Cooling Climate Chaos - A Proposal to Cool the Planet within Twenty years. The book is out and pdf is included in this mail.
rob de laet
Tom Goreau
Afficionados of iron ocean fertilization may find this model study interesting:
https://doc.global-sci.org/uploads/Issue/AAMM/v3n1/31_52.pdf?code=Mzn5PuWviTMLzTOOQyMqmw%3D%3D
Effect of Ocean Iron Fertilization on the Phytoplankton Biological Carbon Pump DOI: 10.4208/aamm.10-m1023 February 2011 AdamPan1,2, Babak Pourziaei1and Huaxiong Huang1,∗ 1 Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 2 Program of Engineering Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 Received 11 April 2010; Accepted (in revised version) 3 September 2010 Available online 15 October 2010 Abstract. It has been proposed that photosynthetic plankton can be used as a biological carbon pump to absorb and sequester carbon dioxide in the ocean. In this paper, plankton population dynamics are simulated in a single stratified water column to predict carbon dioxide sequestering due to surface iron fertilization in deep ocean. Using a predator-prey model and realistic parameter values, iron fertilization was found to only cause temporary blooms up to 5 months in duration, and relatively small increases in adsorption of atmospheric CO2. PACS(2006): 87.10.Ed, 87.18.Wd, 87.23.Cc Key words: Phytoplankton, carbon dioxide, iron fertilization, carbon pump.
--
View this message at
https://groups.google.com/a/googlegroups.com/d/msg/ecorestoration-alliance/topic-id/message-id
Group emails flooding your inbox? Click here:
https://groups.google.com/g/ecorestoration-alliance/settings#email
Our website is at http://EcorestorationAlliance.org/
Our calendar is at https://tinyurl.com/EcoResCalendar
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EcoRestoration Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
ecorestoration-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/1683296324.236563.1720867552537%40mail.yahoo.com.
Tom Goreau
Thanks, Rob and Peter, congratulations! Good luck!
I’m just back from coral extinction rescue efforts in Cuba and will try to read your book in coming weeks in Maldives, Zanzibar, Tanzania, or Pacific atolls.
A very quick skim of the ocean chapter suggests Ocean Blue Carbon sinks are under-appreciated.
All readers of this list could benefit from reading Susan Solomon, 2024, Solvable: How We Healed The Earth, And How We Can Do It Again, not because it provides any solutions but because it is an exceptionally clear discussion of the basic history and science of global pollution and how political/industrial interests tried to prevent action to save the planet. She argues that because we managed to prevent catastrophe on ozone, smog, lead, and pesticides, the same international good will and common purpose can solve runaway climate change! I hope she’s right, but lovers of one size fits all solutions will find no road maps here. In all the cases she discusses, policy makers were forced to listen to the scientists due to intense public awareness of the urgency of the crises, but this has NOT happened yet with climate change since the fossil fuel industry, and the politicians they bribe, persistently put profits ahead of the planet’s future.
Here’s an example from “Solvable” on misunderstandings about the role of the water cycle (p. 52-53):
“Another example is the weaponization of the statement that water vapor is Earth’s dominant greenhouse gas, not carbon dioxide. It’s true, and it’s also irrelevant. Indeed water vapor does absorb infrared radiation strongly, but it responds to the climate instead of driving climate. Water vapor has a very short lifetime in the atmosphere – typically days. The water in the atmosphere is controlled by the balance between evaporation at the surface (from the oceans, but also from soils or plants) versus removal by formation of clouds and rain. Evaporation in turn depends on surface temperature. Consider for example, the humid air of a tropical jungle versus the extreme dryness of Antarctica, even coastal Antarctica. Changes in humidity are a response to climate and not a forcing of it – it’s not going to make the climate change, it’s going to react to a change in climate”. She goes on to discuss the long persistent tail of CO2 responses after sources are reduced……..
Unfortunately she does not allow for the fact that only intact continental scale tropical rain forests can punch water vapor above the stratopause, where it has the best chance of radiating latent heat to space!
The Amazonian Basin drought continues to intensity, especially in the Clear Rivers areas like Tocantins, Tapajos, Xingu, Madeira, Purus, Jurua, etc. We’re fast approaching precisely what Robert Goodland warned (1975) would happen in Amazonia: Green Hell to Red Desert ecosystem, ecosystem collapse on a continental scale first, then global.
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
“When you run to the rocks, the rocks will be melting, when you run to the sea, the sea will be boiling”, Peter Tosh, Jamaica’s greatest song writer
From:
'rob de laet' via EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Saturday, July 13, 2024 at 6:48 AM
To: EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>, Evergreening Fellows & Affiliates <evergreening-fel...@googlegroups.com>, Skeena Rathor <skeen...@gmail.com>, Julia Adams <cotswoldmeri...@gmail.com>, j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk
<j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk>, Jojo Mehta <jo...@stopecocide.earth>, Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>, David Jones <david...@co2eco.com>, Tim Lenton <t.m.l...@exeter.ac.uk>
Cc: Peter Bunyard <peter....@btinternet.com>, Stephanie Mines <tara-a...@prodigy.net>
Subject: [ERA] Cooling Climate Chaos - A Proposal to Cool the Planet within Twenty years. The book is out and pdf is included in this mail.
--
rob de laet
Jon Schull
Co-Founder, e-NABLE: volunteers worldwide making free, 3D printed prosthetics
Innovation Fellow, JMK Innovation Fund
Sent from iPhone: beware tyops.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/BY3PR13MB49946B18288A2352C5C7485CDDA72%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Tom Goreau
Sorry, meant to say Tropopause, not Stratopause, mea culpa!
Very large volcanic eruptions like Agung, Tambora, Toba, Pinatubo, etc. that are also very high in sulfur can get above the stratopause, and the effects can last a few years.
Rain forest climate benefits are self-replicating and permanent only if maintained as regenerative healthy ecosystems, but can be lost permanently through degenerative mis-development, while volcanoes are utterly unpredictable and can’t be counted on whenever needed, or not!
Tom Goreau
I never said that, I agree too many people have forgotten what acid rain did!
Any sulfur based SAI proposal will contribute to acid rain.
The long term impacts of acid rain in North America were discovered in the Hubbard Brook Forest watershed where I measured soil GHG sources and sinks for my thesis.
Half a decade after dirty high sulfur coal emissions were stopped in the 1970s, the negative effects on forests, and soil nutrients of North America and Europe are still underway, and longer legacy ocean acidification is just starting!
China and India have yet to reap what they have sown on their own soils and forests!
Ocean acidification is very real, and can’t be reversed quickly.
Those proposing sulfur based SAI must show that these impacts will be negligible.
Some models focused on very localized SAI for arctic ice enhancement in certain seasons suggest reasonable ice albedo feedbacks could take place without impacting other latitudes, according to people like Mike MacCracken who knows more about it.
I hope they are right that it is very different from 1) the tropospheric acid rain and ocean acidification caused by fossil abuse, or 2) the catastrophic global stratosphere acid sulfate, iron, and chlorine shower after the Chicxulub asteroid vaporized the gypsum and salt beds.
From:
Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>
Date: Saturday, July 13, 2024 at 10:57
AM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>, 'Jon Schull' <jsc...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Anastassia Makarieva' <ammak...@gmail.com>, 'Antonio Nobre' <anob...@gmail.com>, 'David Jones' <david...@co2eco.com>, 'EcoRestoration Alliance' <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>, 'Evergreening Fellows & Affiliates' <evergreening-fel...@googlegroups.com>,
'Foster Brown' <fbr...@woodwellclimate.org>, 'Healthy Planet Action Coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, 'Jojo Mehta' <jo...@stopecocide.earth>, 'Julia Adams' <cotswoldmeri...@gmail.com>, 'Peter Bunyard' <peter....@btinternet.com>,
'Sir David King' <d...@camkas.co.uk>, 'Skeena Rathor' <skeen...@gmail.com>, 'Stephanie Mines' <tara-a...@prodigy.net>, 'Tim Lenton' <t.m.l...@exeter.ac.uk>, j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk <j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk>, 'rob de laet' <robd...@yahoo.com>
Subject: AW: [HPAC] Re: [ERA] Cooling Climate Chaos - A Proposal to Cool the Planet within Twenty years. The book is out and pdf is included in this mail.
Hi Tom,
could you (or someone) please explain to me why SO2 spread in the stratosphere does not cause the same problems ( to human respiratory systems or ocean acidity … ) as SO2 spread by ships or coal-fired power plants… once it comes down to earth. This is not a rhetoric question, I would really like to understand this…
TIA
Oswald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB49946604161A4FC0B0C6F83CDDA72%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Jan Pokorný
Dear Rob and Peter.
It's hard to find words of thanks for your book in my mother tongue, let alone in English.
Thank you for your time and effort, you are motivated by our common cause - to show and explain the complex function of the biosphere, an open system powered by solar energy.
Without the sun's energy, the atmosphere would be solid, with astrophysicists estimating a temperature of 10 to 20 K, or about minus 260 C.
Water and vegetation have low albedo because solar energy is necessary for life and it is foolish to reflect it.
Your book is an inspiration to me, showing what water and plants can do with solar energy if managed wisely
I cordially greet you and all recipients from the south of Bohemia (between Vienna and Prague)
Jan Pokorný
From: 'rob de laet' via EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2024 12:46 PM
To: EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>; Evergreening Fellows & Affiliates <evergreening-fel...@googlegroups.com>; Skeena Rathor <skeen...@gmail.com>; Julia Adams <cotswoldmeri...@gmail.com>; j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk;
Jojo Mehta <jo...@stopecocide.earth>; Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>; David Jones <david...@co2eco.com>; Tim Lenton <t.m.l...@exeter.ac.uk>
Cc: Peter Bunyard <peter....@btinternet.com>; Stephanie Mines <tara-a...@prodigy.net>
Subject: [ERA] Cooling Climate Chaos - A Proposal to Cool the Planet within Twenty years. The book is out and pdf is included in this mail.
Hello everybody,
--
rob de laet
Tom Goreau
Yes, water enters the stratosphere mainly through volcanic eruptions and meteorite strikes, but tropical convection goes up to, and if sufficiently vigorous, through the tropopause, and this leakage is a major source of lower stratosphere water. We are getting surface temperatures above 40C on a regular basis now! This causes the highest elevation natural convective clouds from surface heating.
From:
David Price <da...@pricenet.ca>
Date: Saturday, July 13, 2024 at 4:27
PM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Cc: rob de laet <robd...@yahoo.com>, EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>, Evergreening Fellows & Affiliates <evergreening-fel...@googlegroups.com>, Skeena Rathor <skeen...@gmail.com>, Julia Adams <cotswoldmeri...@gmail.com>,
Healthy Planet Action Coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk <j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk>, Jojo Mehta <jo...@stopecocide.earth>, Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>, David Jones <david...@co2eco.com>,
Tim Lenton <t.m.l...@exeter.ac.uk>, Foster Brown <fbr...@woodwellclimate.org>, Antonio Nobre <anob...@gmail.com>, Anastassia Makarieva <ammak...@gmail.com>, Peter Bunyard <peter....@btinternet.com>, Stephanie Mines <tara-a...@prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] Re: [ERA] Cooling Climate Chaos - A Proposal to Cool the Planet within Twenty years. The book is out and pdf is included in this mail.
Dear Tom
You wrote:
Unfortunately she [Susan Solomon] does not allow for the fact that only intact continental scale tropical rain forests can punch water vapor above the stratopause, where it has the best chance of radiating latent heat to space!
Where is the scientific evidence for this “fact”? Maybe Solomon does not allow for it simply because it isn’t true? I have yet to see a single paper published in a credible peer-reviewed journal that states this is a plausible hypothesis. Can you please point me to one? (Your assertion that “water vapor above the stratopause has the best chance” suggests there is no empirical evidence. Later you explained your use of the word “stratopause” was erroneous, but the “fact” remains that there is very little water vapour in the stratosphere under any circumstances because it is so very cold — virtually all rising water vapour will condense, then freeze, and/or precipitate, several kilometres below the stratosphere, regardless of latitude.)
Even at the equator, where we could assume water vapour transpiring or evaporating from a tropical forest might have an initial temperature of 40 C (which I find almost inconceivable, but I guess it can happen!), an average environmental lapse rate of about -6.5 C per km would take this to 0 C by the time it has risen 40 / 6.5 ~= 6 km. At the equator, the base of the stratosphere (the tropopause) is typically at around 20 km altitude (it is lower at the poles at around 7 km). The remaining (sensible) heat still has a long way to travel to top of atmosphere!
(I am having deja vu: Were not you and I disputing the thickness of the troposphere only a few weeks ago? 😊)
Referring to the oracle of Wiki
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate#Environmental_lapse_rate
“As an average, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) defines an international standard atmosphere (ISA) with a temperature lapse rate of 6.50 °C/km[15] (3.56 °F or 1.98 °C/1,000 ft) from sea level to 11 km (36,090 ft or 6.8 mi). From 11 km up to 20 km (65,620 ft or 12.4 mi), the constant temperature is −56.5 °C (−69.7 °F), which is the lowest assumed temperature in the ISA. “
Elsewhere on this forum we’ve had various people state that neither latent nor sensible heat “radiates to space”. I admit i am not clear on the physics, but obviously atmospheric thermal reradiation to space must occur somehow — otherwise life on Earth would be impossible. But for sure increased ET at Earth’s surface (from tropical forests or anywhere else) will not (cannot) increase planetary thermal reradiation.
“Cannot” because Earth’s thermal radiation flux is the only significant mechanism by which it loses heat to space, and the total transfer of heat from the surface (in either sensible or latent form) to the ultimate location of its outgoing reradiation within the atmosphere, must, over time, balance the total of incoming solar radiation absorbed (i.e., not reflected), over Earth’s entire surface area. Otherwise the first law of thermodynamics would be violated.
Of course at the present time, we know the total transfer of surface heat to the top of atmosphere is not in balance so that total outgoing thermal radiation is around 1 W/m2 less than incoming solar. This is the Earth Energy Imbalance…a consequence of the GHG-driven global warming we are all concerned about.
Tropical reforestation is a good cause to support for a whole bunch of reasons. And if it can lead to increased cloud albedo, that would create a net benefit to the planetary radiation balance by increasing the reflection of incoming solar radiation. As far as I can tell, cloud formation is the only mechanism by which forests (and in fact all transpiring vegetation, along with lakes, rivers and oceans) contribute to planetary cooling. Please provide credible evidence to convince me if I am wrong!
Regards
David
From my cellphone
I acknowledge that I reside on unceded Traditional Territory
of the Secwépemc People
From: 'rob de laet' via EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Saturday, July 13, 2024 at 6:48
AM
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB49946B18288A2352C5C7485CDDA72%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Tom Goreau
Insights on reviving ocean ecosystems and carbon storage will be briefly mentioned in my next month Goldschmidt Geochemistry Conference talk and in a future book on ocean electrotherapy.
Tom Goreau
The annual average of stratosphere sulfate and water injection is very small in most years, but very large after a suitably large eruption. You are talking stochastic non-linear forcing.
For the most recent example:
Water vapor injection into the stratosphere by Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai
HOLGER VÖMEL HTTPS://ORCID.ORG/0000-0003-1223-3429 , STEPHANIE EVAN HTTPS://ORCID.ORG/0000-0003-1014-0907, AND MATT TULLY
SCIENCE
22 Sep 2022
Vol 377, Issue 6613
pp. 1444-1447
Up in the air
The eruption of the submarine volcano Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai in January of 2022 was so violent that its plume penetrated into the stratosphere. Vömel et al. studied in situ measurements by radiosondes (weather balloons), which showed that the event injected at least 50 teragrams of water vapor into the stratosphere. Because the volcano was underwater, the amount of water vapor in the developing stratospheric plume was high, and, unlike other large eruptions, it may have increased the amount of global stratospheric water vapor by more than 5%. —HJS
Abstract
Large volcanic eruptions, although rare events, can influence the chemistry and the dynamics of the stratosphere for several years after the eruption. Here we show that the eruption of the submarine volcano Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai on 15 January 2022 injected at least 50 teragrams of water vapor directly into the stratosphere. This event raised the amount of water vapor in the developing stratospheric plume by several orders of magnitude and possibly increased the amount of global stratospheric water vapor by more than 5%. This extraordinary eruption may have initiated an atmospheric response different from that of previous well-studied large volcanic eruptions.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq2299
You’ll have to do your own literature study on mechanisms of water formation and loss in the stratosphere and upper troposphere, you will find there is a vast literature, much of it based on models that may, or may not be right, but some very useful experimental measurements following the rare events that can make all the difference.
To once again quote Mike MacCracken, when we fly over the equatorial zone you can see huge thunderheads reaching to the tropopause, and sometimes above it! I have a book on this someplace in my basement.
From:
David Price <da...@pricenet.ca>
Date: Sunday, July 14, 2024 at 1:14
AM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Cc: rob de laet <robd...@yahoo.com>, EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>, Evergreening Fellows & Affiliates <evergreening-fel...@googlegroups.com>, Skeena Rathor <skeen...@gmail.com>, Julia Adams <cotswoldmeri...@gmail.com>,
Healthy Planet Action Coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk <j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk>, Jojo Mehta <jo...@stopecocide.earth>, Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>, David Jones <david...@co2eco.com>,
Tim Lenton <t.m.l...@exeter.ac.uk>, Foster Brown <fbr...@woodwellclimate.org>, Antonio Nobre <anob...@gmail.com>, Anastassia Makarieva <ammak...@gmail.com>, Peter Bunyard <peter....@btinternet.com>, Stephanie Mines <tara-a...@prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] Re: [ERA] Cooling Climate Chaos - A Proposal to Cool the Planet within Twenty years. The book is out and pdf is included in this mail.
Tom,
On an annual average basis the contribution of volcanic eruptions and meteorites to atmospheric water vapour content is negligible.
I fail to understand how water vapour can leak (or “punch”) in any significant amount through the tropopause into the stratosphere if the air at that altitude (~20 km ASL) has a temperature around -50 C (or colder, according to ICAO), as any water vapour that was still present (in vanishingly small amounts) would freeze almost immediately.
Moreover, any increase in the latent heat released in freezing of this “extra” water vapour is only going to compensate for a slight decrease in sensible heat flux at the same altitude. The overall impact on the planetary radiation balance (above the tropopause) would be minimal.
Please tell me: where is the peer-reviewed published research on this hypothesis?
I know tropical surface temperatures exceed 40 C “routinely”. My purpose was to imagine air temperature at the transpiring forest canopy surface to be as high as would be physiologically plausible, to estimate the maximum altitude to which convective transport of water vapour could occur before it would begin to freeze due to adiabatic cooling. (Actually my 6 km was likely an overestimate because the ELR would gradually approach the dry adiabatic lapse rate (around -10 C per km) as the water vapour cooled and precipitated out of the air parcel.)
I’d hate to be a broadleaved tropical tree trying to deal with 40 C air temperature! But I guess they must do that in many parts of the world. Under such conditions, I guess tree ET would not make things feel much cooler to local humans, as RH would also increase towards 100% as each day progressed.
Regards
David
From my cellphone
I acknowledge that I reside on unceded Traditional Territory
of the Secwépemc People
On Jul 13, 2024, at 2:40 PM, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org> wrote:
Dear Tom
From: 'rob de laet' via EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
AM
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB49946B18288A2352C5C7485CDDA72%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB49948F8424D54A740E701F43DDA72%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Tom Goreau
Stratosphere sources of water have a large literature. The water is known to be there even though you believe it is impossible for water to reach the stratosphere,. I don’t have time to read all this vast literature for you, but here’s a start from just a few minutes of searching. And another major source is methane photolysis above the ozone layer……
“tropopause-overshooting convection presents itself as a likely source of H2O extrema in much of the world, while meridional isentropic transport of air from the tropical upper troposphere to the extratropical lower stratosphere is also possible.”
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-14375-2023 | 
20 Nov 2023
Climatology, sources, and transport characteristics of observed water vapor extrema in the lower stratosphere
Emily N. Tinney and Cameron R. Homeyer
Abstract
Stratospheric water vapor (H2O) is a substantial component of the global radiation budget and therefore important to variability in the climate system. Efforts to understand the distribution, transport, and sources of stratospheric water vapor have increased in recent years, with many studies utilizing long-term satellite observations. Previous work to examine stratospheric H2O extrema has typically focused on the stratospheric overworld (pressures ≤ 100 hPa) to ensure the observations used are truly stratospheric. However, this leads to the broad exclusion of the lowermost stratosphere, which can extend over depths of more than 5 km below the 100 hPa level in the midlatitudes and polar regions and has been shown to be the largest contributing layer to the stratospheric H2O feedback. Moreover, focusing on the overworld only can lead to a large underestimation of stratospheric H2O extrema occurrence. Therefore, we expand on previous work by examining 16 years of Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) observations of water vapor extrema (≥ 8 ppmv) in both the stratospheric overworld and the lowermost stratosphere to create a new lower-stratosphere climatology. The resulting frequency of H2O extrema increases by more than 300 % globally compared to extrema frequencies within stratospheric overworld observations only, though the percentage increase varies substantially by region and season. Additional context is provided for this climatology through a backward isentropic trajectory analysis to identify potential sources of the extrema. We show that, in general, tropopause-overshooting convection presents itself as a likely source of H2O extrema in much of the world, while meridional isentropic transport of air from the tropical upper troposphere to the extratropical lower stratosphere is also possible.
How to cite.
Tinney, E. N. and Homeyer, C. R.: Climatology, sources, and transport characteristics of observed water vapor extrema in the lower stratosphere, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 14375–14392, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-14375-2023, 2023.
Stratospheric water vapor affecting atmospheric circulation
- Edward Charlesworth,
- Felix Plöger,
- Thomas Birner,
- Rasul Baikhadzhaev,
- Marta Abalos,
- Nathan Luke Abraham,
- Hideharu Akiyoshi,
- Slimane Bekki,
- Fraser Dennison,
- Patrick Jöckel,
- James Keeble,
- Doug Kinnison,
- Olaf Morgenstern,
- David Plummer,
- Eugene Rozanov,
- Sarah Strode,
- Guang Zeng,
- Tatiana Egorova &
- Martin Riese
Nature Communications volume 14, Article number: 3925 (2023)
Abstract
Water vapor plays an important role in many aspects of the climate system, by affecting radiation, cloud formation, atmospheric chemistry and dynamics. Even the low stratospheric water vapor content provides an important climate feedback, but current climate models show a substantial moist bias in the lowermost stratosphere. Here we report crucial sensitivity of the atmospheric circulation in the stratosphere and troposphere to the abundance of water vapor in the lowermost stratosphere. We show from a mechanistic climate model experiment and inter-model variability that lowermost stratospheric water vapor decreases local temperatures, and thereby causes an upward and poleward shift of subtropical jets, a strengthening of the stratospheric circulation, a poleward shift of the tropospheric eddy-driven jet and regional climate impacts. The mechanistic model experiment in combination with atmospheric observations further shows that the prevailing moist bias in current models is likely caused by the transport scheme, and can be alleviated by employing a less diffusive Lagrangian scheme. The related effects on atmospheric circulation are of similar magnitude as climate change effects. Hence, lowermost stratospheric water vapor exerts a first order effect on atmospheric circulation and improving its representation in models offers promising prospects for future research.
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/10121968
The Sources and Significance of Stratospheric Water Vapor: Mechanistic Studies from Equator to Pole
View/Open
Smith_gsas.harvard_0084L_10034.pdf (14.19Mb)
Author
Metadata
Citation
Smith, Jessica Birte. 2012. The Sources and Significance of Stratospheric Water Vapor: Mechanistic Studies from Equator to Pole. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
Abstract
It is the future of the stratospheric ozone layer, which protects life at Earth’s surface from harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation, that is the focus of the present work. Fundamental changes in the composition and structure of the stratosphere in response to anthropogenic climate forcing may lead to catastrophic ozone loss under current, and even reduced, stratospheric halogen loading. In particular, the evolution toward a colder, wetter stratosphere, threatens to enhance the heterogeneous conversion of inorganic halogen from its reservoir species to its catalytically active forms, and thus promote in situ ozone loss. Water vapor concentrations control the availability of reactive surface area, which facilitates heterogeneous chemistry. Furthermore, the rates of the key heterogeneous processes are tightly controlled by the ambient humidity. Thus, credible predictions of UV dosage require a quantitative understanding of both the sensitivity of these chemical mechanisms to water vapor concentrations, and an elucidation of the processes controlling stratospheric water vapor concentrations. Toward this end, we present a set of four case studies utilizing high resolution in situ data acquired aboard NASA aircraft during upper atmospheric research missions over the past two decades. 1) We examine the broad scale humidity structure of the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere from the midlatitudes to the tropics, focusing on cirrus formation and dehydration at the cold-point tropical tropopause. The data show evidence for frequent supersaturation in clear air, and sustained supersaturation in the presence of cirrus. These results challenge the strict thermal control of the tropical tropopause. 2) We investigate the likelihood of cirrus-initiated activation of chlorine in the midlatitude lower stratosphere. At midlatitudes the transition from conditions near saturation below the local tropopause to undersaturated air above greatly reduces the probability of heterogeneous activation and in situ ozone loss in this region. 3) We probe the details of heterogeneous processing in the wintertime Arctic vortex, and find that in situ measurements of OH provide incontrovertible evidence for the heterogeneous reaction of HOCl with HCl. This reaction is critical to sustaining catalytically active chlorine and prolonging ozone loss in the springtime vortex. 4) We revisit the topic of midlatitude ozone loss with an emphasis upon the response of ozone in this region to changes in the chemical composition and thermal structure of the lower stratosphere induced by anthropogenic climate change. Specifically, we show evidence for episodic moisture plumes in the overworld stratosphere generated by the rapid evaporation of ice injected into this region by deep convection, and find that these high water vapor plumes have the potential to alter the humidity of the lower stratosphere, and drastically increase the rate of heterogeneous chemistry and in situ ozone loss, given sufficient reactive surface.
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=136
What is the role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming?
What The Science Says:
The effect from stratospheric water vapor contributes a fraction of the temperature change imposed from man-made greenhouse gases. Also, it's not yet clear whether changes in stratospheric water vapor are caused by a climate feedback or internal variability
(eg - linked to El Nino Southern Oscillation). However, the long term warming trend seems to speak against the possibility of a negative feedback.
Climate Myth: Water vapor in the stratosphere stopped global warming
A new study authored by Susan Solomon, lead author of the study and a researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo. could explain why atmospheric carbon is not contributing to warming significantly. According to the study,
as carbon levels have risen, the cold air at high altitudes over the tropics has actually grown colder. The lower temperatures at this "coldest point" have caused global water vapor levels to drop, even as carbon levels rise. Water vapor helps trap heat, and
is a far the strongest of the major greenhouse gases, contributing 36–72 percent of the greenhouse effect. However more atmospheric carbon has actually decreased water vapor levels. Thus rather than a "doomsday" cycle of runaway warming, Mother Earth appears
surprisingly tolerant of carbon, decreasing atmospheric levels of water vapor -- a more effective greenhouse gas -- to compensate. (Daily Tech)
The role of stratospheric water vapor is examined in Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming (Solomon 2010). The atmosphere is divided into several layers. The troposphere is the lowest part of the atmosphere. It contains most of the atmosphere's water vapor, predominantly supplied by evaporation from the ocean surface. Through the troposphere, temperature falls as altitude rises. The boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere is called the tropopause. This is known as the "cold point", the coldest point in the lower atmosphere. In the stratosphere, temperature actually rises with altitude. It warms as you get higher - the opposite of the troposphere.
Figure 1: Atmospheric layers: Troposphere, Stratosphere and Mesosphere
Solomon 2010 looks at the trend of water vapor in the stratosphere. Before 1993, the only observations of stratospheric water vapor were made by weather balloons above Boulder, Colorado (black line in Figure 2). They observed a slight increase from 1980. After 1993, several different satellites also took measurements (coloured circles, squares and diamonds in Figure 2). The various observations all found a significant drop in stratospheric water vapor around 2000. Most of the change in water vapor occurs in the lower stratosphere, just above the tropopause. The greatest changes also occur in the tropics and subtropics.
Figure 2: Observed changes in stratospheric water vapor. Black line: balloon measurements of water vapor, taken near Boulder Colorado. Blue diamonds: UARS HALOE satellite measurements. Red diamonds: SAGE II instruments.
Turquoise squares: Aura MLS satellite measurements. Uncertainties given by colored bars (Solomon 2010).
What effect would this have on climate? Figure 2 shows the change in radiative forcing imposed by changes in stratospheric water vapor. The dotted line is the radiative forcing without the effect of stratospheric water vapor changes. The grey shaded region shows the possible range of contribution from changing stratospheric water vapor. As it's a greenhouse gas, increasing water vapor has a warming effect. Consequently, the steady rise from 1980 to 2000 added some warming to the existing warming from greenhouse gases. The drop in water vapor after 2000 had a cooling effect.
Figure 3: Impact of changes in stratospheric water vapor on radiative forcing since 1980 due to well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGHG), aerosols, and stratospheric water vapor. The shaded region shows the stratospheric
water contribution (Solomon 2010).
What caused these changes? Water vapor in the stratosphere has two main sources. One is transport of water vapor from the troposphere which occurs mainly as air rises in the tropics. The other is the oxidation of methane which occurs mostly in the upper stratosphere. Most of the change in water vapor occurs in the lower stratosphere in the vicinity of regions affected by the El Nino Southern Oscillation. This seems to point towards convection and internal variability driving the changes. A comparison between stratospheric water vapor and tropical sea surface temperatures show good correlation which corroborates a link with El Nino. However, the correlation breaks down in some periods suggesting other processes may also be important. Consequently, the authors are cautious in coming to a firm conclusion on the cause.
There seem to be two major misconceptions arising from this paper. The first is that this paper demonstrates that water vapor is the major driver of global temperatures. In fact, what this paper shows is the effect from stratospheric water vapor contributes a fraction of the temperature change imposed from man-made greenhouse gases. While the stratospheric water vapor is not insignificant, it's hardly the dominant driver of climate being portrayed by some blogs.
The other misinterpretation is that this paper proves negative feedback that cancels out global warming. As we've just seen, the magnitude of the effect is small compared to the overall global warming trend. The paper doesn't draw any conclusions regarding cause, stating that it's not clear whether the water vapor changes are caused by a climate feedback or decadal variability (eg - linked to El Nino Southern Oscillation). The radiative forcing changes (Figure 3 above) indicate that the overall effect from stratospheric water vapor is that of warming. The cooling period consists of a stepwise drop around 2000 followed by a resumption of the warming effect. This seems to speak against the possibility of a negative feedback.
rob de laet
Dear Authors,
Congratulations on a well put together book.
“Implementing these strategies globally can mitigate the worst effects of climate change within decades, protect biodiversity, and address social inequities. While reducing emissions is essential, repairing nature and water cycles through regenerative agriculture, agroforestry, and ecosystem restoration is equally vital…”
That is all great. But I wonder how the folks out there who are eager to get practical (new) suggestions and approaches to accomplishing the recommended “solutions” will react to all these.
Best wishes,
PK
P. K. Ramachandran Nair, Distinguished Professor (Emeritus)
School of Forest, Fisheries, and Geomatic Sciences,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
e-mail: pkn...@ufl.edu
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._K._Ramachandran_Nair
From: 'rob de laet' via Evergreening fellows & affiliates <evergreening-fel...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2024 6:46 AM
To: EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>; Evergreening Fellows & Affiliates <evergreening-fel...@googlegroups.com>; Skeena Rathor <skeen...@gmail.com>; Julia Adams <cotswoldmeri...@gmail.com>; j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk;
Jojo Mehta <jo...@stopecocide.earth>; Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>; David Jones <david...@co2eco.com>; Tim Lenton <t.m.l...@exeter.ac.uk>
Cc: Peter Bunyard <peter....@btinternet.com>; Stephanie Mines <tara-a...@prodigy.net>
Subject: GEA news: Cooling Climate Chaos - A Proposal to Cool the Planet within Twenty years. The book is out and pdf is included in this mail.
|
[External Email] |
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Evergreening fellows & affiliates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
evergreening-fellows--...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/evergreening-fellows--affiliates/1683296324.236563.1720867552537%40mail.yahoo.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Evergreening fellows & affiliates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to evergreening-fellows--...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/evergreening-fellows--affiliates/IA0PR22MB4404D8B63179130BA382FB41D0A02%40IA0PR22MB4404.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.
Fred Jennings
View this message at https://groups.google.com/a/googlegroups.com/d/msg/ecorestoration-alliance/topic-id/message-id
Group emails flooding your inbox? Click here: https://groups.google.com/g/ecorestoration-alliance/settings#email
Our website is at http://EcorestorationAlliance.org/
Our calendar is at https://tinyurl.com/EcoResCalendar
---
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ecorestoration-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/107706756.468231.1720964650067%40mail.yahoo.com.
Owen Allen
One of the key researchers of the technology is here discussing the results he found and that he had gone onto other fields because he felt it was a net zero game i.e. a case of the flourishing of plankton can be stimulated and then the flourishing of everything in the ecology but that also comes with the release of CO2 in the 'rotting' of organic material. https://foundationforclimaterestoration.org/resources/the-founders-series-ep-3-victor-smetacek/
Sequestration in the oceans is related to the sinking of undercomposed organic matter to depths lower than 500m - presumably this is associated with the formation of ocean bed oil. Giant kelp sequestration by this method is still in the view of ocean farmer-scientists as kelp has the potential for many and varied product lines.
This is a similar problem with soil sequestration which has a ceiling. So it can be valuable to make soils and seas as optimal for the flourishing of life as can be, but this overall may only have a small per hectare increase in sequestration. Of course the big math would then be about how much does a small amount of flourishing create on a global scale. In terms of ecologies of land and seas there are, of course, other parameters to consider e.g harvesting to feed cities etc.
The economy of sequestration technologies is very important to their scalability. Even with a carbon price it is presumed that governments will create a sliding price scale whereby sometime in the 1930's the price of carbon will decline, eventually to zero, under the premise that the scaling up of the carbon industry will make carbon sequestration a matter of course. In this future, carbon sequestration is a by product of a financially viable industry.
cheers
Phoenix Functions
Atherton
Qld 4883
Australia
+61 0423430941
LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/owen59/
You ARE the Betterment of the World
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/BY3PR13MB4994436DBA43C2E7E24D3696DDA72%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Owen Allen
Yeh, 'no road maps'. What we know is that government policy acts as stimulus, regulation and restriction of certain activities - a simple 'follow the money' issue. The money also dictates where the research flourishes. And at the science level there is the question of 'what is the state of knowledge?' In a perfect world we can imagine that the worst response is based on priorities. In the 'real' world we know we are dealing with some bad actors who have deep pockets and may be more interested in political power than the fortunes of humanity or the planet.
As knowledge is never perfect, in the policy world it is valuable to have 'white papers' (well referenced outline of the issue and impacts) that provide the best of science and strategic vision for the day, to present to parliamentarians and bureaucrats. And there is no reason that can't be upgraded from year to year or when pertinent. A white paper should obtain quite broad agreement in the field e.g. ecosystem conservation and restoration science so it can then come with the assurance that, while there may be tweaking of knowledge over time, the fundamentals can be assured. And it is those fundamentals (the two page summary of the white paper) that can provide community supporters to talk to parliamentarians / congress members etc. about policy and funding.
cheers
Phoenix Functions
Atherton
Qld 4883
Australia
+61 0423430941
LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/owen59/
You ARE the Betterment of the World
On 13/07/2024 22:24, Tom Goreau wrote:
Thanks, Rob and Peter, congratulations! Good luck!
I'm just back from coral extinction rescue efforts in Cuba and will try to read your book in coming weeks in Maldives, Zanzibar, Tanzania, or Pacific atolls.
A very quick skim of the ocean chapter suggests Ocean Blue Carbon sinks are under-appreciated.
All readers of this list could benefit from reading Susan Solomon, 2024, Solvable: How We Healed The Earth, And How We Can Do It Again, not because it provides any solutions but because it is an exceptionally clear discussion of the basic history and science of global pollution and how political/industrial interests tried to prevent action to save the planet. She argues that because we managed to prevent catastrophe on ozone, smog, lead, and pesticides, the same international good will and common purpose can solve runaway climate change! I hope she's right, but lovers of one size fits all solutions will find no road maps here. In all the cases she discusses, policy makers were forced to listen to the scientists due to intense public awareness of the urgency of the crises, but this has NOT happened yet with climate change since the fossil fuel industry, and the politicians they bribe, persistently put profits ahead of the planet's future.
Here's an example from "Solvable" on misunderstandings about the role of the water cycle (p. 52-53):
"Another example is the weaponization of the statement that water vapor is Earth's dominant greenhouse gas, not carbon dioxide. It's true, and it's also irrelevant. Indeed water vapor does absorb infrared radiation strongly, but it responds to the climate instead of driving climate. Water vapor has a very short lifetime in the atmosphere – typically days. The water in the atmosphere is controlled by the balance between evaporation at the surface (from the oceans, but also from soils or plants) versus removal by formation of clouds and rain. Evaporation in turn depends on surface temperature. Consider for example, the humid air of a tropical jungle versus the extreme dryness of Antarctica, even coastal Antarctica. Changes in humidity are a response to climate and not a forcing of it – it's not going to make the climate change, it's going to react to a change in climate". She goes on to discuss the long persistent tail of CO2 responses after sources are reduced........
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/BY3PR13MB49946B18288A2352C5C7485CDDA72%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Owen Allen
Hi rob,
That's really great. Hits the key requirements.
cheers
Phoenix Functions
Atherton
Qld 4883
Australia
+61 0423430941
LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/owen59/
You ARE the Betterment of the World
On 14/07/2024 23:44, 'rob de laet' via EcoRestoration Alliance wrote:
Hello P.K.,here is the summary proposal based on the science in the book Cooling Climate Chaos to take emergency action because we are obviously running out of time to avert global societal collapse:
Cooling Climate Chaos Proposal
W...
Looking forward to your feedback,Kind regards,
Dear Authors,
Congratulations on a well put together book.
"Implementing these strategies globally can mitigate the worst effects of climate change within decades, protect biodiversity, and address social inequities. While reducing emissions is essential, repairing nature and water cycles through regenerative agriculture, agroforestry, and ecosystem restoration is equally vital..."
--
View this message at https://groups.google.com/a/googlegroups.com/d/msg/ecorestoration-alliance/topic-id/message-id
Group emails flooding your inbox? Click here: https://groups.google.com/g/ecorestoration-alliance/settings#email
Our website is at http://EcorestorationAlliance.org/
Our calendar is at https://tinyurl.com/EcoResCalendar
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EcoRestoration Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ecorestoration-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/107706756.468231.1720964650067%40mail.yahoo.com.
Judith D. Schwartz
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/173936716.463487.1720994843296%40mail.yahoo.com.
Rob Lewis
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/AAF50621-AFE9-454B-B08E-71EB821BF4E6%40gmail.com.
rob de laet
Dear Rob,
Re: Cooling Climate Chaos Proposal
From your earlier mail, I thought what you had sent was a fully developed proposal. Only when I opened it and looked through did I realize that it was, after all, not a fully developed proposal but still a “concept note” or forerunner to a proposal.
As we all know well, climate change has been a headline topic in news media and meetings of all kinds at all levels – international to local - for more than three decades, possibly since the 1992 Rio Summit, or even the 1987 Brundtland Commission Report. Voluminous literature, slogans, action plans, discourses, and what not … are available. But have we – I mean, the world - found a meaningful and realistic approach to addressing the problem?
What attracted me to your piece was the eye-catching statements such as “We can stabilize the climate and cool the planet within twenty years!” “Ecological restoration, done by everyone, everywhere, is our fastest way out of climate chaos” and so on.
Let me say as politely as possible that almost all the highlighted lines in your “proposal” have been heard in various forms. What I have been looking for – but could not find – in the proposal are the ways and means you propose for accomplishing these high-sounding and fascinating appeals and statements.
For example, what is the modus operandi for “Supporting 500 million indigenous and smallholder families worldwide, together with climate refugees to transition to regenerative agroforestry food production?
A so-called “Robin Hood Tax” sounds interesting. But is there any guarantee or even indication that the world in which we live now will agree on anything, let alone this?
Let us not forget that despite all the passionate and even agitated talks and pleas in support of climate-change mitigation and all that, there is very strong and powerful opposition to even mentioning the word climate change! And all indications are that that lobby is likely to get much stronger in the coming months. You may (or may not) know that there is an executive order from the highest authority of the state of Florida (in the US) that prohibits the use of the word climate change in any government records and discussions! Depending on the nature of the next government after the November 2024 general election, there could be a complete reversal of the US Govt approach to climate-change-related programs, and the word could even be banned from the US Govt records! My point is that no matter all our enthusiasm, we need to be realistic about the conditions under which we will need to operate.
Well, we can move forward without US support or despite US opposition. Would that be a realistic option? What we may end up doing would be what we have been doing so far … discussing everything threadbare and laying out and strengthening the scientific foundations as clear and robust as possible, running some pilot projects wherever possible, and keeping ourselves in readiness for jumping into the fray in full force when better sense prevails on the powers that are, which, at this rate of continuing chaos could happen sooner than later.
My two cents worth ...
PK
From: Nair, PK
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2024 12:30 PM
To: rob de laet <robd...@yahoo.com>; EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>; Evergreening Fellows & Affiliates <evergreening-fel...@googlegroups.com>; Skeena Rathor <skeen...@gmail.com>; Julia Adams <cotswoldmeri...@gmail.com>;
j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk; Jojo Mehta <jo...@stopecocide.earth>; Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>; David Jones <david...@co2eco.com>; Tim Lenton <t.m.l...@exeter.ac.uk>
Cc: Peter Bunyard <peter....@btinternet.com>; Stephanie Mines <tara-a...@prodigy.net>
Subject: RE: GEA news: Cooling Climate Chaos - A Proposal to Cool the Planet within Twenty years. The book is out and pdf is included in this mail.
Hi Rob,
Thank you very much for your prompt response. Please allow me a little time (up to one week) to respond.
Best,
PK
From: rob de laet <robd...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2024 9:44 AM
To: EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>; Evergreening Fellows & Affiliates <evergreening-fel...@googlegroups.com>;
Skeena Rathor <skeen...@gmail.com>; Julia Adams <cotswoldmeri...@gmail.com>;
j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk; Jojo Mehta <jo...@stopecocide.earth>; Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>; David Jones <david...@co2eco.com>;
Tim Lenton <t.m.l...@exeter.ac.uk>; Nair, PK <pkn...@ufl.edu>
Cc: Peter Bunyard <peter....@btinternet.com>; Stephanie Mines <tara-a...@prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: GEA news: Cooling Climate Chaos - A Proposal to Cool the Planet within Twenty years. The book is out and pdf is included in this mail.
|
[External Email] |
Hello P.K.,
here is the summary proposal based on the science in the book Cooling Climate Chaos to take emergency action because we are obviously running out of time to avert global societal collapse:
|
Fred Jennings
View this message at https://groups.google.com/a/googlegroups.com/d/msg/ecorestoration-alliance/topic-id/message-id
Group emails flooding your inbox? Click here: https://groups.google.com/g/ecorestoration-alliance/settings#email
Our website is at http://EcorestorationAlliance.org/
Our calendar is at https://tinyurl.com/EcoResCalendar
---
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ecorestoration-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/239738846.1384640.1721287407353%40mail.yahoo.com.
rob de laet
Carl Stafford
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 7:58 AM
To: EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>; Evergreening Fellows & Affiliates <evergreening-fel...@googlegroups.com>; Skeena Rathor <skeen...@gmail.com>; Julia Adams <cotswoldmeri...@gmail.com>; j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk <j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk>; Jojo Mehta <jo...@stopecocide.earth>; Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>; David Jones <david...@co2eco.com>; Tim Lenton <t.m.l...@exeter.ac.uk>; Nair, PK <pkn...@ufl.edu>; rob de laet <robd...@yahoo.com>
Owen Allen
It certainly seems vital that people - the very many - living at the survival front will best respond to economic stability and assurance. Even in the west, the constant messaging that the world is a precarious place to live has meant people are more inclined to hoard far beyond an adequate quality of life. This is because we are economically quite clever but are far better at responding to the immediate circumstances of our lives than the longer term or bigger possibility.Politics, of course, is adept at talking into this short term view.
However whether wealthy or poor, social advancement really comes from a social moral education that inculcates social cohesion and service / contribution. Education in this field is more important than all the STEM education as a self caring team or organisation will be able to amplify all their individual member skills and knowledge and resources, whereas all the fabulous science doesn't get the job done without it. Even government expenditure gets more for its money when its' officers or recipient bodies are service and social good orientated. And if we can truly have each other's back in tough times than it would allow us to take more survival risks.
cheers
Phoenix Functions
Atherton
Qld 4883
Australia
+61 0423430941
LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/owen59/
You ARE the Betterment of the World
As we all know well, climate change has been a headline topic in news media and meetings of all kinds at all levels – international to local - for more than three decades, possibly since the 1992 Rio Summit, or even the 1987 Brundtland Commission Report. Voluminous literature, slogans, action plans, discourses, and what not ... are available. But have we – I mean, the world - found a meaningful and realistic approach to addressing the problem?
What attracted me to your piece was the eye-catching statements such as "We can stabilize the climate and cool the planet within twenty years!" "Ecological restoration, done by everyone, everywhere, is our fastest way out of climate chaos" and so on.
Let me say as politely as possible that almost all the highlighted lines in your "proposal" have been heard in various forms. What I have been looking for – but could not find – in the proposal are the ways and means you propose for accomplishing these high-sounding and fascinating appeals and statements.
For example, what is the modus operandi for "Supporting 500 million indigenous and smallholder families worldwide, together with climate refugees to transition to regenerative agroforestry food production?
A so-called "Robin Hood Tax" sounds interesting. But is there any guarantee or even indication that the world in which we live now will agree on anything, let alone this?
Let us not forget that despite all the passionate and even agitated talks and pleas in support of climate-change mitigation and all that, there is very strong and powerful opposition to even mentioning the word climate change! And all indications are that that lobby is likely to get much stronger in the coming months. You may (or may not) know that there is an executive order from the highest authority of the state of Florida (in the US) that prohibits the use of the word climate change in any government records and discussions! Depending on the nature of the next government after the November 2024 general election, there could be a complete reversal of the US Govt approach to climate-change-related programs, and the word could even be banned from the US Govt records! My point is that no matter all our enthusiasm, we need to be realistic about the conditions under which we will need to operate.
Well, we can move forward without US support or despite US opposition. Would that be a realistic option? What we may end up doing would be what we have been doing so far ... discussing everything threadbare and laying out and strengthening the scientific foundations as clear and robust as possible, running some pilot projects wherever possible, and keeping ourselves in readiness for jumping into the fray in full force when better sense prevails on the powers that are, which, at this rate of continuing chaos could happen sooner than later.
"Implementing these strategies globally can mitigate the worst effects of climate change within decades, protect biodiversity, and address social inequities. While reducing emissions is essential, repairing nature and water cycles through regenerative agriculture, agroforestry, and ecosystem restoration is equally vital..."
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/1152297884.2239961.1721313416878%40mail.yahoo.com.
Owen Allen
Sounds like you are in the right place, Carl. And yes, it certainly does seem that it is mainly when we have the 'relaxation' of a quality of life, that we are stepping up to work for the environment - and that is not many of us among all those who could.
And the corollary of that is that when people feel against the wall, they will destroy the environment to survive.
And even when people don't have their back against the wall they often overlook that their lifestyle really comes from the destruction of the environment in various ways.
Phoenix Functions
Atherton
Qld 4883
Australia
+61 0423430941
LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/owen59/
You ARE the Betterment of the World
As we all know well, climate change has been a headline topic in news media and meetings of all kinds at all levels – international to local - for more than three decades, possibly since the 1992 Rio Summit, or even the 1987 Brundtland Commission Report. Voluminous literature, slogans, action plans, discourses, and what not ... are available. But have we – I mean, the world - found a meaningful and realistic approach to addressing the problem?
What attracted me to your piece was the eye-catching statements such as "We can stabilize the climate and cool the planet within twenty years!" "Ecological restoration, done by everyone, everywhere, is our fastest way out of climate chaos" and so on.
Let me say as politely as possible that almost all the highlighted lines in your "proposal" have been heard in various forms. What I have been looking for – but could not find – in the proposal are the ways and means you propose for accomplishing these high-sounding and fascinating appeals and statements.
For example, what is the modus operandi for "Supporting 500 million indigenous and smallholder families worldwide, together with climate refugees to transition to regenerative agroforestry food production?
A so-called "Robin Hood Tax" sounds interesting. But is there any guarantee or even indication that the world in which we live now will agree on anything, let alone this?
Let us not forget that despite all the passionate and even agitated talks and pleas in support of climate-change mitigation and all that, there is very strong and powerful opposition to even mentioning the word climate change! And all indications are that that lobby is likely to get much stronger in the coming months. You may (or may not) know that there is an executive order from the highest authority of the state of Florida (in the US) that prohibits the use of the word climate change in any government records and discussions! Depending on the nature of the next government after the November 2024 general election, there could be a complete reversal of the US Govt approach to climate-change-related programs, and the word could even be banned from the US Govt records! My point is that no matter all our enthusiasm, we need to be realistic about the conditions under which we will need to operate.
Well, we can move forward without US support or despite US opposition. Would that be a realistic option? What we may end up doing would be what we have been doing so far ... discussing everything threadbare and laying out and strengthening the scientific foundations as clear and robust as possible, running some pilot projects wherever possible, and keeping ourselves in readiness for jumping into the fray in full force when better sense prevails on the powers that are, which, at this rate of continuing chaos could happen sooner than later.
"Implementing these strategies globally can mitigate the worst effects of climate change within decades, protect biodiversity, and address social inequities. While reducing emissions is essential, repairing nature and water cycles through regenerative agriculture, agroforestry, and ecosystem restoration is equally vital..."
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/SN7PR08MB8568EF9EFD0006C99AE38648AFAC2%40SN7PR08MB8568.namprd08.prod.outlook.com.
Rob Lewis
Elsewhere on this forum we’ve had various people state that neither latent nor sensible heat “radiates to space”. I admit i am not clear on the physics, but obviously atmospheric thermal reradiation to space must occur somehow — otherwise life on Earth would be impossible. But for sure increased ET at Earth’s surface (from tropical forests or anywhere else) will not (cannot) increase planetary thermal reradiation.
“Cannot” because Earth’s thermal radiation flux is the only significant mechanism by which it loses heat to space, and the total transfer of heat from the surface (in either sensible or latent form) to the ultimate location of its outgoing reradiation within the atmosphere, must, over time, balance the total of incoming solar radiation absorbed (i.e., not reflected), over Earth’s entire surface area. Otherwise the first law of thermodynamics would be violated.
I am one of those who maintain latent heat "radiates to space." It seems to me it must, since half the latent heat released on condensation will radiate upwards into an atmosphere much lower in greenhouse absorbers. I use the analogy of an elevator. Green life absorbs long wave radiation low in the atmosphere, where water vapor and CO2 are high in concentration, and puts it in the latent-heat-elevator, which carries it higher in the atmosphere, before opening the doors again and letting it out on condensation, yet in an atmosphere with less water vapor and CO2. Thus, it escorts the heat past the absorbers to where it can have better chances of escape.
Your objection seems to be that it can't happen because it violates the first law of thermodynamics. I'm not arguing the science of what you say, but from a logical standpoint it doesn't make sense that I should deny what is very clear to me because of an abstract physical law.
Indeed, I wonder if this is not the problem, that we keep trying to explain biological events with physics. I would argue that life is the ultimate physicist, because it uses physics in innumerable, ingenious ways to do things, one of which is to remove heat from its environment. Wouldn't it make sense that life has evolved to remove heat from the atmosphere? Otherwise, how would it avoid heating the planet with so much dark land cover? Further, why can't the fact that the planet is radiating out less heat than it's absorbing have something to do with the destruction of the planet's biological means to do so? To me, again, it makes perfect sense.
In "The Earth is Not a Sleeping Person," I described EVT, as others have, as something of a heat engine. If we keep destroying Earth's heat engines, why wouldn't that result in less outgoing radiation?
And as Anastassia Makarieve and others have argued, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/forests-and-global-change/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2023.1150191/full large intact forests are able to create circulation patterns via the biotic pump that keep released latent heat in the atmosphere for longer duration, meaning it has more time to radiate to space before falling back to Earth.
Lastly, here is an image by Alpha Lo of the Climate Water Project that provides a very simple diagram of how it works. It makes perfect sense to me. Please explain again why you don't think this can happen.
Respectfully, Rob Lewis
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/BY3PR13MB4994BA215278886E371EAF72DDA02%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
rob de laet
rob de laet
Hello Rob
Thank you for noticing and responding to my thoughts!This last point is important because leaves are the essential means of intercepting solar radiation for photosynthesis — so leaves generally experience direct heating by the solar energy they absorb. Large leaves are particularly prone to overheating because they have a thick boundary layer — which creates a large resistance to diffusive heat loss. Transpiration via stomata evolved to allow some heat regulation. The excess heat absorbed by the leaf tissue is used to vaporize water within the “substomatal cavity” — water which is drawn up from the soil. The vaporization helps the leaf avoid temperature increases that could otherwise be lethal.
I can see this is going to get sticky. I have responded to your statements below in blue. Please don't be offended if I sound obnoxious. 🙂
================
I acknowledge that I reside on
unceded Traditional
Territory of the Secwépemc
People
"Science is not about building a body of known 'facts'.
It is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting
them [the
answers!] to a reality-check, thus avoiding the
human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good."
Terry Pratchett.
The wrath of God will destroy those who destroy the Earth.
Rev.
11:18
Hello David and others in this thread:
I'd like to respond to a couple things you said David, not as a scientist, but as a citizen trying to make sense out of all of this. The paragraphs in question are:
Elsewhere on this forum we’ve had various people state that neither latent nor sensible heat “radiates to space”. I admit i am not clear on the physics, but obviously atmospheric thermal reradiation to space must occur somehow — otherwise life on Earth would be impossible. But for sure increased ET at Earth’s surface (from tropical forests or anywhere else) will not (cannot) increase planetary thermal reradiation.
“Cannot” because Earth’s thermal radiation flux is the only significant mechanism by which it loses heat to space, and the total transfer of heat from the surface (in either sensible or latent form) to the ultimate location of its outgoing reradiation within the atmosphere, must, over time, balance the total of incoming solar radiation absorbed (i.e., not reflected), over Earth’s entire surface area. Otherwise the first law of thermodynamics would be violated.
I am one of those who maintain latent heat "radiates to space." It seems to me it must, since half the latent heat released on condensation will radiate upwards into an atmosphere much lower in greenhouse absorbers.
I use the analogy of an elevator. Green life absorbs long wave radiation low in the atmosphere, where water vapor and CO2 are high in concentration, and puts it in the latent-heat-elevator, which carries it higher in the atmosphere, before opening the doors again and letting it out on condensation, yet in an atmosphere with less water vapor and CO2. Thus, it escorts the heat past the absorbers to where it can have better chances of escape.
With respeict, I suggest you abandon your analogy because it is completely inaccurate -- and obviously misleading! Green plants “absorb” a relatively narrow portion of the solar spectrum. Specifically around 0.4 to 0.7 micrometer waveband. This is “shortwave” radiation. Plant tissue is generally transparent to longer wavelengths of solar radiation (at wavelengths in the so-call near-infra red (NIR) waveband which I think extends to about 4 micrometers). This a feature of plant leaves which sets them up to handle sun-exposure quite successfully. (In comparsion, I think photovoltaic cells simply absorb this NIR and get hot, without producing any electrical power.) At ambient temperatures (say around 300 K = 23 C), plant tissue emits longwave radiation like everything else - at wavelengths of 10 to 15 micrometers or longer— according to the S-B law. Note the S-B says that higher temperature objects shift their maximum radiation to shorter wave lengths. Hence the sun, at around 6000 K surface temperature emits with a peak output around 0.55 micrometers (which is actually green). OK I had to check this. Here is a nice simple diagram which explains it (But of course you'll need to read my caveat about diagrams below!)
: Comparison of the emission spectra of the sun and the earth. Note the huge disparity in the amount of energy emitted by the sun (left-hand scale) and the earth (right-hand scale). Source: PAOS Weather Lab in Colorado University (http://wxpaos09.colorado.edu).
Incidentally, I think you should find out more about ecophysiology and biometerology. An excellent book I can recommend, which I used extensively in my grad school days as this one:
I owned a copy of the first edition (which
sadly I must have lent to someone years ago and never got back).
I see it is now in its 5th edition. If you read it you will
quickly learn how all things biological are subject to the laws
of physics (it doesn't really go into chemistry so much, but you
should get the general idea).
Your objection seems to be that it can't happen because it violates the first law of thermodynamics. I'm not arguing the science of what you say, but from a logical standpoint it doesn't make sense that I should deny what is very clear to me because of an abstract physical law.
Indeed, I wonder if this is not the problem, that we keep trying to explain biological events with physics.
I would argue that life is the ultimate physicist, because it uses physics in innumerable, ingenious ways to do things, one of which is to remove heat from its environment. Wouldn't it make sense that life has evolved to remove heat from the atmosphere?
Hah! No life did not evolve to remove heat from the atmosphere! That is sheer pseudo-religious Avatar fantasy. Life evolved basically as a process of self-replicating molecules, in suitable chemical and physical conditions. At some point (which I cannot explain) organisms evolved with self-replicating molecule machinery which enabled those molecules (i.e., DNA) to be "more successful" in replication. The last 500+ million years of Earth's history is all about how each species of organism survived, adapted, competed, died, and ultimately disappeared -- or reproduced (actually it all boils down to sex!) in order to continue propagating DNA. Every species is in it for themselves--or more succinctly for their DNA. (We humans are only here for the exact same reason! -- 🙁... Unless it is now our pre-ordained human mission to remove heat from the global environment?)
I think Lovelock would have agreed with something I am fond of stating: even in the event of global climate catastrophe, I am sure cockroaches, rats and dandelions will all manage to survive. Evolution by natural selection, as first elucidated by Darwin and Wallace, is amazing in the diversity of live on Earth it has created ... But evolution was never directed towards controlling the planetary climate, in the same way that natural selection would never have caused a poodle to evolve. That vegetation has had an important (and widely underappreciated) role in affecting global climate over the last few million years -- and today -- is an emergent property. Look at it this way: Without any biota the Earth would still be a perfectly "functional" planet -- it just wouldn't support life and its climate would be markedly different. No thing (or divine presence), dictated a priori that life would develop on Earth. We are simply spectators to that "happy accident" due to Earth's near-optimal orbital distance from its Sun. (I recently read something Stephen Hawking, a noted physicist who knew a thing or two about planetary radiation balance, wrote on that topic -- I agree with him 100%.)
Otherwise, how would it avoid heating the planet with so much dark land cover?
Further, why can't the fact that the planet is radiating out less heat than it's absorbing have something to do with the destruction of the planet's biological means to do so? To me, again, it makes perfect sense.
It makes no sense to me to make such claims. Watch out for my response to Tom Goreau's recent assertion:
only
intact continental scale tropical rain forests can punch water
vapor above the [tropopause],
where it has the best chance of radiating latent heat to
space!
I am sorry to say he is wrong -- and it is just as well because if more water vapour did "punch above the tropopause" significantly, this would add to the water vapour content in the stratosphere. This has been happening over recent decades in any case as a consequence of increasing CO2 -- and the positive feedback due to a generally warmer atmosphere allowing it to hold more water vapour. The consequence of GHG increase seems to be that the stratosphere has been cooling. (This is what satellite measurments have shown since 1980 when the first measurements could be made.) I confess this is not my area of expertise, but a cooling stratosphere means the planetary surface (and lower atmosphere is getting warmer. I think the explanation comes down to the S-B Law again: a cooler stratosphere radiates less longwave outward to space --- so more heat is being retained within the biosphere (including the oceans...). The implication is that if reforesting the Amazon actually had this effect it would only make things worse. Fortunately, it cannot have that effect, mainly because of the laws of thermodynamics....
In "The Earth is Not a Sleeping Person," I described EVT, as others have, as something of a heat engine. If we keep destroying Earth's heat engines, why wouldn't that result in less outgoing radiation?
Can anyone explain using rational scientific arguments (i.e., not hand-waving intuitions) how exactly the atmospheric heat engine actually conveys more water vapour to the upper atmosphere and why this would be a good thing?
And as Anastassia Makarieve and others have argued, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/forests-and-global-change/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2023.1150191/full large intact forests are able to create circulation patterns via the biotic pump that keep released latent heat in the atmosphere for longer duration, meaning it has more time to radiate to space before falling back to Earth.
From what I have seen of Makarieva et al., they do not argue that the biotic pump has anything to do with reradiation of heat to space. And with all due respect, latent heat does not radiate. Warm water droplets have temperature and radiate according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Actually I don't believe I've seen that paper by Makarieva et al. Does it really exist? I just pasted the link into Chrome and it came back with a 404 error!! I did this twice. I invite you to do the same. If you happen to have a copy of the PDF please send it to me.
Lastly, here is an image by Alpha Lo of the Climate Water Project that provides a very simple diagram of how it works. It makes perfect sense to me. Please explain again why you don't think this can happen.
Tom Goreau
Just back from Maldives. Some points that you appear to have misunderstood.
- No one said latent heat radiates to space! It is the sensible heat released when water vapor condenses, the higher the more effective.
- You repeat again your claim that water can’t get into the stratosphere! I sent you a pile of references on how water is indeed pumped into the stratosphere by the most extreme tropical storm vertical convection events, causing transient variations in stratosphere water.
From:
David Price <da...@pricenet.ca>
Date: Sunday, July 28, 2024 at 3:44 PM
To: Rob Lewis <earthcraf...@gmail.com>, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Cc: rob de laet <robd...@yahoo.com>, EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>, Evergreening Fellows & Affiliates <evergreening-fel...@googlegroups.com>, Skeena Rathor <skeen...@gmail.com>, Julia Adams <cotswoldmeri...@gmail.com>,
Healthy Planet Action Coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk <j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk>, Jojo Mehta <jo...@stopecocide.earth>, Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>, David Jones <david...@co2eco.com>,
Tim Lenton <t.m.l...@exeter.ac.uk>, Foster Brown <fbr...@woodwellclimate.org>, Antonio Nobre <anob...@gmail.com>, Anastassia Makarieva <ammak...@gmail.com>, Peter Bunyard <peter....@btinternet.com>, Stephanie Mines <tara-a...@prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] Re: [ERA] Cooling Climate Chaos - A Proposal to Cool the Planet within Twenty years. The book is out and pdf is included in this mail.
Hello Rob
Thank you for noticing and responding to my thoughts!
1. Let’s be clear. “Latent heat” manifests in the phase transitions between gas and liquid, or liquid and solid. Heat applied to ice first raises its temperature. But at 0 degrees C heating breaks the bonds which binds the water molecules together—latent heat is absorbed. Similarly when heat is applied to liquid water, latent heat is absorbed as it vaporizes to the gas phase—theoretically the temperature does not change at the instant of vaporization.
2. So in the natural world (where physics and chemistry ultimately control all biological phenomena, whether you like it or not! — and I write as a lifelong biologist), all living vegetation requires water. Most terrestrial plants use transpiration as a means of drawing in water to grow cells and “maintain their structure”, as well as drawing in dissolved nutrients and — in many cases as a major means of regulating leaf temperature.
This last point is important because leaves are the essential means of intercepting solar radiation for photosynthesis — so leaves generally experience direct heating by the solar energy they absorb. Large leaves are particularly prone to overheating because they have a thick boundary layer — which creates a large resistance to diffusive heat loss. Transpiration via stomata evolved to allow some heat regulation. The excess heat absorbed by the leaf tissue is used to vaporize water within the “substomatal cavity” — water which is drawn up from the soil. The vaporization helps the leaf avoid temperature increases that could otherwise be lethal.
I can see this is going to get sticky. I have responded to your statements below in blue. Please don't be offended if I sound obnoxious. 🙂
David
================
I acknowledge that I reside on unceded Traditional
Territory of the Secwépemc People
"Science is not about building a body of known 'facts'.
It is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting
them [the answers!]
to a reality-check, thus avoiding the
human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good."
Terry Pratchett.
The wrath of God will destroy those who destroy the Earth.
Rev. 11:18
On 7/27/2024 10:06 AM, Rob Lewis wrote:
Hello David and others in this thread:
I'd like to respond to a couple things you said David, not as a scientist, but as a citizen trying to make sense out of all of this. The paragraphs in question are:
Elsewhere on this forum we’ve had various people state that neither latent nor sensible heat “radiates to space”. I admit i am not clear on the physics, but obviously atmospheric thermal reradiation to space must occur somehow — otherwise life on Earth would be impossible. But for sure increased ET at Earth’s surface (from tropical forests or anywhere else) will not (cannot) increase planetary thermal reradiation.
“Cannot” because Earth’s thermal radiation flux is the only significant mechanism by which it loses heat to space, and the total transfer of heat from the surface (in either sensible or latent form) to the ultimate location of its outgoing reradiation within the atmosphere, must, over time, balance the total of incoming solar radiation absorbed (i.e., not reflected), over Earth’s entire surface area. Otherwise the first law of thermodynamics would be violated.
I am one of those who maintain latent heat "radiates to space." It seems to me it must, since half the latent heat released on condensation will radiate upwards into an atmosphere much lower in greenhouse absorbers.
1. On condensation, the phase change from water vapour to liquid water releases latent heat. That heat is converted to sensible heat which contributes to raising the local temperature (of air molecules, and of the condensed water droplets): temperature is a measure of heat concentration. (Being measurable means it is “SENSIBLE” heat.) In my understanding, only objects that have measurable temperature can radiate (as the 4th power of their absolute temperature) following the Stefan—Boltzmann (S-B) Law.
Hence latent heat does not (actually cannot) radiate! It is the heat imparted to the air mass to raise its temperature which causes those air molecules to radiate. In a strict sense, sensible heat does not radiate either, but S-B is a physical law which determines how a "warm" object loses heat to its cooler surroundings. This is the only means by which Earth loses heat back to space. Conversely, the only significant means by which the Earth gains heat is from the Sun (Earth's internal geothermal sources are pretty much irrelevant --- some weeks ago Mike McCracken corrected me on the size of the average global geothermal heat flux which is extremely small.)
I use the analogy of an elevator. Green life absorbs long wave radiation low in the atmosphere, where water vapor and CO2 are high in concentration, and puts it in the latent-heat-elevator, which carries it higher in the atmosphere, before opening the doors again and letting it out on condensation, yet in an atmosphere with less water vapor and CO2. Thus, it escorts the heat past the absorbers to where it can have better chances of escape.
With respeict, I suggest you abandon your analogy because it is completely inaccurate -- and obviously misleading! Green plants “absorb” a relatively narrow portion of the solar spectrum. Specifically around 0.4 to 0.7 micrometer waveband. This is “shortwave” radiation. Plant tissue is generally transparent to longer wavelengths of solar radiation (at wavelengths in the so-call near-infra red (NIR) waveband which I think extends to about 4 micrometers). This a feature of plant leaves which sets them up to handle sun-exposure quite successfully. (In comparsion, I think photovoltaic cells simply absorb this NIR and get hot, without producing any electrical power.) At ambient temperatures (say around 300 K = 23 C), plant tissue emits longwave radiation like everything else - at wavelengths of 10 to 15 micrometers or longer— according to the S-B law. Note the S-B says that higher temperature objects shift their maximum radiation to shorter wave lengths. Hence the sun, at around 6000 K surface temperature emits with a peak output around 0.55 micrometers (which is actually green). OK I had to check this. Here is a nice simple diagram which explains it (But of course you'll need to read my caveat about diagrams below!)
: Comparison of the emission spectra of the sun and the earth. Note the huge disparity in the amount of energy emitted by the sun (left-hand scale) and the earth (right-hand scale). Source: PAOS Weather Lab in Colorado University (http://wxpaos09.colorado.edu).
Incidentally, I think you should find out more about ecophysiology and biometerology. An excellent book I can recommend, which I used extensively in my grad school days as this one:
I owned a copy of the first edition (which sadly I must have lent to someone years ago and never got back). I see it is now in its 5th edition. If you read it you will quickly learn how all things biological are subject to the laws of physics (it doesn't really go into chemistry so much, but you should get the general idea).
Your objection seems to be that it can't happen because it violates the first law of thermodynamics. I'm not arguing the science of what you say, but from a logical standpoint it doesn't make sense that I should deny what is very clear to me because of an abstract physical law.
It is not an "abstract physical law"! It is fundamental to getting these things correct. If we as humans start adopting policies on addressing issues like climate change based on feelings or
intuitions rather than facts and logic, then we are doomed. If what is clear to you does not stand up to the laws of physics then obviously it is wrong, no matter how "clear" it may be to you!
Indeed, I wonder if this is not the problem, that we keep trying to explain biological events with physics.
The problem seems to be for the scientists to get the physics (and the biology) correct -- and then explain it clearly to non-scientists (along with many caveats about uncertainties).
I would argue that life is the ultimate physicist, because it uses physics in innumerable, ingenious ways to do things, one of which is to remove heat from its environment. Wouldn't it make sense that life has evolved to remove heat from the atmosphere?
Hah! No life did not evolve to remove heat from the atmosphere! That is sheer pseudo-religious Avatar fantasy. Life evolved basically as a process of self-replicating molecules, in suitable chemical and physical conditions. At some point (which I cannot explain) organisms evolved with self-replicating molecule machinery which enabled those molecules (i.e., DNA) to be "more successful" in replication. The last 500+ million years of Earth's history is all about how each species of organism survived, adapted, competed, died, and ultimately disappeared -- or reproduced (actually it all boils down to sex!) in order to continue propagating DNA. Every species is in it for themselves--or more succinctly for their DNA. (We humans are only here for the exact same reason! -- 🙁... Unless it is now our pre-ordained human mission to remove heat from the global environment?)
I think Lovelock would have agreed with something I am fond of stating: even in the event of global climate catastrophe, I am sure cockroaches, rats and dandelions will all manage to survive. Evolution by natural selection, as first elucidated by Darwin and Wallace, is amazing in the diversity of live on Earth it has created ... But evolution was never directed towards controlling the planetary climate, in the same way that natural selection would never have caused a poodle to evolve. That vegetation has had an important (and widely underappreciated) role in affecting global climate over the last few million years -- and today -- is an emergent property. Look at it this way: Without any biota the Earth would still be a perfectly "functional" planet -- it just wouldn't support life and its climate would be markedly different. No thing (or divine presence), dictated a priori that life would develop on Earth. We are simply spectators to that "happy accident" due to Earth's near-optimal orbital distance from its Sun. (I recently read something Stephen Hawking, a noted physicist who knew a thing or two about planetary radiation balance, wrote on that topic -- I agree with him 100%.)
Otherwise, how would it avoid heating the planet with so much dark land cover?
Let's not forget most unvegetated land cover (desert, ice, snow) is actually light and reflective (or at least it used to be). And conversely, that dense evergreen forest has a low albedo which
actually contributes to planetary heating. (And I write this is a retired forest ecologist.)
Further, why can't the fact that the planet is radiating out less heat than it's absorbing have something to do with the destruction of the planet's biological means to do so? To me, again, it makes perfect sense.
It makes no sense to me to make such claims. Watch out for my response to Tom Goreau's recent assertion:
only intact continental scale tropical rain forests can punch water vapor above the [tropopause], where it has the best chance of radiating latent heat to space!
I am sorry to say he is wrong -- and it is just as well because if more water vapour did "punch above the tropopause" significantly, this would add to the water vapour content in the stratosphere. This has been happening over recent decades in any case as a consequence of increasing CO2 -- and the positive feedback due to a generally warmer atmosphere allowing it to hold more water vapour. The consequence of GHG increase seems to be that the stratosphere has been cooling. (This is what satellite measurments have shown since 1980 when the first measurements could be made.) I confess this is not my area of expertise, but a cooling stratosphere means the planetary surface (and lower atmosphere is getting warmer. I think the explanation comes down to the S-B Law again: a cooler stratosphere radiates less longwave outward to space --- so more heat is being retained within the biosphere (including the oceans...). The implication is that if reforesting the Amazon actually had this effect it would only make things worse. Fortunately, it cannot have that effect, mainly because of the laws of thermodynamics....
In "The Earth is Not a Sleeping Person," I described EVT, as others have, as something of a heat engine. If we keep destroying Earth's heat engines, why wouldn't that result in less outgoing radiation?
Can anyone explain using rational scientific arguments (i.e., not hand-waving intuitions) how exactly the atmospheric heat engine actually conveys more water vapour to the upper atmosphere and why this would be a good thing?
And as Anastassia Makarieve and others have argued, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/forests-and-global-change/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2023.1150191/full large intact forests are able to create circulation patterns via the biotic pump that keep released latent heat in the atmosphere for longer duration, meaning it has more time to radiate to space before falling back to Earth.
From what I have seen of Makarieva et al., they do not argue that the biotic pump has anything to do with reradiation of heat to space. And with
all due respect, latent heat does not radiate. Warm water droplets have temperature and radiate according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Actually I don't believe I've seen that paper by Makarieva et al. Does it really exist? I just pasted the link into Chrome
and it came back with a 404 error!! I did this twice. I invite you to do the same. If you happen to have a copy of the PDF please send it to me.
Lastly, here is an image by Alpha Lo of the Climate Water Project that provides a very simple diagram of how it works. It makes perfect sense to me. Please explain again why you don't think this can happen.
Anyone can draw a diagram and claim it explains something. Each year, the US Patent Office probably rejects thousands of applications with such diagrams. That diagram is as nonsensical as the
argument behind it.
Respectfully, Rob Lewis
Tom Goreau
Agreed, stratosphere water is usually extremely low compared to the troposphere, but extreme vertical convection events in the tropics (Hunga Tonga, and more) do put some in, and it takes a while to dissipate before the next unpredictable input event. Above the ozone layer many photolysis reactions take place that can’t happen in the troposphere. One example is photolysis of water vapor in the stratosphere, which removes water and results in escape of hydrogen to space, it’s how the Earth lost most of its primordial hydrogen before there was enough oxygen to form an ozone layer.
I don’t know most of the people receiving this, or if they are interested in spending time on it, time to end this thread?
It’s explained in much more detail in those references.
From:
David Price <da...@pricenet.ca>
Date: Sunday, July 28, 2024 at 5:46 PM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>, Rob Lewis <earthcraf...@gmail.com>
Cc: rob de laet <robd...@yahoo.com>, EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>, Evergreening Fellows & Affiliates <evergreening-fel...@googlegroups.com>, Skeena Rathor <skeen...@gmail.com>, Julia Adams <cotswoldmeri...@gmail.com>,
Healthy Planet Action Coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk <j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk>, Jojo Mehta <jo...@stopecocide.earth>, Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>, David Jones <david...@co2eco.com>,
Tim Lenton <t.m.l...@exeter.ac.uk>, Foster Brown <fbr...@woodwellclimate.org>, Antonio Nobre <anob...@gmail.com>, Anastassia Makarieva <ammak...@gmail.com>, Peter Bunyard <peter....@btinternet.com>, Stephanie Mines <tara-a...@prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] Re: [ERA] Cooling Climate Chaos - A Proposal to Cool the Planet within Twenty years. The book is out and pdf is included in this mail.
Tom,
Welcome back!
Some points I am afraid you have misunderstood:
1. Unfortunately several people, including Rob Lewis, and Rob de Laet, appear to think otherwise. It could be they are using imprecise language but it is nevertheless what they said. E.g. Rob Lewis wrote:
I am one of those who maintain latent heat "radiates to space."
See also the diagram he shared from Alpha Lo, which includes the words:
"Latent heat released by water, radiates into space, cooling the earth."
Of course you are correct to say it is the sensible heat that is released which ultimately "radiates". And that is exactly what I explained. However I note that Anastassia Makarieva argued in an email some weeks ago that strictly this explanation is also incorrect, though I admit I did not follow the details of her argument.
2. I did not say, nor did I ever say, "water can’t get into the stratosphere!". What I said, and I will go to great lengths to explain this to you again (citing some of the very references you sent), is that the amount of water vapour in the stratosphere is necessarily very small compared to what is in the troposphere, because at that altitude the atmosphere is very cold and therefore most of the water vapour has already condensed or frozen and precipitated out (i.e., below the tropopause). And in fact if you read my email, you will note my words about how recent satellite measurements have shown that water vapour content in the lower stratosphere has increased in recent years -- which is contributing to stratospheric cooling and hence contributing to GHG warming at the surface. Again I admit I am hazy on how this works, as it must also affect the atmospheric windows, which increasing CO2 and water vapour are gradually obscuring, and which would presumably lead to greater atmospheric warming. I guess the explanation is that the density of GHGs (in g / m3) must be much lower in the stratosphere -- so the effect on the "total column atmospheric window" is really small compared to what happens in the troposphere. But I don't really understand why the stratosphere is getting cooler. Perhaps you can elaborate on that?
David
================
I acknowledge that I reside on unceded Traditional
Territory of the Secwépemc People
"Science is not about building a body of known 'facts'.
It is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting
them [the answers!]
to a reality-check, thus avoiding the
human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good."
Terry Pratchett.
The wrath of God will destroy those who destroy the Earth.
Rev. 11:18
EcoRestoration Alliance
EcoRestoration Alliance | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/BY3PR13MB499485B57B2404D2465F8A48DDB62%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Owen Allen
Great Rob,
Just to reach for a fundamental physic understanding of the biotic pump: when you say "creates side way wind, but also enhances vertical updraft", I have taken this as the increase of energy transferred to atmospheric molecules from the earth's surface or tops of forest canopies and this has two effects - the increased vibration of the molecules increases the volume required to host those molecules and thus an expansion upward and outward (wind). And the transfer of heat to cooler molecules that will be dropping down from higher altitudes and even laterally and down from mountain peaks or the poles. And that eventually (during any day?) the unequalised heat continues to rise both as hotter molecules rising and transfer of heat to colder molecules. So a convection is also caused and this relates to high and low isobar pressures, and I think Anastassia has previous written here about the atmospheric 'currents'. Without going off on that tangent, two questions: Is this a correct understanding of the way the atmospheric aspect of the biotic pump works?; and we seem to be talking a lot about the water molecule, but are other atmospheric molecules also involved?
cheers
Phoenix Functions
Atherton
Qld 4883
Australia
+61 0423430941
LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/owen59/
You ARE the Betterment of the World
Dear Tom
Of course at the present time, we know the total transfer of surface heat to the top of atmosphere is not in balance so that total outgoing thermal radiation is around 1 W/m2 less than incoming solar. This is the Earth Energy Imbalance...a consequence of the GHG-driven global warming we are all concerned about.
Tropical reforestation is a good cause to support for a whole bunch of reasons. And if it can lead to increased cloud albedo, that would create a net benefit to the planetary radiation balance by increasing the reflection of incoming solar radiation. As far as I can tell, cloud formation is the only mechanism by which forests (and in fact all transpiring vegetation, along with lakes, rivers and oceans) contribute to planetary cooling. Please provide credible evidence to convince me if I am wrong!
Regards
David
From my cellphone
I acknowledge that I reside on unceded Traditional Territory
of the Secwépemc People
On Jul 13, 2024, at 5:24 AM, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org> wrote:
Thanks, Rob and Peter, congratulations! Good luck!
I'm just back from coral extinction rescue efforts in Cuba and will try to read your book in coming weeks in Maldives, Zanzibar, Tanzania, or Pacific atolls.
A very quick skim of the ocean chapter suggests Ocean Blue Carbon sinks are under-appreciated.
All readers of this list could benefit from reading Susan Solomon, 2024, Solvable: How We Healed The Earth, And How We Can Do It Again, not because it provides any solutions but because it is an exceptionally clear discussion of the basic history and science of global pollution and how political/industrial interests tried to prevent action to save the planet. She argues that because we managed to prevent catastrophe on ozone, smog, lead, and pesticides, the same international good will and common purpose can solve runaway climate change! I hope she's right, but lovers of one size fits all solutions will find no road maps here. In all the cases she discusses, policy makers were forced to listen to the scientists due to intense public awareness of the urgency of the crises, but this has NOT happened yet with climate change since the fossil fuel industry, and the politicians they bribe, persistently put profits ahead of the planet's future.
Here's an example from "Solvable" on misunderstandings about the role of the water cycle (p. 52-53):
"Another example is the weaponization of the statement that water vapor is Earth's dominant greenhouse gas, not carbon dioxide. It's true, and it's also irrelevant. Indeed water vapor does absorb infrared radiation strongly, but it responds to the climate instead of driving climate. Water vapor has a very short lifetime in the atmosphere – typically days. The water in the atmosphere is controlled by the balance between evaporation at the surface (from the oceans, but also from soils or plants) versus removal by formation of clouds and rain. Evaporation in turn depends on surface temperature. Consider for example, the humid air of a tropical jungle versus the extreme dryness of Antarctica, even coastal Antarctica. Changes in humidity are a response to climate and not a forcing of it – it's not going to make the climate change, it's going to react to a change in climate". She goes on to discuss the long persistent tail of CO2 responses after sources are reduced........
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/1214900829.728495.1722154919429%40mail.yahoo.com.
Carl Stafford
-
Please take the course Roots of Health Inequity. Environmental and social issues are one in the same. As long as the two continue to be separated, the structures the harm the environment and our society will continue.
-
Please identify, support, and champion grassroot, Minority-led, environmental nonprofit organizations WHO ARE DOING THE WORK (especially ones whose leaders are under 50) so their impact can be greater and the pipeline to the youth can be established.
-
How many under 50, grassroot, Minority-leaders are in this email thread?
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2024 7:40 PM
Rob Lewis
Hello Rob
Thank you for noticing and responding to my thoughts!
1. Let’s be clear. “Latent heat” manifests in the phase transitions between gas and liquid, or liquid and solid. Heat applied to ice first raises its temperature. But at 0 degrees C heating breaks the bonds which binds the water molecules together—latent heat is absorbed. Similarly when heat is applied to liquid water, latent heat is absorbed as it vaporizes to the gas phase—theoretically the temperature does not change at the instant of vaporization.
2. So in the natural world (where physics and chemistry ultimately control all biological phenomena, whether you like it or not! — and I write as a lifelong biologist), all living vegetation requires water. Most terrestrial plants use transpiration as a means of drawing in water to grow cells and “maintain their structure”, as well as drawing in dissolved nutrients and — in many cases as a major means of regulating leaf temperature.
This last point is important because leaves are the essential means of intercepting solar radiation for photosynthesis — so leaves generally experience direct heating by the solar energy they absorb. Large leaves are particularly prone to overheating because they have a thick boundary layer — which creates a large resistance to diffusive heat loss. Transpiration via stomata evolved to allow some heat regulation. The excess heat absorbed by the leaf tissue is used to vaporize water within the “substomatal cavity” — water which is drawn up from the soil. The vaporization helps the leaf avoid temperature increases that could otherwise be lethal.
I can see this is going to get sticky. I have responded to your statements below in blue. Please don't be offended if I sound obnoxious. 🙂
David================
I acknowledge that I reside on unceded Traditional
Territory of the Secwépemc People
"Science is not about building a body of known 'facts'.
It is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting
them [the answers!] to a reality-check, thus avoiding the
human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good."
Terry Pratchett.
The wrath of God will destroy those who destroy the Earth. Rev. 11:18
On 7/27/2024 10:06 AM, Rob Lewis wrote:
Hello David and others in this thread:
I'd like to respond to a couple things you said David, not as a scientist, but as a citizen trying to make sense out of all of this. The paragraphs in question are:
Elsewhere on this forum we’ve had various people state that neither latent nor sensible heat “radiates to space”. I admit i am not clear on the physics, but obviously atmospheric thermal reradiation to space must occur somehow — otherwise life on Earth would be impossible. But for sure increased ET at Earth’s surface (from tropical forests or anywhere else) will not (cannot) increase planetary thermal reradiation.
“Cannot” because Earth’s thermal radiation flux is the only significant mechanism by which it loses heat to space, and the total transfer of heat from the surface (in either sensible or latent form) to the ultimate location of its outgoing reradiation within the atmosphere, must, over time, balance the total of incoming solar radiation absorbed (i.e., not reflected), over Earth’s entire surface area. Otherwise the first law of thermodynamics would be violated.
I am one of those who maintain latent heat "radiates to space." It seems to me it must, since half the latent heat released on condensation will radiate upwards into an atmosphere much lower in greenhouse absorbers.
1. On condensation, the phase change from water vapour to liquid water releases latent heat. That heat is converted to sensible heat which contributes to raising the local temperature (of air molecules, and of the condensed water droplets): temperature is a measure of heat concentration. (Being measurable means it is “SENSIBLE” heat.) In my understanding, only objects that have measurable temperature can radiate (as the 4th power of their absolute temperature) following the Stefan—Boltzmann (S-B) Law.
Hence latent heat does not (actually cannot) radiate! It is the heat imparted to the air mass to raise its temperature which causes those air molecules to radiate. In a strict sense, sensible heat does not radiate either, but S-B is a physical law which determines how a "warm" object loses heat to its cooler surroundings. This is the only means by which Earth loses heat back to space. Conversely, the only significant means by which the Earth gains heat is from the Sun (Earth's internal geothermal sources are pretty much irrelevant --- some weeks ago Mike McCracken corrected me on the size of the average global geothermal heat flux which is extremely small.)
I use the analogy of an elevator. Green life absorbs long wave radiation low in the atmosphere, where water vapor and CO2 are high in concentration, and puts it in the latent-heat-elevator, which carries it higher in the atmosphere, before opening the doors again and letting it out on condensation, yet in an atmosphere with less water vapor and CO2. Thus, it escorts the heat past the absorbers to where it can have better chances of escape.
With respeict, I suggest you abandon your analogy because it is completely inaccurate -- and obviously misleading! Green plants “absorb” a relatively narrow portion of the solar spectrum. Specifically around 0.4 to 0.7 micrometer waveband. This is “shortwave” radiation. Plant tissue is generally transparent to longer wavelengths of solar radiation (at wavelengths in the so-call near-infra red (NIR) waveband which I think extends to about 4 micrometers). This a feature of plant leaves which sets them up to handle sun-exposure quite successfully. (In comparsion, I think photovoltaic cells simply absorb this NIR and get hot, without producing any electrical power.) At ambient temperatures (say around 300 K = 23 C), plant tissue emits longwave radiation like everything else - at wavelengths of 10 to 15 micrometers or longer— according to the S-B law. Note the S-B says that higher temperature objects shift their maximum radiation to shorter wave lengths. Hence the sun, at around 6000 K surface temperature emits with a peak output around 0.55 micrometers (which is actually green). OK I had to check this. Here is a nice simple diagram which explains it (But of course you'll need to read my caveat about diagrams below!)
: Comparison of the emission spectra of the sun and the earth. Note the huge disparity in the amount of energy emitted by the sun (left-hand scale) and the earth (right-hand scale). Source: PAOS Weather Lab in Colorado University (http://wxpaos09.colorado.edu).
Incidentally, I think you should find out more about ecophysiology and biometerology. An excellent book I can recommend, which I used extensively in my grad school days as this one:
I owned a copy of the first edition (which sadly I must have lent to someone years ago and never got back). I see it is now in its 5th edition. If you read it you will quickly learn how all things biological are subject to the laws of physics (it doesn't really go into chemistry so much, but you should get the general idea).
It is not an "abstract physical law"! It is fundamental to getting these things correct. If we as humans start adopting policies on addressing issues like climate change based on feelings or intuitions rather than facts and logic, then we are doomed. If what is clear to you does not stand up to the laws of physics then obviously it is wrong, no matter how "clear" it may be to you!Your objection seems to be that it can't happen because it violates the first law of thermodynamics. I'm not arguing the science of what you say, but from a logical standpoint it doesn't make sense that I should deny what is very clear to me because of an abstract physical law.
The problem seems to be for the scientists to get the physics (and the biology) correct -- and then explain it clearly to non-scientists (along with many caveats about uncertainties).Indeed, I wonder if this is not the problem, that we keep trying to explain biological events with physics.
I would argue that life is the ultimate physicist, because it uses physics in innumerable, ingenious ways to do things, one of which is to remove heat from its environment. Wouldn't it make sense that life has evolved to remove heat from the atmosphere?
Hah! No life did not evolve to remove heat from the atmosphere! That is sheer pseudo-religious Avatar fantasy. Life evolved basically as a process of self-replicating molecules, in suitable chemical and physical conditions. At some point (which I cannot explain) organisms evolved with self-replicating molecule machinery which enabled those molecules (i.e., DNA) to be "more successful" in replication. The last 500+ million years of Earth's history is all about how each species of organism survived, adapted, competed, died, and ultimately disappeared -- or reproduced (actually it all boils down to sex!) in order to continue propagating DNA. Every species is in it for themselves--or more succinctly for their DNA. (We humans are only here for the exact same reason! -- 🙁... Unless it is now our pre-ordained human mission to remove heat from the global environment?)
I think Lovelock would have agreed with something I am fond of stating: even in the event of global climate catastrophe, I am sure cockroaches, rats and dandelions will all manage to survive. Evolution by natural selection, as first elucidated by Darwin and Wallace, is amazing in the diversity of live on Earth it has created ... But evolution was never directed towards controlling the planetary climate, in the same way that natural selection would never have caused a poodle to evolve. That vegetation has had an important (and widely underappreciated) role in affecting global climate over the last few million years -- and today -- is an emergent property. Look at it this way: Without any biota the Earth would still be a perfectly "functional" planet -- it just wouldn't support life and its climate would be markedly different. No thing (or divine presence), dictated a priori that life would develop on Earth. We are simply spectators to that "happy accident" due to Earth's near-optimal orbital distance from its Sun. (I recently read something Stephen Hawking, a noted physicist who knew a thing or two about planetary radiation balance, wrote on that topic -- I agree with him 100%.)
Let's not forget most unvegetated land cover (desert, ice, snow) is actually light and reflective (or at least it used to be). And conversely, that dense evergreen forest has a low albedo which actually contributes to planetary heating. (And I write this is a retired forest ecologist.)Otherwise, how would it avoid heating the planet with so much dark land cover?
Further, why can't the fact that the planet is radiating out less heat than it's absorbing have something to do with the destruction of the planet's biological means to do so? To me, again, it makes perfect sense.
It makes no sense to me to make such claims. Watch out for my response to Tom Goreau's recent assertion:
only intact continental scale tropical rain forests can punch water vapor above the
[tropopause], where it has the best chance of radiating latent heat to space!
I am sorry to say he is wrong -- and it is just as well because if more water vapour did "punch above the tropopause" significantly, this would add to the water vapour content in the stratosphere. This has been happening over recent decades in any case as a consequence of increasing CO2 -- and the positive feedback due to a generally warmer atmosphere allowing it to hold more water vapour. The consequence of GHG increase seems to be that the stratosphere has been cooling. (This is what satellite measurments have shown since 1980 when the first measurements could be made.) I confess this is not my area of expertise, but a cooling stratosphere means the planetary surface (and lower atmosphere is getting warmer. I think the explanation comes down to the S-B Law again: a cooler stratosphere radiates less longwave outward to space --- so more heat is being retained within the biosphere (including the oceans...). The implication is that if reforesting the Amazon actually had this effect it would only make things worse. Fortunately, it cannot have that effect, mainly because of the laws of thermodynamics....
From what I have seen of Makarieva et al., they do not argue that the biotic pump has anything to do with reradiation of heat to space. And with all due respect, latent heat does not radiate. Warm water droplets have temperature and radiate according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Actually I don't believe I've seen that paper by Makarieva et al. Does it really exist? I just pasted the link into Chrome and it came back with a 404 error!! I did this twice. I invite you to do the same. If you happen to have a copy of the PDF please send it to me.In "The Earth is Not a Sleeping Person," I described EVT, as others have, as something of a heat engine. If we keep destroying Earth's heat engines, why wouldn't that result in less outgoing radiation?
Can anyone explain using rational scientific arguments (i.e., not hand-waving intuitions) how exactly the atmospheric heat engine actually conveys more water vapour to the upper atmosphere and why this would be a good thing?
And as Anastassia Makarieve and others have argued, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/forests-and-global-change/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2023.1150191/full large intact forests are able to create circulation patterns via the biotic pump that keep released latent heat in the atmosphere for longer duration, meaning it has more time to radiate to space before falling back to Earth.
Anyone can draw a diagram and claim it explains something. Each year, the US Patent Office probably rejects thousands of applications with such diagrams. That diagram is as nonsensical as the argument behind it.Lastly, here is an image by Alpha Lo of the Climate Water Project that provides a very simple diagram of how it works. It makes perfect sense to me. Please explain again why you don't think this can happen.
Erica Gies
Rob Lewis
rob de laet
Rob Lewis
Hello Rob
Interesting that the people who want to "end this thread" are exactly the ones who don't like my arguments!
Thank you for the link to Makarieva's pubs. I have looked at several and I see she and her coworkers are doing interesting work on a variety of topics including the biotic pump concept and the dynamical processes of cyclones. (I will try to find time to look at a few more). Her work is highly theoretical and uses lots of physics! (Talk about abstraction!)
Three I have looked at are:
Makarieva et al. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-20-0156.1
Makarieva et al. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11173
Makarieva et al. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-21-0172.1
It is important to note that none of these refer to global cooling, or even mention stratospheric water vapour -- they are devoted to processes occurring within (i.e., not above) the troposphere.
But another really interesting paper is this one:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-74458-8_9
Makarieva, A.M. (2022). Natural Ecosystems and Earth’s Habitability: Attempting a Cross-Disciplinary Synthesis. In: Wilderer, P.A., Grambow, M., Molls, M., Oexle, K. (eds) Strategies for Sustainability of the Earth System. Strategies for Sustainability. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74458-8_9
I am afraid I am not about to shell out US$30 to download the PDF of the full chapter! From the abstract, I'd say it looks very interesting because it appears to present a legitimate basis for a "Gaia" world. It is this kind of work that is easily hyped by misinformed optimistic non-scientists! From the abstract
"Here I discuss the biotic regulation theory, whereby the genetic and environmental stability are mutually guaranteed: the genetic program of environmental regulation by life encodes such an environment where disruptive mutants cannot spread. The key interdisciplinary question is what these environmental properties are. This is not an academic question: once the natural ecosystems are destroyed, the environment will rapidly degrade even if carbon emissions discontinue. Global change mitigation efforts can be misguided if the key role of natural ecosystems in stabilizing a life-favorable environment continues to be neglected."
To be clear: Based on what I read in this abstract, I kind of accept Makarieva's idea of a "biotic regulation (BR) theory" -- but it sounds like she is formalizing basic principles of systems ecology at a global scale -- from a physicist's perspective! While her conclusions might be a significant contribution, they may not be very surprising to anyone with a systems ecology background. I don't believe she contradicts anything I have said. From her other papers, it is obvious Makarieva has great respect for the physical laws governing atmospheric processes -- so I am very confident she will also have great respect for the physical laws which govern ecological processes! Her comments about environmental degradation ring true, of course. When she writes "global change mitigation efforts can be misguided", she is expressing concerns that many of us recognize, and agree on!
Incidentally a companion chapter from the same volume by Dewilde et al., with Makarieva as co-author, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-74458-8_14 also looks like an interesting read -- I guess these chapters were both products of a Zoom Conference based in Moscow in 2021. "Goal: To launch a multilateral dialogue to recognize the value of natural ecosystems and their key role in shaping the climate and conditions for Life existence on the planet as a basic priority of Development programs"
I can appreciate the interest this kind of discussion would generate! Those concerns about global change mitigation efforts should extend to reforesting the Amazon and other restoration projects. In my not-so-humble opinion, it is important that such projects take account of the environmental changes (i.e., CO2 and other GHGs, consequent temperature increases etc.) which have occurred, mainly over the last 200 years, in parallel with the deforestation that Rob de Laet et al want to reverse. A 50% increase in atmospheric CO2, caused mainly by burning fossil carbon, is the major cause of global temperature increase about to exceed 1.5 deg C (deforestation and soil degradation have been estimated to contribute about 20% of total CO2 emissions). This "excess CO2 problem" will not (cannot) just go away in 20 years (probably not even in 200 years) even if we could completely reverse global deforestation -- there is no credible reason why we should expect the biosphere to simply soak up this extra CO2 in such a short-time frame! (And that would be assuming the global biosphere would be "fully restored" to the state it was in before the Anthropocene began -- which, with 8 billion plus humans, just ain't going to happen in a thousand years.) This is where I think Rob de Laet is unrealistically optimistic -- even delusional. I don't have the full chapter so I can only guess: perhaps Makarieva does not consider that the very recent and unprecedented rates of change in environmental conditions (relative to geological time scales, caused by human activities) will completely disrupt her concept of BR. I see two things in this: (1) BR theory addresses an emergent property of natural selection of species adapting to continuously changing environmental conditions on Earth (a direct consequence of evolution by natural selection); AND/BUT (2) if humans, having created an extraordinarily rapid change in recent environmental conditions, were suddenly to disappear, BR would eventually reassert "control"; but in that process, many of today's rarer species would still go extinct and many regions would endure significant climatic changes that might take millennia to reverse, even as other natural variations in climate (and speciation) continued, and even as natural C sinks gradually brought the CO2 concentration back down to the pre-industrial level.
But, I cannot accept hand-waving arguments about how increased surface evapotranspiration (ET) will contribute to increases in planetary reradiation to space! My rants about the laws of thermodynamics stand: we might plant more trees and increase the amount of latent heat (LE) released at the surface -- which would indeed make the local surface climate a bit cooler. But this increase in LE MUST necessarily be balanced by a corresponding decrease in the sensible heat (i.e., corresponding to the decrease in local temperature). The sum total of energy transported upwards by convective processes WILL BE THE SAME. [E.g., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics ]
As the additional moisture cools and condenses or freezes, the LE released will be converted to the EXACT SAME AMOUNT of sensible heat at whatever altitude. (I note that both you and Tom Goreau now concede that LE is not the source of longwave reradiation to space -- even though you both used that imprecise explanation!) Almost all of that condensation and freezing will occur below the tropopause -- because air at a temperature of -50 C or colder cannot hold much water vapour (as people say in the Canadian prairies, winters are cold but it's a dry cold!). As far as I can see from the papers I have looked at, Makarieva and colleagues have not proposed anywhere that increased ET at the surface will cool the planet-- either as fact or theory. The concept being pushed by Bunyard and de Laet and their disciples lacks a rigorous explanation of how the micrometeorology of terrestrial vegetation affects the troposphere, and the fate of water vapour and energy fluxes feeding into the upper atmosphere, and hence increases planetary longwave radiation. At the very least, if they want to convince me, they'll need to publish a credible peer-reviewed article in a reputable journal.
That all said, there a couple of qualifications (which I have stated in previous posts). Firstly: increased ET at the surface in regions such as the Amazon would likely increase the local cloud cover which would reflect incoming solar radiation to some extent and make things cooler, at both local and planetary scales. (NOTE: This has nothing to do with longwave reradiation!) Secondly: to be completely pedantic, the local cooling caused by increased ET would cause minor adjustments in the local surface energy balance, in addition to reducing the sensible heat term, but when those are averaged over a year, they will not affect my argument -- because the First Law rules!!
Regards
David================
I acknowledge that I reside on unceded Traditional
Territory of the Secwépemc People
"Science is not about building a body of known 'facts'.
It is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting
them [the answers!] to a reality-check, thus avoiding the
human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good."
Terry Pratchett.
The wrath of God will destroy those who destroy the Earth. Rev. 11:18
Brian Cartwright
Hello P.K.,here is the summary proposal based on the science in the book Cooling Climate Chaos to take emergency action because we are obviously running out of time to avert global societal collapse:
Looking forward to your feedback,Kind regards,
Dear Authors,
Congratulations on a well put together book.
“Implementing these strategies globally can mitigate the worst effects of climate change within decades, protect biodiversity, and address social inequities. While reducing emissions is essential, repairing nature and water cycles through regenerative agriculture, agroforestry, and ecosystem restoration is equally vital…”
That is all great. But I wonder how the folks out there who are eager to get practical (new) suggestions and approaches to accomplishing the recommended “solutions” will react to all these.
Best wishes,
PK
P. K. Ramachandran Nair, Distinguished Professor (Emeritus)
School of Forest, Fisheries, and Geomatic Sciences,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
e-mail: pkn...@ufl.edu
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._K._Ramachandran_Nair
From: 'rob de laet' via Evergreening fellows & affiliates <evergreening-fel...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2024 6:46 AM
To: EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>; Evergreening Fellows & Affiliates <evergreening-fel...@googlegroups.com>; Skeena Rathor <skeen...@gmail.com>; Julia Adams <cotswoldmeri...@gmail.com>; j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk; Jojo Mehta <jo...@stopecocide.earth>; Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>; David Jones <david...@co2eco.com>; Tim Lenton <t.m.l...@exeter.ac.uk>
Cc: Peter Bunyard <peter....@btinternet.com>; Stephanie Mines <tara-a...@prodigy.net>
Subject: GEA news: Cooling Climate Chaos - A Proposal to Cool the Planet within Twenty years. The book is out and pdf is included in this mail.
[External Email]
Hello everybody,
Peter Bunyard and I have published the book ''Cooling Climate Chaos'',
To address the climate crisis, which is causing life-threatening extreme events, we must transform our economic and societal models towards sustainability and resilience while gaining a holistic understanding of climate. Drawing on James Lovelock’s Gaia Theory and Indigenous cosmologies, this book posits that Earth functions as a living organism, with ecosystems maintaining life-supporting conditions. It explores the atmosphere's role within this living planet, emphasizing water's critical function, based on Peter Bunyard's earlier work, "Climate Chaos." The interaction between the biosphere, soils, water, and the atmosphere stabilizes weather and cools the planet, but ecosystem destruction disrupts these cycles, contributing to global warming. Restoring ecosystems and transitioning to sustainable agriculture can quickly stabilize the climate, offering effective solutions. Implementing these strategies globally can mitigate the worst effects of climate change within decades, protect biodiversity, and address social inequities. While reducing emissions is essential, repairing nature and water cycles through regenerative agriculture, agroforestry, and ecosystem restoration is equally vital. These efforts can restore the planet’s natural balance, leading to a sustainable and abundant future.
A special thank you goes to the founders of Climate Change and Consciousness, Stephanie Mines, the chairperson of Biology for a Livable Climate, Philip Bogdonoff and the co-founder of EcoRestoration Alliance, Jon Schull.
In no particular order, many thanks to: Ed Huling, Jim Laurie, Walter Jehne, Michael Pilarski, Russ Speer, Stephanie Mines, Charles Eisenstein, Daniel Pinchbeck, Ousmane Pame, Rodger Savory, Antonio Nobre, Carlos Nobre, Germán Poveda, Anastassia Makarieva, Douglas Sheil, Jim Laurie, Alan Savory, David Ellison, Douglas Sheil, Zuzka Mulkerin, Michal Kravčík, Jan Pokorny, Judy Schwartz, Alpha Lo, Erica Geis, Duane Norris, Sue Butler, Ananda Fitzsimmons, Elizabeth Herald, Howard Dryden, Colin Grant, Bru Pearce, Brian von Herzen, Anamaria Frankic, Tom Goreau, Stefan Schwarzer, Christopher Haines, Richard Betts, Zac Goldsmith, Ben Goldsmith, Alexander Goldsmith, Martin Hodnett, Rafael Mantilla, Martin von Hildebrand, Phoebe Barnard and Atossa Soltani. All of these people have contributed in one way or other to this body of knowlegde.
We are still looking for a European publisher who would like to bring this in paperback form on the market. Suggestions are most welcome.
Please share as widely as possible. Onward to a livable planet!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Evergreening fellows & affiliates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to evergreening-fellows--...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/evergreening-fellows--affiliates/1683296324.236563.1720867552537%40mail.yahoo.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Evergreening fellows & affiliates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to evergreening-fellows--...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/evergreening-fellows--affiliates/IA0PR22MB4404D8B63179130BA382FB41D0A02%40IA0PR22MB4404.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.
--
View this message at https://groups.google.com/a/googlegroups.com/d/msg/ecorestoration-alliance/topic-id/message-id
Group emails flooding your inbox? Click here: https://groups.google.com/g/ecorestoration-alliance/settings#email
Our website is at http://EcorestorationAlliance.org/
Our calendar is at https://tinyurl.com/EcoResCalendar
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EcoRestoration Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ecorestoration-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/107706756.468231.1720964650067%40mail.yahoo.com.
rob de laet
Sue Lennox
2020 NSW Senior Australian of the Year
Co-Founder OzGREEN
Founder Youth Leading the World (YLTW)
Email: sle...@ozgreen.org.au
Website: www.ozgreen.org
Jagun yaam Gumbaynggirrgundi.
I live and work in Gumbaynggirr Country. I give my love and respect to Elders past, present and emerging. I acknowledge that sovereignty was never ceded.
Tom Goreau
How the Maldives could grow its way out of sea level rise:
From:
Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Date: Saturday, July 13, 2024 at 10:23 AM
To: Jon Schull <jsc...@gmail.com>
Cc: Anastassia Makarieva <ammak...@gmail.com>, Antonio Nobre <anob...@gmail.com>, David Jones <david...@co2eco.com>, EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>, Evergreening Fellows & Affiliates <evergreening-fel...@googlegroups.com>,
Foster Brown <fbr...@woodwellclimate.org>, Healthy Planet Action Coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, Jojo Mehta <jo...@stopecocide.earth>, Julia Adams <cotswoldmeri...@gmail.com>, Peter Bunyard <peter....@btinternet.com>,
Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>, Skeena Rathor <skeen...@gmail.com>, Stephanie Mines <tara-a...@prodigy.net>, Tim Lenton <t.m.l...@exeter.ac.uk>, j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk <j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk>, rob de laet <robd...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [ERA] Cooling Climate Chaos - A Proposal to Cool the Planet within Twenty years. The book is out and pdf is included in this mail.
Sorry, meant to say Tropopause, not Stratopause, mea culpa!
Very large volcanic eruptions like Agung, Tambora, Toba, Pinatubo, etc. that are also very high in sulfur can get above the stratopause, and the effects can last a few years.
Rain forest climate benefits are self-replicating and permanent only if maintained as regenerative healthy ecosystems, but can be lost permanently through degenerative mis-development, while volcanoes are utterly unpredictable and can’t be counted on whenever needed, or not!
From:
Jon Schull <jsc...@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, July 13, 2024 at 9:29
AM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Cc: Anastassia Makarieva <ammak...@gmail.com>, Antonio Nobre <anob...@gmail.com>, David Jones <david...@co2eco.com>, EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>, Evergreening Fellows & Affiliates <evergreening-fel...@googlegroups.com>,
Foster Brown <fbr...@woodwellclimate.org>, Healthy Planet Action Coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, Jojo Mehta <jo...@stopecocide.earth>, Julia Adams <cotswoldmeri...@gmail.com>, Peter Bunyard <peter....@btinternet.com>,
Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>, Skeena Rathor <skeen...@gmail.com>, Stephanie Mines <tara-a...@prodigy.net>, Tim Lenton <t.m.l...@exeter.ac.uk>, j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk <j.po...@greenfutures.org.uk>, rob de laet <robd...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [ERA] Cooling Climate Chaos - A Proposal to Cool the Planet within Twenty years. The book is out and pdf is included in this mail.
This looks fantastic!
Congratulations!
Proud that we all played a small part...
jsc...@e-NABLE.org cell: 585-738-6696
Co-Founder, e-NABLE: volunteers worldwide making free, 3D printed prosthetics
Innovation Fellow, JMK Innovation Fund
Sent from iPhone: beware tyops.
>
Subject: [ERA] Cooling Climate Chaos - A Proposal to Cool the Planet within Twenty years. The book is out and pdf is included in this mail.
Hello everybody,
Peter Bunyard and I have published the book ''Cooling Climate Chaos'',
To address the climate crisis, which is causing life-threatening extreme events, we must transform our economic and societal models towards sustainability and resilience while gaining a holistic understanding of climate. Drawing on James Lovelock’s Gaia Theory and Indigenous cosmologies, this book posits that Earth functions as a living organism, with ecosystems maintaining life-supporting conditions. It explores the atmosphere's role within this living planet, emphasizing water's critical function, based on Peter Bunyard's earlier work, "Climate Chaos." The interaction between the biosphere, soils, water, and the atmosphere stabilizes weather and cools the planet, but ecosystem destruction disrupts these cycles, contributing to global warming. Restoring ecosystems and transitioning to sustainable agriculture can quickly stabilize the climate, offering effective solutions. Implementing these strategies globally can mitigate the worst effects of climate change within decades, protect biodiversity, and address social inequities. While reducing emissions is essential, repairing nature and water cycles through regenerative agriculture, agroforestry, and ecosystem restoration is equally vital. These efforts can restore the planet’s natural balance, leading to a sustainable and abundant future.
A special thank you goes to the founders of Climate Change and Consciousness, Stephanie Mines, the chairperson of Biology for a Livable Climate, Philip Bogdonoff and the co-founder of EcoRestoration Alliance, Jon Schull.
In no particular order, many thanks to: Ed Huling, Jim Laurie, Walter Jehne, Michael Pilarski, Russ Speer, Stephanie Mines, Charles Eisenstein, Daniel Pinchbeck, Ousmane Pame, Rodger Savory, Antonio Nobre, Carlos Nobre, Germán Poveda, Anastassia Makarieva, Douglas Sheil, Jim Laurie, Alan Savory, David Ellison, Douglas Sheil, Zuzka Mulkerin, Michal Kravčík, Jan Pokorny, Judy Schwartz, Alpha Lo, Erica Geis, Duane Norris, Sue Butler, Ananda Fitzsimmons, Elizabeth Herald, Howard Dryden, Colin Grant, Bru Pearce, Brian von Herzen, Anamaria Frankic, Tom Goreau, Stefan Schwarzer, Christopher Haines, Richard Betts, Zac Goldsmith, Ben Goldsmith, Alexander Goldsmith, Martin Hodnett, Rafael Mantilla, Martin von Hildebrand, Phoebe Barnard and Atossa Soltani. All of these people have contributed in one way or other to this body of knowlegde.
We are still looking for a European publisher who would like to bring this in paperback form on the market. Suggestions are most welcome.
Please share as widely as possible. Onward to a livable planet!
--
View this message at https://groups.google.com/a/googlegroups.com/d/msg/ecorestoration-alliance/topic-id/message-id
Group emails flooding your inbox? Click here: https://groups.google.com/g/ecorestoration-alliance/settings#email
Our website is at http://EcorestorationAlliance.org/
Our calendar is at https://tinyurl.com/EcoResCalendar
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EcoRestoration Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ecorestoration-al...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/1683296324.236563.1720867552537%40mail.yahoo.com.
--
View this message at https://groups.google.com/a/googlegroups.com/d/msg/ecorestoration-alliance/topic-id/message-id
Group emails flooding your inbox? Click here: https://groups.google.com/g/ecorestoration-alliance/settings#email
Our website is at http://EcorestorationAlliance.org/
Our calendar is at https://tinyurl.com/EcoResCalendar
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EcoRestoration Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ecorestoration-al...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/BY3PR13MB49946B18288A2352C5C7485CDDA72%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Owen Allen
Oh that is fascinating.
Phoenix Functions
Atherton
Qld 4883
Australia
+61 0423430941
LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/owen59/
You ARE the Betterment of the World
"Another example is the weaponization of the statement that water vapor is Earth's dominant greenhouse gas, not carbon dioxide. It's true, and it's also irrelevant. Indeed water vapor does absorb infrared radiation strongly, but it responds to the climate instead of driving climate. Water vapor has a very short lifetime in the atmosphere – typically days. The water in the atmosphere is controlled by the balance between evaporation at the surface (from the oceans, but also from soils or plants) versus removal by formation of clouds and rain. Evaporation in turn depends on surface temperature. Consider for example, the humid air of a tropical jungle versus the extreme dryness of Antarctica, even coastal Antarctica. Changes in humidity are a response to climate and not a forcing of it – it's not going to make the climate change, it's going to react to a change in climate". She goes on to discuss the long persistent tail of CO2 responses after sources are reduced........
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/BY3PR13MB4994AF1C635275031C7002E8DD802%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Jon Schull
--
View this message at https://groups.google.com/a/googlegroups.com/d/msg/ecorestoration-alliance/topic-id/message-id
Group emails flooding your inbox? Click here: https://groups.google.com/g/ecorestoration-alliance/settings#email
Our website is at http://EcorestorationAlliance.org/
Our calendar is at https://tinyurl.com/EcoResCalendar
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EcoRestoration Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ecorestoration-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/31E7E13C-E1C2-4B70-A39E-934F8D31AEDD%40ozgreen.org.au.
--
View this message at https://groups.google.com/a/googlegroups.com/d/msg/ecorestoration-alliance/topic-id/message-id
Group emails flooding your inbox? Click here: https://groups.google.com/g/ecorestoration-alliance/settings#email
Our website is at http://EcorestorationAlliance.org/
Our calendar is at https://tinyurl.com/EcoResCalendar
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EcoRestoration Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ecorestoration-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/31E7E13C-E1C2-4B70-A39E-934F8D31AEDD%40ozgreen.org.au.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/CAErw7QUfV2P0JaT_Nxv%3DUUpZZv7FiZuiZJxpBWYAi8bhBrOVFA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
View this message at https://groups.google.com/a/googlegroups.com/d/msg/ecorestoration-alliance/topic-id/message-id
Group emails flooding your inbox? Click here: https://groups.google.com/g/ecorestoration-alliance/settings#email
Our website is at http://EcorestorationAlliance.org/
Our calendar is at https://tinyurl.com/EcoResCalendar
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EcoRestoration Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ecorestoration-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/31E7E13C-E1C2-4B70-A39E-934F8D31AEDD%40ozgreen.org.au.
jsc...@gmail.com cell: 585-738-6696
Co-Founder EcoRestorationAlliance: Climate mitigation through eco-restoration.
Co-founder, e-NABLE: volunteers worldwide making free, 3D printed prosthetics
rob de laet
View this message at https://groups.google.com/a/googlegroups.com/d/msg/ecorestoration-alliance/topic-id/message-id
Group emails flooding your inbox? Click here: https://groups.google.com/g/ecorestoration-alliance/settings#email
Our website is at http://EcorestorationAlliance.org/
Our calendar is at https://tinyurl.com/EcoResCalendar
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EcoRestoration Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ecorestoration-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
View this message at https://groups.google.com/a/googlegroups.com/d/msg/ecorestoration-alliance/topic-id/message-id
Group emails flooding your inbox? Click here: https://groups.google.com/g/ecorestoration-alliance/settings#email
Our website is at http://EcorestorationAlliance.org/
Our calendar is at https://tinyurl.com/EcoResCalendar
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EcoRestoration Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ecorestoration-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
On 10 Aug 2024, at 1:02 am, Brian Cartwright <briancar...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/CAErw7QUfV2P0JaT_Nxv%3DUUpZZv7FiZuiZJxpBWYAi8bhBrOVFA%40mail.gmail.com.
View this message at https://groups.google.com/a/googlegroups.com/d/msg/ecorestoration-alliance/topic-id/message-id
Group emails flooding your inbox? Click here: https://groups.google.com/g/ecorestoration-alliance/settings#email
Our website is at http://EcorestorationAlliance.org/
Our calendar is at https://tinyurl.com/EcoResCalendar
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EcoRestoration Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ecorestoration-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
Sue Lennox
Jon Schull
tara-a...@prodigy.net
I regret that I will miss being with my incredible colleague Sue Lennox, but I will be on a writing retreat during this very welcome and necessary gathering. S
Stephanie Mines, Ph.D.
Vision Holder/Founder: Climate Change & Consciousness
Founder: The TARA Approach
Author of the newly released The Secret of Resilience: Healing Personal and Planetary Trauma Through Morphogenesis and The Great Physician: Medicinal Poetry for the Anthropocene
“If everyone who is passionate about climate, who truly gets that we are living in a pivotal moment, found their place in the movement, amazing things would happen.” ~ Rebecca Solnit, Hope in the Dark
From: ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Sue Lennox
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 12:57 PM
To: Jon Schull <jsc...@gmail.com>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/1630D740-DD75-4B76-9DB9-319CD6B03290%40ozgreen.org.au.