Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Dennis Tate, Mar 7, 2021.
Hmm. Could conservation of existing forests fill that purpose?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It's much more complicated than that, as even this simple diagram will attest.
Answering the specific question you ask involves only the right side of the diagram. Of the 17% of solar energy radiated directly from the ground, 12% reaches space, while the other 5% is reabsorbed into the atmo.
In other words,
70% (12/17) escapes to space,
only 30% (5/17) is reabsorbed
by the atmo.
And that's an Earthly average. Over a desert, the amount escaping to space will be much higher - the dry atmo is free of haze and clouds. That's why it gets lethally cold in deserts at night. You can freeze to death. That heat is going straight back into space.
It took me two minutes of Googling to find an answer to your question. The take away here is that the way to help save the world is to educate yourself first, then think about what could be changed.
Yes.... in my opinion that is a real possibility.......
especially the rain forests..... for example in Brazil where so much rainforest has been flattened in order to grow more beef to take in foreign exchange.
The amount of both carbon as well as H2O that a full grown rain forest tree can take out of the atmosphere and store in a manner that is relatively safe to the climate and to animals and humans gets into some pretty serious numbers!
Now that is the type of answer to this question that I was hoping to receive. This gives me some serious food for thought!
Having given this some thought over the past hour or so......
my guess is that this option could well win out over deliberately turning deserts green through mega-scale desalination of ocean water as an alternative theory on stabilization of the climate........
due to cost effectiveness?!
Did you read anything that I or others wrote?
Greening deserts would add to the greenhouse effect. Sure, it might hold on to more carbon, but it would actually increase the temperature and yes, actually contribute to global warming.. Deserts reflect much of the heat from the sun right back out into space. Right through the atmosphere, because the atmosphere above deserts is dry, cloudless. There is not enough moisture in the atmosphere above deserts to actually trap the heat in, unlike over say a rainforest.
Deserts play a vital role in cooling the planet. That is why they are important. They reflect most of the heat back out into space. What little residual heat that might remain "in the atmosphere" is much less than how much they actually reflect back out to space.
You have it back to front. Deserts actually reflect more heat back out into space is "trapped in the atmosphere" above them. The air and atmosphere is dry above deserts, so that infrared heat can pass right through it.
It's not that you are biased. It is that you have done zero research on the role of deserts and why they are actually important. It seems to me as though you have approached this along the lines of 'deserts are hot, so they must contribute to global warming'.. The opposite is actually the case. What you are proposing will actually cause more damage to the planet.
If you green deserts, you will actually contribute to global warming.
Deserts act as this planet's heat vents back out into space.
As I noted previously, slowing global warming will take changing how we do things. That means less reliance on coal and fossil fuels, for example. We contribute more to global warming than deserts do. We are the problem. Not deserts.
While the ice on the land based Greenland Ice Pack was essentially free of dirt, soot and ash from industry it did reflect a high percentage of sunlight back out into outer space.
But now that the Greenland Ice Pack is significantly dirtier......
it is absorbing a much higher percentage of sunlight.
The lightest coloured desert on earth is unlikely to be reflecting as much
sunlight as Greenland did twenty years ago.
This detail is relevant to the whole formula for many reason....
one obvious one is that the cracking and sliding of ice off the land based Greeland Ice Pack is likely to increase over the coming years and decades.
I liked Al Gore's film but I considered it to be merely a good place to begin the discussion......
not the final word on how best to address climate change.
No... I did not read all of what you wrote.....
Once I read one or two statements that I had a response to I may as well leave you with those because we
are getting a heard start on deep scrubbing and waxing rooms this year due to there being no students
at the school at this time.
Greenland Ice Sheet Getting Darker
This was written in 2011 and 2012 was a record breaking year for melting of ice off Greenland.
Which begs the question as to why you think it's viable to large scale "green" one of the few remaining mechanisms the planet has to reflect heat back into space?
Oh hey.. another subject change..
Your writing on this topic seems to suffer from the same flaws in logic as I see in the majority of supposed experts on climate change who are in good favour with CNN.......
Mr. Al Gore's theory in my opinion is seriously flawed because:
1. the speed at which the land based Greenland Ice Pack might well crack and slide into the ocean is assumed to be not for another century or two..... but I think that that logic is flawed..... partly due to the evidence that methane is already beginning to be released from the permafrost in the Arctic at high levels.
That is one possible explanation for why the Arctic seems to be warming much more rapidly than any other place on earth.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
2. Mr. Al Gore's film assumes that some sort of carbon tax or cap and trade system has a least a century or two to accomplish the goals that are in his mind...... but several factors indicate that that is terribly unrealistic :
2a China has been deliberately INCREASING their carbon footprint so that when their people all over the world talk the world into agreement on some variation of a Paris Accord they stand to earn billions and even trillions in carbon credits...... because after behaving badly for two decades... they will easily be able to make the numbers look great for them rather rapidly.
2b. Lawyers with a background in the environmental sciences and bureaucrats and politicians already have less than ethical plans to hijack any variation of a Paris Accord as soon as they can get it ratified in the USA. A carbon tax or cap and trade system will end up accomplishing little of what Mr. Al Gore, (and his professor who taught the idea to him), may have intended for it to do.
3. Mr. Al Gore's theory on a carbon tax or cap and trade system goes back several decades further than the ideas of his professor. It actually goes back close to a century to a plan to link the fiat currencies of all nations to OIL....... .rather than gold!
Any variation of a carbon tax or cap and trade system will accomplish a goal that has been out there for nearly a hundred years...... .and the theory is obsolete for a number of reasons..... one of them is that the people who came up with the idea are far too influenced by the elitism of Thomas Malthus.
The following documentary does a brilliant job of showing the actual origin of the theories that have resulted in Mr. Al Gore's ideas on a carbon tax or cap and trade system.
Why Big Oil Conquered the World
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I am convinced that our situation in some ways is a lot more serious than Mr. Al Gore thought that it was so I like the idea of turning significant parts of many deserts green because this will directly address the threat posed by rising ocean levels.
I think that this author did a better job of describing the reality that we are actually in........
and it does not take a genius to figure out that any variation of a carbon tax or cap and trade system will simply not work
quickly enough to address these concerns.
Turning deserts green on the other hand combined with efforts to put carbon into the soil on a massive scale ........
to my thinking appears to answer problems that the promoters of any variation of a carbon tax or cap and trade system are failing to address.
So sayeth the obsessive compulsive who is having a panic attack and suggesting giant desalination plants be built to 'green' deserts, thereby destroying them completely, not to mention create toxic sludge of brine on a large scale which will affect oceans and land, not to mention destroy the massive carbon sinks that exist beneath deserts, because his suburb might suffer inundation from global warming and who is getting all of his ideas from a bike coach in South America or something and a mysterious character who claims to be a member of the US intelligence online...
Frankly, how can experts even hope to compete with that level of expertise...?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tell me, if you have a heart attack, do you call your car mechanic? Or your local baker?
None of which has anything to do with your arguments regarding desalination plants and greening deserts artificially on a large scale...
You are so obsessed with carbon that you are completely ignoring the fact that deserts act like a balance to forested areas that create a greenhouse effect. Deserts cool the planet down. The reason scientists are concerned natural greening of the Sahara that is caused by climate change, is because it will directly affect the Sahara's ability to reflect that heat back out into space.
Not to mention the fact that you are still to understand the role deserts play in ensuring plant life continues to live around the globe.. Desert sands that are picked up by the wind fertilise microscopic plant life in the ocean as well as large swathes of natural forests around the world.
These are all proven facts.
Again, this certifiable quack does not post here. You are quoting his posts from years ago from other forums and treating it like gospel.
Deserts, as has been explained numerous times now, are giant carbon sinks already. It's why people don't want others to start digging down or disturbing the ground and sand in deserts.. The carbon is trapped in the water tables under the sand.. So you don't want to remove that sand and disturb what is below. Doing so will release thousands of years worth of carbon stored there. Not to mention deserts reflect more heat back through the atmosphere and into space, whereas forests cause a greenhouse effect, thereby warming the planet..
But something something about practicalities applies here..
Now, you are going on and on about greening deserts to increase 'putting carbon into the soil'.. Now, I am emphasising the word "soil" for a pretty obvious reason.
Soils that are more effective as carbon sinks are actually clay soils.
Do you see the problem with what you are suggesting?
Now, lets consider what trees you would plant... The giant redwoods in California are some of the word's best when it comes to storing carbon - as long as the tree survives and does not fall down and is never logged.. How well do you see those trees growing in sand and sandy soil - ie - not rich organic clay soil? Other cool climate trees are second to those trees when it comes to carbon storage.. The Amazon stores less carbon than the redwoods in California.
So you want to plant temperate to cool climate trees in deserts with sand instead of soil.. You can't remove the sand, because doing so would release thousands of years worth of carbon into the atmosphere.. On a giant scale mind you.. You can't use any polymers to bind the sand to turn it into a type of clay soil, because that needs to be refreshed every few years and only goes down to a depth of 1 or so metres..
That's just addressing the practicalities of what you keep repeating over and over again despite the evidence that shows you would effectively cause more global warming instead of reducing it..
I'm not even touching on the horrific environmental impact of the sea of toxic brine that would result from "desalination on a large scale", that you can't bury, because it would destroy the water table, cause salinity and basically make huge tracts of land toxic waste dumps that nothing will grow in, nor am I touching on the fact that your plan would destroy existing forests and microscopic plant life in oceans and on land that rely on that desert sand from the atmosphere to fertilise them, thereby destroying carbon sinks that already exist (not to mention you will also destroy the carbon sinks in deserts as well).. In effect, you'd destroy all our existing carbon sinks, cause further global warming, destroy land and oceans, as well as ecosystems and plant and wildlife, just to create a carbon sink in deserts with trees and massive desalination plants..
That's your trade off.
Does this sound viable to you?
About a decade or so I read that Dr. James Hansen stated that
the last time that atmospheric temperatures rose by three degrees.....
... ocean levels rose by about twenty five meters over four centuries........
I believe that the evidence indicates we are facing a similar scenario.
I am not very worried about disturbing the habitat for the
.... if by doing so we set in motion a series of events that could well
save the lives of billions of people because ocean levels rising by
a meter or so every twenty years is a scenario that any variation of a carbon tax
or cap and trade system DOES NOT get us prepared for.
Deliberately turning deserts green through mega-scale desalination of ocean water though could well
alleviate the issue of oceans rising by a meter every two decades.
Do you think that Dr. James Hansen was seriously off in his assessment of what happened
the last time that atmospheric temperatures rose by three degrees?
One option to deal with the left over brine is to fully dry out the brine and use the sea salt for
It would literally make the planet warmer that much faster.
Bay of Fundy, right? Hope you can swim.
I honestly do think that you are incorrect.......
but one of the main reasons why I began this discussion is because I believe
that the Isthmus of Chignecto between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick here in Canada will likely
play a role of warning all owners of real estate all over the world that is vulnerable to rising ocean levels.
I personally do believe that a multiplier effect will continue in the range of one thousand to fifteen hundred percent
for the high tide levels along the eastern Bay of Fundy.
I believe this due to the fact that the Bay of Fundy funnels tidal water into a more and more narrow area plus the fact that
The Bay of Fundy is more than ninety four kms long (151 miles), the water from the following high tide piles on top of the
waters from the previous high tide before they can fully drain from the Bay.
If and when the Isthmus of Chignecto largely floods during high tide then we will know that the world should have
a number of years to come up with a response to climate change that will quickly address the threat of rising ocean levels.
Personally.... I am certain that no variation of a carbon tax or cap and trade system would actually address rising ocean levels
I am hoping that the trend to deliberately turn deserts green really takes off in a big way in all nations that have a lot of desert.
So the Isthmus of Chignecto serves as something of a warning to everybody in New Orleans, New York, New Jersey, The Netherlands,
The Maldive Islands, London, Bangladesh, Miami and all areas that are especially vulnerable to rising ocean levels.
When could Nova Scotia become an island?
You should read this:
The effects of greening would be similar to what they are discussing in that study.
The sand of the Sahara, for example, is very reflective, and it's because of that that it is able to reflect the majority of the heat back out into space. The dust is also picked up by the wind and carried out over the Atlantic Ocean and through to the Amazon, where then falls and provides vital nutrients. The Sahara Desert also plays a vital role in weather patterns around the world. This is established fact.
Whether you agree or not is frankly beside the point.
People like you who propose greening deserts are literally dooming us to fail spectacularly.
And here is why.
Planting giant trees that are unsuited to a) the sand and b) the local climate would fail in one instance. If you try to remove the dust/sand/entisol (LOL!) you would be releasing 10,000 or so years worth of stored carbon into the atmosphere and that by any definition would be a huge no no. So you cannot remove the sand. Nor can you disturb it or try to tap into the under ground water reservoirs as they are the carbon sinks. So by your frankly dumb proposition, you build giant desalination plants to water the large trees that actually cannot grow in that climate or sand, while creating a toxic sludge that would poison land and sea.. You keep saying that it's going to store carbon in the soil... While ignoring the soil required for this to occur is actually clay soil...
Moving on.. Setting aside the realities listed above, let's just say you manage to plant those trees.. The sand that is vital for the survival of the Amazon forest and microscopic plant life in the Atlantic (which act as one of this planet's biggest carbon sink), will no longer be available, and the Amazon forest and the microscopic plant life in the Atlantic will die without those nutrients from sand.. Welp, there goes all that carbon stored.. Not to mention the Sahara plays a vital role in weather patterns around the world..
But it's not finished.. You see, the trees you seem to want to plant in the Sahara would not be reflecting the heat back into space like the sand does. Oh no. The trees would essentially trap that heat, alter the weather pattern over the Sahara, and cause rain to fall.. Huzzah you might say? No. This is bad. Because what was once this planet's biggest reflector of heat back into space has now become one of heat's biggest heat sinks..
In a recent study, we used an advanced Earth system model to closely examine how Saharan solar farms interact with the climate. Our model takes into account the complex feedbacks between the interacting spheres of the world’s climate – the atmosphere, the ocean and the land and its ecosystems. It showed there could be unintended effects in remote parts of the land and ocean that offset any regional benefits over the Sahara itself.
Covering 20% of the Sahara with solar farms raises local temperatures in the desert by 1.5°C according to our model. At 50% coverage, the temperature increase is 2.5°C. This warming is eventually spread around the globe by atmosphere and ocean movement, raising the world’s average temperature by 0.16°C for 20% coverage, and 0.39°C for 50% coverage. The global temperature shift is not uniform though – the polar regions would warm more than the tropics, increasing sea ice loss in the Arctic. This could further accelerate warming, as melting sea ice exposes dark water which absorbs much more solar energy.
This massive new heat source in the Sahara reorganises global air and ocean circulation, affecting precipitation patterns around the world. The narrow band of heavy rainfall in the tropics, which accounts for more than 30% of global precipitation and supports the rainforests of the Amazon and Congo Basin, shifts northward in our simulations. For the Amazon region, this causes droughts as less moisture arrives from the ocean. Roughly the same amount of additional rainfall that falls over the Sahara due to the surface-darkening effects of solar panels is lost from the Amazon. The model also predicts more frequent tropical cyclones hitting North American and East Asian coasts.
Some important processes are still missing from our model, such as dust blown from large deserts. Saharan dust, carried on the wind, is a vital source of nutrients for the Amazon and the Atlantic Ocean. So a greener Sahara could have an even bigger global effect than our simulations suggested.
The same affect would occur if you planted trees in the Sahara. Replace the words 'solar panels' with trees.
"When you green the Sahara, there's less dust, the air clears, the tropical sun beats down on the ocean right on this spot. And the reason I was fascinated by that was I said, That [spot is] where hurricanes form that we experience here in the United States."
We don’t really have a time machine or a teleportation device. But scientists like Stager and the other members of the team who shaped this study can look into the past and use that data to help us predict the future. They can see connections like this one that were invisible.
"It looks like having the Sahara desert there now protects the East Coast of the United States from hurricanes, at least from as many as we might otherwise have," Stager said.
Research like this also gives a sense of the scale at which humans are reshaping the planet, changing not just the distant arctic or coastal sea level, but possibly redefining the climate and the seasonal weather for whole continents, including our own.
"The earth's climate system is incredibly interconnected and complex so that changes in one part of the world have potentially massive effects elsewhere in the world. As we now manipulate the earth's climate unintentionally with our green house gases, we're really playing with fire."
What I am trying to say, nicely, is that your idea is dumb.
Because instead of expecting humans to alter what resources we use, you are demanding we change the planet, which could lead to disastrous effects. The inherent selfishness is obscene. Then again, I shouldn't expect anything more from an anti-vaxxer.
In my defence I honestly had never visualized covering twenty percent of the land mass of the Sahara Desert with solar panels........
I personally was thinking in terms of merely a sufficient number of solar panels to desalinate the specific amount of sea water that
would be needed at each Sahara Forest Project facility.
If I remember correctly this proposal to put a huge number of solar panels on the Sahara originated with Japanese scientists not Israeli and Norwegian like the Sahara Forest Project.
You should eschew personal beliefs in favour of education.
"The amplitude of the Bay of Fundy tides has been observed to slowly increase, based on a study of long-term water measurements from tidal gauges from Boston to Halifax and throughout the Gulf of Maine (Greenberg et al., 2012). Their conclusions are that by 2100 a combination of VLM and amplitude change would increase the amplitude of Bay of Fundy tides by 30cm. Their findings are based on a VLM component estimated at 20 cm per century, hence leaving 10 cm for the amplitude change."
You sound like a fat heart patient who doesn't want to lose weight because it's too hard, so he just plans for a heart transplant.
The only link that I have to the article
Good points... but I ran into some statistics a number of years ago that if true......
have some serious implications for this whole subject.
On one level this would help to explain the massive amount of melting of the land based Greenland Ice Sheet and the world's glaciers but......
only a relatively little rise in average ocean levels.
On another level IF... the formula were to shift and IF.. the West Antarctic Ice Sheet were to begin a massive amount of cracking and sliding... then......
the world could experience rather rapidly rising ocean levels???????
The only link to the article ("Expanded Discussion of The HAB Theory, Gershom Gale) is actually on another discussion forum posted by some guy named DennisTate!?
Good point... I am hopeful that the alternative theory of turning deserts green plus putting carbon into the soil will involve less conflict and less personal sacrifice than what is implied by many versions of a carbon tax or cap and trade system!
Separate names with a comma.