Major media outlets, governments, Big Green and complicit corporations want to scare us with temperatures and carbon dioxide, without explaining or revealing the root of the problem.
Let's also stop the sickening replacement of forests and arable land with solar and wind farms, as if we can extract, manufacture, and consume our way out of the predicament those activities caused in the first place, just to eek a few more years out of our overshot, overconsuming civilization at the expense of what's left of the biosphere.
When you say "an increase in plant cover...would quickly reduce incoming heat", do you mean reflected heat? Because the degree of vegetative cover doesn't affect the amount of solar radiation traveling through the atmosphere and heating the land or water.
Right. The amount of radiation does not change but the effect of the radiation does change. Plants take the sun’s energy and use it for photosynthesis and transpiration. Photosynthesis is a type of chemical reaction (endothermic) that absorbs energy. Transpiration results in evaporation which had a cooling effect. And over the course of time, plants build the soil, which helps the soil hold more water and grow more plants.
Correct, but the energy transfer for fixing carbon is less then transpiration (photosynthesis is relatively efficient, esp. the C4 route.). It’s important to differentiate between what’s good for people vs. the planet and short vs. long-term measures. For example, growing trees and other vegetation reduce atmospheric carbon and the greenhouse effect of trapping radiation, but this takes years. Painting buildings white makes cities cooler over a daily cycle for people by reflecting sunlight, whilst also reducing any carbon-based energy consumption for air conditioning etc, but doesn’t have a net impact if urban growth with non-renewable electrification continues. Obviously, it’s best that urban planners incorporate every practical measure wherever possible! https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230706-the-simple-ways-cities-can-adapt-to-heatwaves
Well put, Hart.
Let's also stop the sickening replacement of forests and arable land with solar and wind farms, as if we can extract, manufacture, and consume our way out of the predicament those activities caused in the first place, just to eek a few more years out of our overshot, overconsuming civilization at the expense of what's left of the biosphere.
When you say "an increase in plant cover...would quickly reduce incoming heat", do you mean reflected heat? Because the degree of vegetative cover doesn't affect the amount of solar radiation traveling through the atmosphere and heating the land or water.
Right. The amount of radiation does not change but the effect of the radiation does change. Plants take the sun’s energy and use it for photosynthesis and transpiration. Photosynthesis is a type of chemical reaction (endothermic) that absorbs energy. Transpiration results in evaporation which had a cooling effect. And over the course of time, plants build the soil, which helps the soil hold more water and grow more plants.
Correct, but the energy transfer for fixing carbon is less then transpiration (photosynthesis is relatively efficient, esp. the C4 route.). It’s important to differentiate between what’s good for people vs. the planet and short vs. long-term measures. For example, growing trees and other vegetation reduce atmospheric carbon and the greenhouse effect of trapping radiation, but this takes years. Painting buildings white makes cities cooler over a daily cycle for people by reflecting sunlight, whilst also reducing any carbon-based energy consumption for air conditioning etc, but doesn’t have a net impact if urban growth with non-renewable electrification continues. Obviously, it’s best that urban planners incorporate every practical measure wherever possible! https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230706-the-simple-ways-cities-can-adapt-to-heatwaves
Points well taken. Thanks.
I would say plant cover has a dramatic effect due to 1) shade and 2) the cooing effects of evaporation.
I think these factors are largely ignored in the mainstream conversation.
Also related, lets do what we can to avoid an increasing risk of wild fires...this short video is very enlightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDNNRFwAOMY&t=148s
What causes more wildfires, global warming or land degradation?
What causes more global warming, greenhouse gases or hot surfaces?
Land degradation, although addressing both is crucial for mitigating wildfire risk.
Greenhouse gases, but hot surfaces can contribute to local temperature increases.
[Note: this info was obtained via Meta AI]