A Bigger contributor to GW than Carbon Dioxide.

[Windguy]

I have been thinking about this again as there are unknowns in the climate change science that even the IPCC admits. It's mainly the speed of climate change, as by the Vostok ice cores it is suppose to be 1.4K higher rather than 0.7K. But the actual speed is a guess since we see far greater delays in the past. I am starting to believe we should be heating up at a slower rate than observed by even four fold the time. I could be quite wrong but here's guessing.

Instead of just looking at carbon dioxide and other global warming forcing gases. (No it's not the sun, or the planets or volcanos) We should be looking at the evaporation/rain cycle speed, or the reason it might be slowing down, (deforestation?).

The slower the evaporation and rain cycle the less it rains and the more humid it stays and the less it evaporates. So we need a cooler ocean to force to rain out and lower the humidity average, and more trees to increase the evaporation volume. The evaporation volume increase will speed up the evaporation cycle by itself. An extreme version is the monsoonal rains as the afternoon cools.

The evaporation rate and the humidity levels can also explain the increased heat during the night and the warmer winters.

I still believe global warming is taking place, but as bang for your bucks, deforestation should be the number one problem tackled by far. My evidence?? the massive impact a strong la Niña had on the planet.

Why this also explains the warmer nights is cooler the night gets the more clouds that form and then during the day the warmer it gets the less clouds hang around. By having a faster evaporative cycle clouds form at random instead based upon the ocean breeze hitting the land wind.

So we need to plant more trees straight away, then worry about fossil fuel.

The drawing adds a net idea to cool ocean winds and therefore create more regular rain.

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by Windguy

I have been thinking about this again as there are unknowns in the climate change science that even the IPCC admits. It's mainly the speed of climate change, as by the Vostok ice cores it is suppose to be 1.4K higher rather than 0.7K. But the actual speed is a guess since we see far greater delays in the past. I am starting to believe we should be heating up at a slower rate than observed by even four fold the time. I could be quite wrong but here's guessing.

Instead of just looking at carbon dioxide and other global warming forcing gases. (No it's not the sun, or the planets or volcanos) We should be looking at the evaporation/rain cycle speed, or the reason it might be slowing down, (deforestation?).

The slower the evaporation and rain cycle the less it rains and the more humid it stays and the less it evaporates. So we need a cooler ocean to force to rain out and lower the humidity average, and more trees to increase the evaporation volume. The evaporation volume increase will speed up the evaporation cycle by itself. An extreme version is the monsoonal rains as the afternoon cools.

The evaporation rate and the humidity levels can also explain the increased heat during the night and the warmer winters.

I still believe global warming is taking place, but as bang for your bucks, deforestation should be the number one problem tackled by far. My evidence?? the massive impact a strong la Niña had on the planet.

Why this also explains the warmer nights is cooler the night gets the more clouds that form and then during the day the warmer it gets the less clouds hang around. By having a faster evaporative cycle clouds form at random instead based upon the ocean breeze hitting the land wind.

So we need to plant more trees straight away, then worry about fossil fuel.

The drawing adds a net idea to cool ocean winds and therefore create more regular rain.

Warming or cooling depends on the net energy, or power flow. That is a combination of incoming solar, albedo, and outgoing radiation. The water cycle is where there is much going on. It provides both a mechanism of nonradiative energy transport to the upper atmosphere and the ability to shield the earth from incoming solar energy by increasing albedo. Apparently, gcm models are incredibly crude in the real.

Whether deforestation hurts or helps is not a simple question nor does it have a simple or obvious answer.

In fact, there may not be an answer. Looking at some data here recently, it seems that in 2004 there appears to be a dive in the energy balance for perihelion (month of jan) and an increase at aphelion (month of july). Prior to 2004, there was a avg of around 10 W/m^2 net absorption going on for the last 30 years. There was also a july net emission of more like 3 W/m^2 over that same period. In 2004, the july net emission started to drop to around 1 or less W/m^2 and the jan net absorption dropped to under 5 W/m^2. If one looks at only the last 3 yrs of data, it would appear totally different than the previous 30 yrs.

[Wowbagger]

Glogal warming will prove to be more of a great thing than a bad thing, because of the water cycle. More heat equals more rains. It's very simple. Rain forests are that forests that holds the most biomass and biodiversity. As the rain in rain forest suggests, there's a lot of rain in rain forests. While vegetation needs a lot of water, vegetation reject a lot of water also. Because of respiration(6 CO2 + 12 H2O → C6H12O6 + 6 O2 + 6 H2O), plants recirculate water and provide water for more plants. Deforestation stop this recirculation of water, that's why it's a major problem.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Glogal warming will prove to be more of a great thing than a bad thing, because of the water cycle. More heat equals more rains. It's very simple. Rain forests are that forests that holds the most biomass and biodiversity. As the rain in rain forest suggests, there's a lot of rain in rain forests. While vegetation needs a lot of water, vegetation reject a lot of water also. Because of respiration(6 CO2 + 12 H2O → C6H12O6 + 6 O2 + 6 H2O), plants recirculate water and provide water for more plants. Deforestation stop this recirculation of water, that's why it's a major problem.

Actually the collapse of the Amazon rainforest (and the Boreal forest) is a likely consequence of about 3 degrees of warming. Give or take half a degree.

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Glogal warming will prove to be more of a great thing than a bad thing, because of the water cycle. More heat equals more rains. It's very simple. Rain forests are that forests that holds the most biomass and biodiversity. As the rain in rain forest suggests, there's a lot of rain in rain forests. While vegetation needs a lot of water, vegetation reject a lot of water also. Because of respiration(6 CO2 + 12 H2O → C6H12O6 + 6 O2 + 6 H2O), plants recirculate water and provide water for more plants. Deforestation stop this recirculation of water, that's why it's a major problem.

Add that to a warm ocean and there is the mix to help create the 1000 year drought Australia had for the last 7 years. I'm not denying AGW, I just believe we have seen more than just greenhouse gas produced conditions based upon deforestation mixed with warmer oceans.

As you saw from Bored Wombat we have now a bad mix, high CO2 that helps lower plants H2O evaporation by plants evolving with less stomata (they don't need the rest to capture enough CO2). Warmer oceans and deforestation.

Because of the warmer oceans we now have less of a method using cold ocean winds to force rain out of the skies. Meaning higher humidity and less evaporation and rain.

The slowing down of the evaporation and rain cycle can be the biggest problem we are facing. And it is planet wide since we've been cutting down trees for the last 10000 years.

A thing that I have just written for evaluation before lobbying.

Speeding up Evaporative Cooling to Minimise the Symptoms of Climate Change

The only real attack on climate change is a three pronged attack. One is to lower CO2 emissions, two is to help remove CO2 from the atmosphere and three is to minimise the symptoms of climate change until it is under control. What is not considered with global climate change is there is local climate change taking effect all over the planet as well. One such local climate change is occurring on the east side of Australia due to deforestation. By local and global climate change multiplying together the east coast of Australia has been quite badly affected over the past 8 years and even though we have a slight respite from La Niña, even the July floods in 2007 can be predicted by adding both effects together. So this as a method of minimising the symptoms of global climate change quickly by changing the local climate change.

Basic Facts

The lower the temperature difference between ocean and land winds, the less clouding and rainfall occurs and the higher the humidity before clouding and rainfall occurs
The higher the humidity, the lower the evaporation rate
The more trees the higher the evaporation rate
The higher the humidity, the higher the overall temperature
The lower the evaporation rate the higher the overall temperature
Constantly high humidity creates clouding of a night time and clear skies of a day time, meaning higher temperatures further still

Global climate change is quite easily explained, but how it causes drought and excessive rainfall is by the heating of the ocean creating a less of a difference between the cold air from the ocean meeting the warm air of the land forcing the moisture out as rain. Because the humidity is not forced out as easily, it slows down the evaporative cooling cycle since it is based upon the percentage of humidity in the atmosphere. The extra humidity is also a cause of extra heating even though it is only a by-product of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Flooding occurs by combining dry grounds and raining from higher humidity levels since the oceans colds winds are not forcing the humidity out.

Local climate change can occur by many different ways, the island heat effect is one such effect that denialists have used to explain the USA's temperature increases on their weather stations. The main local climate change taking effect in Australia is deforestation over the last 200 years. Trees are known to evaporate more water than even lakes due to the surface area of the amount of leaves they have. So the more trees cut down, the less evaporation occurs, the less evaporative cooling over the land, the slower the evaporation cycle occurs and the more droughts and flooding that will occur. Because of the less evaporative cooling we will get hotter more humid days than ever before.

As you can see both multiplied together creates a more drastic result such as the "1000 year drought" we had, and the excessive rainfall in July. Current events are only caused by a major la Niña due to the excessive melting of the Arctic in 2007. Those conditions can be emulated by a couple of plans creating a far better local climate change that may also help alleviate a fair bit of the effects of global climate change upon Australia.

The Plan

The first is simple, start planting trees, and lots of them. We need to speed up that evaporative cooling cycle, so the more trees, the cooler the land and the more rain. Besides that the trees can go towards crediting Australia's emissions.

The second is to place nets above the water in the ocean near the coasts where the waves splash them, there can be additional apparatuses that would help splash the nets. The wind passing over the nets force evaporative cooling on the wind. The wind then gains a greater air temperature difference between the land and the ocean and helps force out the rain. The reason why we need to create these nets is to increase the oceans surface area for evaporation.

These will lead to lower Australian temperatures, greater and more evenly spread rainfall over the duration of the year. Neither should be high maintenance and the trees are all okay, but if we see any forms of problems concerning the evaporative nets then they are just as easily pulled down.

Faster evaporative cooling can also lead to helping radiant heat leaving the atmosphere by transferring the heated molecules into the upper troposphere before radiating therefore giving the radiation more chance of leaving the planet. So by speeding up the evaporative cooling cycle we can also slow down the carbon dioxide global warming taking place which the oceans capacity for heat energy has slowed down our climbing global temperatures. Based upon the Vostok ice cores, we should be at 1.4 Kelvin increase in global temperatures rather than the 0.7 Kelvin we are at now. So evaporative cooling will help extend further the slow build up of energy in the ocean. Based upon the fact the ocean has absorbed 14.5*10^22 joules of energy since the 1950's (the NOAA website). Besides that, higher rainfalls can increase the rate at which carbon dioxide is dissolved into the ocean.

I am not an expert but I believe by diverting funds from desalination plants and the buying of water permits to netting and tree plantation, we would gain a far greater guarantee of drought proofing Australia. It is also a far more natural solution.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

Actually the collapse of the Amazon rainforest (and the Boreal forest) is a likely consequence of about 3 degrees of warming. Give or take half a degree.

The ability of species to survive depends on their ability to adapt. Species have a gene pool diversity and the can move geographically. Thinking that a small 3 degree change in temperature will mean forests will collapse is slightly ridiculous.

Many rain forests exist at the equator, where it should be very hot. Yet at other places where it's not has hot there are deserts. There reasons for that is that temperature isn't very important. Electromagnetic energy is essential for plants, but so is water, and in deserts the absence of vegetation is caused by the insufficient presence of water.

The water cycle start with the evaporation of water from the ocean, but also from the transpiration of plants. I think transpiration of plants account for about 1/5 of all condensed water, so you can imagine that the lacks of vegetation in one place can greatly increase the aridity of surrounding areas.

So, we should be for global warming, but against deforestation.

[Wowbagger]

During the day, if it's very hot, there won't be as much of condensation, because the greater energy prevent water molecules from forming H-bonds. This doesn't matter however, because they will do during the night. The humidity in the air doesn't just disappear because it's hot. Eventually it will fall down as rain or condensate directly on the plants during night time.

The amount of water released in the atmosphere by evapotranspiration is the same amount of water released from the atmosphere by rainfalls if the humidity saturation is constant.

When you say "The lower the temperature difference between ocean and land winds, the less clouding and rainfall occurs and the higher the humidity before clouding and rainfall occurs", it really doesn't mean there's less rainfalls. It means simply that less clouds are forming somewhere comparatively to somewhere else. Let's say that at the current temperature, 1 cloud forms oversea and 2 clouds form over the continent. If global warming occurs, we could have 2 clouds forming overseas and 3 clouds forming over the continent. So the relative amount of clouds forming over the continent, in the global warming case, is lower, but the absolution amount is higher. What we care about is the absolute amount, not the relative one.

With convection, you'll always get clouds no matter what. Water can't stay in the gaseous form forever. So the more energy, the more evapotranspiration and convection there is, and more rain.

[Windguy]

I believe the planet is dealing with two evils, not one. We have to consider the evaporation rain cycle as one problem and the greenhouse effect as the other problem. What then happens is both multiplies together, instead of just adding together to create this monster of an effect that has made climate change so noticeable of late.

Of what Wowbagger has stated the heat in the atmosphere isn't really a problem for most plant life. But adding the oceans heat and the excessive CO2 and you do get a toxic mix to plants. That's because plants won't survive a change in rain conditions. There is small problems concerning temperature alone such as frostbite and burning (you mainly see this on extremely hot summer months where grass turns black).

In theory it is also possibly provable to show deforestation can cause the oceans to heat up as higher humidity levels will slow evaporation over the planet and therefore it is like a marathon runner that stops sweating, he'll heat up inside. The only real proof of that though is to see if there has been a marked reduction in the overall rainfall right across the planet.

So both can be proven to be the cause of the heating of this planet, and ever since La Nina has been around, it shows how much deforestation does affect the planet. So if we go on a massive replanting drive we could help offset and slow down AGW enough so we can stick to the normal reduction targets without drastic actions beyond that.

Here is a basic graph of what I believe is happening, not based upon any scientific data though, yet. All I am trying to show by it is the more trees and the colder the ocean the lower the humidity and more chance of rain you get. Obviously a dry day doesn't rain, but will help speed up the evaporation rain cycle. You can see the differences, but over the entire planet trees probably make up 10 to 20 percent and the ocean makes up to 70%. So those averages won't be anywhere near as noticeable except for the speed of the evaporation rain cycle, which the rainfall drop has been blamed purely from AGW. It also shows how North Queensland doesn't get that much hotter than NSW around summer time as the monsoonal season has less humidity around the hottest times of the day.

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

During the day, if it's very hot, there won't be as much of condensation, because the greater energy prevent water molecules from forming H-bonds. This doesn't matter however, because they will do during the night. The humidity in the air doesn't just disappear because it's hot. Eventually it will fall down as rain or condensate directly on the plants during night time.

The amount of water released in the atmosphere by evapotranspiration is the same amount of water released from the atmosphere by rainfalls if the humidity saturation is constant.

When you say "The lower the temperature difference between ocean and land winds, the less clouding and rainfall occurs and the higher the humidity before clouding and rainfall occurs", it really doesn't mean there's less rainfalls. It means simply that less clouds are forming somewhere comparatively to somewhere else. Let's say that at the current temperature, 1 cloud forms oversea and 2 clouds form over the continent. If global warming occurs, we could have 2 clouds forming overseas and 3 clouds forming over the continent. So the relative amount of clouds forming over the continent, in the global warming case, is lower, but the absolution amount is higher. What we care about is the absolute amount, not the relative one.

With convection, you'll always get clouds no matter what. Water can't stay in the gaseous form forever. So the more energy, the more evapotranspiration and convection there is, and more rain.

Yes we do only care about the absolute amount. Now to get clouds and rain you need humidity to be pushed past 100%, so cool nights and/or cool ocean breezes do that well. By having more trees, you see the speed it gets to near 100% humidity happens a lot more quickly so the cool down of an afternoon could trigger the rain more often. Therefore lowering the overall humidity average. Planet wide we maybe talking only 0.5% but that and AGW could really multiply together and cause what we are seeing quite easily.

[Wowbagger]

Condensation don't form at 100% humidity, but at any percentage except zero. Condensation form when hydrogen bonds between and other non-covalent bonds form between water-water molecules or water-some other stuff. If there's too much kinetic energy(heat), the hydrogen bonds are broken as soon as they form, so no condensation happens. But when the water molecules raises in the atmosphere due to convection, they cool down, loose some kinetic energy, and it enables them to form hydrogen bonds. A high amount of humidity would accelerate the cloud formation process and condensation rate, but a low humidity wouldn't stop the formation of clouds, it would just mean the condensation rate is lower. Even if there isn't a lot of water molecules, they eventually collide with each other and form hydrogen bonds.

Also, if you have a warm ocean, there's be more kinetic energy at the surface, and it'll force convection. Higher up in the atmosphere, it's colder due to lower pressure and less absorbed energy from the sun so more so condensation happen. So if the oceans are warmer, there should be more clouds forming.