- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,571
- Reaction score
- 22,195
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
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.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.
The plants use a little more in the photosynthesis process, but less in the transpiration process.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.
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.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.
That's not how I read it. But feel free to provide... oh... never mind.The plants use a little more in the photosynthesis process, but less in the transpiration process.
"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: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.
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.Lord of Planar said:You obviously didn't notice however. I'm looking for the net cooling due to the endothermic process.
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.
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.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.
Why on earth would you think that?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?
You obviously missed the part where I specified "endothermic process."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."
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.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 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.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.
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.OMG!! You aren't seriously blaming me, Media Truth and Threegoofs for your screw-up... are you?
That is just so completely pathetic.
Don't lie. You blamed us.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.
The portion of energy that enters that atmosphere that is converted to hydrocarbons, and other chemicals via photosynthesis,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.
Ok, the energy that is stored, is delayed from leaving for a period from one season to nearly indefinite.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.Ok, great, lets play it out.
Plant stores that energy via photosynthesis.
Then what happens to that energy? What happens to the plant?
Until...It becomes a form of sequestration for much of that energy. This is part of the earth energy imbalance we see at the TOA.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?