will increase the uptake of CO2, but we are still warming and that's largely due to our activities.

As I showed Goofs, the imbalance trend shifted about 20 years ago. The energy imbalance is falling.
The same long latency that Earth take to equalize when warming, also applies to when Earth is cooling.
As to the wavelengths, all the energy comes from the Sun, so the portion that is absorbed and stored as sugars, and the portion that is reflected
back to space as visible light, is not available to be re emitted as IR.

 

[longview]

‘If you can’t explain the obvious, baffle them with bullshit’. - unidentified denier.

If you cannot understand what I am writing, make a snide remark. not really an effective debate technique, but expected!

 

[Threegoofs]

As I showed Goofs, the imbalance trend shifted about 20 years ago. The energy imbalance is falling.
The same long latency that Earth take to equalize when warming, also applies to when Earth is cooling.
As to the wavelengths, all the energy comes from the Sun, so the portion that is absorbed and stored as sugars, and the portion that is reflected
back to space as visible light, is not available to be re emitted as IR.

And land and ocean temperatures magically rise despite the lessening energy.

 

[istodolez]

As to the wavelengths, all the energy comes from the Sun

The solar radiation is dominated by short wavelength photons which are absorbed by the solid earth and re-emitted largely as longer wavelength IR photons.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I don't think it's a race to see who can absorb more energy plants or atmospheric CO2. Rather that we know that more CO2 has currently led to more warming at the surface. Yes, perhaps more green leaves will absorb a different energy photon, that doesn't really change what CO2 is doing. CO2 is absorbing in the longer wavelength region so that 0.4um photon is likely not of significant interest to the CO2, if I am understanding correctly. So the relative efficiency of energy absorption between leaves and CO2 wouldn't seem to really be much of a significant factor in this analysis.

Absorbing the energy and converting it chemically reduces the temperature.