• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Photosynthesis and the Earth Energy Balance

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
65,945
Reaction score
21,952
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
A variable I've been trying to pin down in the global climate system is how much photosynthesis affects the earths energy balance. From various studies, we know that plants cool the temperature through evapotranspiration. This however is just a movement of heat.

In my readings, I have read that as CO2 increases, plants use less H2O but that’s still not what I’m looking for. And something that would suggest otherwise, is the claim that they cool more with more CO2 due to increased transpiration. These are in conflict by what the various researchers are saying.

Anyway, what I have been looking for is how much of the earths net energy imbalance is due to the net endothermic process of photosynthesis and later decay, and the resulting cooling it has. One article I read makes the claim about 1% of the solar energy is used in the photosynthesis process globally. This would be significant as the various earth energy balance studies place the imbalance of energy at about 0.65 W/m^2 and 1% of the suns at the surface would represent more than double this amount. Possibly accounting for all the imbalance even after we consider the reverse process from decay.

What is annoying is I have not been able to find any papers that even address the entropy the biosphere has on a global scale.

I was wondering if anyone else has come across this? I see works only addressing the change in water transpiration. I haven’t come across the large-scale entropy assessments.

There will be a net cooling effect with increased CO2. The question becomes if it has any significance worth discussing.
 
total motion of the universe cannot increase or decrease

it can only concentrate or spread out

or perhaps come from or return to something we cannot perceive, but that would just be a transfer not a starting or stopping of total motion

same goes for earth

heat is actually just motion. sun is pumping new motion into the earth constantly. where is this motion going? driving evolution upwards and driving lifeforms movement

and perhaps some leaking into space?
 
A variable I've been trying to pin down in the global climate system is how much photosynthesis affects the earths energy balance. From various studies, we know that plants cool the temperature through evapotranspiration. This however is just a movement of heat.

In my readings, I have read that as CO2 increases, plants use less H2O but that’s still not what I’m looking for. And something that would suggest otherwise, is the claim that they cool more with more CO2 due to increased transpiration. These are in conflict by what the various researchers are saying.

Anyway, what I have been looking for is how much of the earths net energy imbalance is due to the net endothermic process of photosynthesis and later decay, and the resulting cooling it has. One article I read makes the claim about 1% of the solar energy is used in the photosynthesis process globally. This would be significant as the various earth energy balance studies place the imbalance of energy at about 0.65 W/m^2 and 1% of the suns at the surface would represent more than double this amount. Possibly accounting for all the imbalance even after we consider the reverse process from decay.

What is annoying is I have not been able to find any papers that even address the entropy the biosphere has on a global scale.

I was wondering if anyone else has come across this? I see works only addressing the change in water transpiration. I haven’t come across the large-scale entropy assessments.

There will be a net cooling effect with increased CO2. The question becomes if it has any significance worth discussing.
Two main problems with this question of yours. First... if plants use less water with higher CO2 levels then how would this cause more cooling? It wouldn't. According to the reading I have done the opposite is true. More CO2 will cause plants to more efficiently photosynthesize with less water causing less evapotranspiration.

And second... since evapotranspiration just cools the surface of the planet by adding latent heat to the atmosphere that will just be released as heat again when that water condenses, I don't think evapotranspiration will have any direct effects on the Earth's energy budget.

As usual... you don't know what you are talking about.
 
Two main problems with this question of yours. First... if plants use less water with higher CO2 levels then how would this cause more cooling? It wouldn't. According to the reading I have done the opposite is true. More CO2 will cause plants to more efficiently photosynthesize with less water causing less evapotranspiration.
The plants use a little more in the photosynthesis process, but less in the transpiration process.

And second... since evapotranspiration just cools the surface of the planet by adding latent heat to the atmosphere that will just be released as heat again when that water condenses, I don't think evapotranspiration will have any direct effects on the Earth's energy budget.

As usual... you don't know what you are talking about.
Yes, I messed up when differentiating between heat and temperature. I made a mistake, but I don know what I'm speaking of. Thanks for pointing that out.

You obviously didn't notice however. I'm looking for the net cooling due to the endothermic process.
 
The plants use a little more in the photosynthesis process, but less in the transpiration process.
That's not how I read it. But feel free to provide... oh... never mind.
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, I messed up when differentiating between heat and temperature. I made a mistake, but I don know what I'm speaking of. Thanks for pointing that out.
"don"?? is that a "do" or a "don't"? I wish you would be more accurate with your spelling. It is not only atrocious, but it is very annoying.
Lord of Planar said:
You obviously didn't notice however. I'm looking for the net cooling due to the endothermic process.
Didn't notice? That endothermic process is exactly what I was talking about. You know... the evapotranspiration that doesn't directly affect the Earth's energy balance.
 
A variable I've been trying to pin down in the global climate system is how much photosynthesis affects the earths energy balance. From various studies, we know that plants cool the temperature through evapotranspiration. This however is just a movement of heat.

In my readings, I have read that as CO2 increases, plants use less H2O but that’s still not what I’m looking for. And something that would suggest otherwise, is the claim that they cool more with more CO2 due to increased transpiration. These are in conflict by what the various researchers are saying.

Anyway, what I have been looking for is how much of the earths net energy imbalance is due to the net endothermic process of photosynthesis and later decay, and the resulting cooling it has. One article I read makes the claim about 1% of the solar energy is used in the photosynthesis process globally. This would be significant as the various earth energy balance studies place the imbalance of energy at about 0.65 W/m^2 and 1% of the suns at the surface would represent more than double this amount. Possibly accounting for all the imbalance even after we consider the reverse process from decay.

What is annoying is I have not been able to find any papers that even address the entropy the biosphere has on a global scale.

I was wondering if anyone else has come across this? I see works only addressing the change in water transpiration. I haven’t come across the large-scale entropy assessments.

There will be a net cooling effect with increased CO2. The question becomes if it has any significance worth discussing.

Curious why you are going for the entropy term rather than just looking up the enthalpy ? Are you trying to get a Gibbs Free Energy term?
 
Didn't notice? That endothermic process is exactly what I was talking about. You know... the evapotranspiration that doesn't directly affect the Earth's energy balance.
Evapotranspiration cooling is a from a state change. Not a chemical reaction. Evapotranspiration is not an endothermic process, in which heat is absorbed during the chemical reaction, and causes a cooling.
 
Curious why you are going for the entropy term rather than just looking up the enthalpy ? Are you trying to get a Gibbs Free Energy term?
Why on earth would you think that?
 
Why on earth would you think that?

I'm just curious why you are focusing on the entropy when it sounds like your question more directly relates to the enthalpy. I could see if you were calculating the Gibbs Free Energy since that uses both the entropy and enthalpy term.
 
I'm just curious why you are focusing on the entropy when it sounds like your question more directly relates to the enthalpy. I could see if you were calculating the Gibbs Free Energy since that uses both the entropy and enthalpy term.
You obviously missed the part where I specified "endothermic process."
 
You obviously missed the part where I specified "endothermic process."

Ummm, no, I rather noted that. Endothermic relates to the enthalpy.

So what are you needing the entropy term for?
 
Ummm, no, I rather noted that. Endothermic relates to the enthalpy.

So what are you needing the entropy term for?
I'm curious how significant this factor might be in the global energy balance. The imbalance we see might be mostly or all due to the net endothermic processes.

The biosphere appears to have a net cooling effect by the net balance between the endothermic and exothermic processes, but I don't know this with any certainty, or if a quantification becomes significant or not.

If there is significantly more cooling from the earths endothermic processes than warming from the exothermic processes, then the estimated 0.65 W/m^2 energy imbalance might be the natural balance.
 
I'm curious how significant this factor might be in the global energy balance. The imbalance we see might be mostly or all due to the net endothermic processes.

The biosphere appears to have a net cooling effect by the net balance between the endothermic and exothermic processes, but I don't know this with any certainty, or if a quantification becomes significant or not.

If there is significantly more cooling from the earths endothermic processes than warming from the exothermic processes, then the estimated 0.65 W/m^2 energy imbalance might be the natural balance.

Yeah, got that. Just curious why you don't go with the enthalpy and just calculate how much heat is generated. Estimate the moles of sugar synthesized on a daily basis (probably the hardest part) and then using the enthalpy figure out how much energy total is generated in a day.

Still not sure where the entropy term is coming in.
 
Yeah, got that. Just curious why you don't go with the enthalpy and just calculate how much heat is generated. Estimate the moles of sugar synthesized on a daily basis (probably the hardest part) and then using the enthalpy figure out how much energy total is generated in a day.

Still not sure where the entropy term is coming in.
I'm sorry. I did mean enthalpy rather than entropy. I’m so used to people like Buzz, Media Truth, 3 Goofs, etc. saying I’m wrong when they haven’t a clue, that I have missed distinction, not realizing I used the wrong term. A more direct correction would have been appreciated, as I am so used to dealing with people who deny science immediately, I didn’t even look for my error.

The numbers in a reliable manner have been elusive to me. I have seen a reference that puts the energy usage of global photosynthesis at 1 watt per square meter, single digit significance, and no error range was given. This is quite a bit of cooling. But as this is going on, we do have the reverse process. I haven't found those numbers, but if it's only 1/3rd the amount, then this is the approximate energy imbalance it is said we have.

I don’t expect the temperature reduction from the chemical reactions to account for the entire global imbalance, but I strongly suspect it is a significant portion of the imbalance. I think its worth exploring.
 
I'm sorry. I did mean enthalpy rather than entropy. I’m so used to people like Buzz, Media Truth, 3 Goofs, etc. saying I’m wrong when they haven’t a clue, that I have missed distinction, not realizing I used the wrong term. A more direct correction would have been appreciated, as I am so used to dealing with people who deny science immediately, I didn’t even look for my error.

OMG!! You aren't seriously blaming me, Media Truth and Threegoofs for your screw-up... are you?

:ROFLMAO: :LOL: 🤪

That is just so completely pathetic.
 
OMG!! You aren't seriously blaming me, Media Truth and Threegoofs for your screw-up... are you?

:ROFLMAO: :LOL: 🤪

That is just so completely pathetic.
No, I acknowledged and admited I made a mistake. My mistake is treating Isodolez as having as low of understanding of science as you guys do.
 
No, I acknowledged and admited I made a mistake. My mistake is treating Isodolez as having as low of understanding of science as you guys do.
Don't lie. You blamed us.

Truly pathetic.
 
So you think heat comes into the earth and then doesn't come out.

Where, specifically, are you suggesting that energy goes?
 
So you think heat comes into the earth and then doesn't come out.

Where, specifically, are you suggesting that energy goes?
The portion of energy that enters that atmosphere that is converted to hydrocarbons, and other chemicals via photosynthesis,
is indeed stored over a much longer time window, that energy that simply heats the ground and is re radiated.
The time window could be millions of years, as is the case for oil.
During a period of significant greening, some of the energy imbalance (Energy in - Energy out) could be attributed
to energy stored via photosynthesis. If the amount is enough to affect the AGW equations, is unknown, but it is a variable.
 
The portion of energy that enters that atmosphere that is converted to hydrocarbons, and other chemicals via photosynthesis,
is indeed stored over a much longer time window, that energy that simply heats the ground and is re radiated.
The time window could be millions of years, as is the case for oil.
During a period of significant greening, some of the energy imbalance (Energy in - Energy out) could be attributed
to energy stored via photosynthesis. If the amount is enough to affect the AGW equations, is unknown, but it is a variable.

Ok, great, lets play it out.

Plant stores that energy via photosynthesis.

Then what happens to that energy? What happens to the plant?
 
Ok, great, lets play it out.

Plant stores that energy via photosynthesis.

Then what happens to that energy? What happens to the plant?
Ok, the energy that is stored, is delayed from leaving for a period from one season to nearly indefinite.
On the simplest level, something eats the leaves, and the energy is converted to fats and motion.
on the longer scale the leaves fall, collect on the ground and slowly decompose into peat, and eventually oil or gas.
If the wood is burned, some of the energy is released as heat.
The list goes on, but the results are the same, some of the energy that entered the atmosphere is delayed from leaving.
 
Ok, great, lets play it out.

Plant stores that energy via photosynthesis.

Then what happens to that energy? What happens to the plant?
It becomes a form of sequestration for much of that energy. This is part of the earth energy imbalance we see at the TOA.
 
Deuce. Do you think you know better?
 
Back
Top Bottom