I’ve lived in three american states, including six years in New York during the Dubbya years including the 9/11 disaster.
Trump was constantly in the public eye for either bankruptcies (at least 11 to date, defaulting in $billions) or litigation. No philanthropy or anything good that I can remember.
Like so many others, I laughed when he was nominated by the republicans in 2016 because I could not imagine anyone voting for him as president.
Now that he is in his second term, I don’t think we have seen the worst of him yet.
I’ve lived first hand during Baby Bush attack on science in 2004, but this attack by American Fascist is more severe. Perhaps some recall Baby Bush attack on science then. Frankly I hope that entire world chooses to isolate US till t Rump and tea party no more. I hope all the other countries assist scientists to leave US as written in NY Times.
I think Trump will go down in history as the person who initiated the US' decline as a superpower and who enabled China to become number 1. But the thing is this doesn't help us. Yes I would love for Trump to get what he deserves and to see how he ruined his country for his personal gain, but this is all around bad for all of us.
I remember it well. I resolved then and there never to publish again in American journals. I got used to publishing in the European ones and never got around to rescinding that order to myself after sanity returned.
You are so right. It is as insane as Jews voting for Hitler, excuse the crass comparison but I can't find any better example.
The poor lower class is Trump's base, they cheer for him as he takes what little they have and distributes it to his 1% friends. It's so unbelievably kind numbing to witness this and you just cannot understand how it is possible that people are this dumb and chose to act 100% against their own interest. And they love him for making their lives worse. All because of words. All because of lies.
As a European, this is why we still learn so much about history.
Because we know that these things can happen so quickly. Americans believe they can't.
They cannot comprehend how easy it is for a strongman to manipulate simpletons into voting completely against what is good for them.
And they are experiencing it live, but they still don't get it.
What a dystopian world we have reached here.
At the end of this insanity tRump (love it) and his billionaire class friends will come out of it richer, the world will be paying another 50% of inflation, and we will have gotten another big step closer to total collapse. And they will still cheer for him, despite every single metric proving them wrong.
Great article, Richard. I must say that my extensive reading of relevant research tells me that a major change from petrol- or diesel-powered vehicles to EV’s will NOT save our planet from the current path of ruin. Earth scientists are at last acknowledging that human destruction of natural forests and shrub-lands, plus drainage of swamps and wetlands have caused approximately 80% of anthropogenic global warming and associated extreme weather events.
Thanks Michael. Yes, the problem is definitely bigger than EVs alone.
Are the articles you mention suggesting that CO2’s not a problem, or just that these land-use changes also need to be factored in? If the former, I’d be interested in seeing links to them.
I noted that one climate change model assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the cause of global warming and another assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the effect of global warming. Atmospheric CO2 generally correlates with global warming, and I conclude that we are seeing an interactive causation effect rather than one-way cause-effect. Water, ice and steam having different and relatively high specific thermal capacities are also significant factors in climate change. This topic is too big to discuss here.
Analysis of systematic biological processes operating to control our weather and climate indicates that if all the governments around the world do not embark on a concerted program to immediately start repairing the damage and loss of the Earth's biomass, sufficient to replace half of what has been lost, then merely reducing fossil fuel combustion will be too little too late. Vegetation provides a key factor in the Earth's biological processes which interact to maintain equilibrium and stable climate. Fossil fuel combustion provides carbon dioxide, steam, and heat which increase growth of plants and favourably increase the Earth's biomass to maintain equilibrium temperatures. Humans obstructed this process by removing vegetation faster than it could grow and increase naturally even accelerated by additional production of carbon dioxide, heat, and steam emitted when burning carbon from underground at climate sustainable rates.
But my emphasis was on interaction and SYNERGY of the two major factors when both are constantly increasing. Climate scientists do not seem to appreciate that. We do not have to stop deforestation nor fossil fuel combustion. Only control these climate changing factors at sustainable rates by controlling population growth. But capitalists do not want to do that because population growth is essential for business profits.
I agree that both are important, but I think 'they' (the IPCC) do consider both. They certainly talk a lot about both in their most recent assessment.
Our problem is that we're way out of equilibrium because CO2 locked up for millions of years is suddenly being liberated into the atmosphere. And at the same time the ability of the biosphere to soak it up is decreasing. We need afforestation, not the deforestation we're getting. But, most importantly, we need to hugely slow down the burning fossil fuels.
My conclusion: Both fossil fuel combustion and loss of biomass through deforestation/ land use changes contribute in combination towards global warming, with other minor factors like air pollution. But rather than describing these different contributions as additive factors (percentages on a pie-chart) I believe the situation is best described as the product (multiplication) of factors, with two major factors being fossil fuel combustion and loss of the earth’s biomass acting synergistically. In other words, loss of biomass enables and magnifies the warming effect of increasing fossil fuel combustion.
This can be understood in terms of system analysis:
Scenario #1: Without any loss of biomass, biochemical processes would normally maintain temperature and climate equilibrium if fossil fuel combustion takes place at a constant rate. This situation would merely increase atmospheric carbon dioxide and enhance growth in trees and shrubs sufficiently to return after many years to previous mean global temperature conditions. A new equilibrium condition would settle with slightly more atmospheric carbon dioxide, immeasurable decrease in atmospheric oxygen and more plants and trees but no increase in temperature.
Scenario #2: For a fixed rate of fossil fuel combustion and increasing destruction of forests, natural bush and grasslands, or progressively replacing natural forests with fast-growing commercial forest plantations and cycles of lumbering operations, return to equilibrium conditions is impossible. When biological processes for restoring equilibrium are progressively diminished, atmospheric carbon dioxide and the mean global temperature will continue to increase in proportion to the extent of biomass destruction.
Scenario #3: As above, biochemical processes would not be able to maintain temperature and climate equilibrium, while the rate of fossil fuel combustion constantly increases even if the earth’s natural biomass had been conserved. The climate system’s inertia has a lagging effect which retards and hinders return to equilibrium as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels progressively increase.
Scenario #4: The situation today is dire because we have both a progressively increasing rate of fossil fuel combustion and a progressively increasing destruction of climate stabilizing biomass. The concept “climate stabilizing biomass” is important.” Commercial crops with seasonal ploughing and forest plantations with cycles of lumbering operations restore only about one third of the contribution of natural forests towards reversing negative effects of fossil fuel combustion.
Conclusion: Loss of natural biomass enables and magnifies the warming effect of fossil fuel combustion as a product of these two factors rather than summation of factors. Therefore,
extensive and very costly ongoing forest plantations of fast-growing trees under strict conservation without lumbering in previously forested and new regions of the continents will be required to offset global warming if the rate of fossil fuel combustion is allowed to increase constantly. Alternatively, extensive restoration of forests in previously forested regions under strict conservation will be required to offset global warming if the rate of fossil fuel combustion merely continues at existing rates.
Scattering and diffusion of radiation in the atmosphere will not be a problem if lasers are used to generate strong waves of infrared light directed to an array of satellites. Besides measuring transmission retardation effects of carbon dioxide molecules, it will also measure the extent of scattering and diffusion from the presence of carbon dioxide molecules.
As you know, incoming versus outgoing radiation is a complex derivative of factors like air pollution especially plastic nano particles, atmospheric moisture, exhaust gases from jet airliners, Ozone, and recent unpublished geoengineering experiments, previously only by the military, to seed stratospheric clouds. I am looking for a measured factor which quantifies the extent by which increasing concentrations of CO2 in air retards heat radiation through the atmosphere from the ground to outer space. This is a KEY factor in greenhouse gas models. My understanding is that this factor has not been directly measured. A series of different values are hypothesized and then entered in complex correlations to see which hypothesized value best fits other data.
Richard, I thought about the method I described using data from IR radiation sensors on satellites versus corresponding data from low level or ground-based sensors to measure the extent by which increasing concentrations of CO2 in air retards heat radiation through the atmosphere. The extend of retardation is too small to be measured that way. But this key factor can be measured by using IR radiation generators and equipment on the ground to create artificial signals of pulsating IR radiation and have satellite sensors measure the reception of transmission in the frequency band absorbed by CO2 molecules versus the reception of transmission of signals in other frequencies. Then repeat the experiment at different times of the year. A set of satellites at different locations will reveal the big picture.
Interesting idea. I suspect a lot of energy wold be needed at the sources. In principle, you could alternatively use balloons. One difficulty would be making sure the field of view is small enough.
Is the number you're after the energy imbalance? The incoming solar energy is about 1000 W/m2 (of which about 300 Wm2 is absorbed by planet Earth). To maintain stability, the outgoing energy should match. But the outgoing energy is be smaller. That's the energy imbalance (or net radiation). In 2010 the imbalance was inferred to be about 0.5W/m2, but its getting worse. Current estimates are much larger, around 1 W/m2.
Satellites:
NASA's CERES suite of satellite sensors, along with other satellite instruments, measure the amount of solar radiation entering the Earth's atmosphere and the outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the Earth's surface. This allows for the calculation of the net radiation, which is the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation.
Regarding absorption and saturation, as I understand this, carbon dioxide molecules absorb energy until saturated and then release energy, causing scattering and diffusion of radiation, but I am talking about the overall result, namely transmitting energy more slowly through the atmosphere. All gases in the atmosphere absorb and then release heat with carbon dioxide theoretically releasing more slowly due to scattering and diffusion. Therefore, I am looking for a measured factor which quantifies the extent to which increasing concentrations of CO2 in air retards heat radiation through the atmosphere. My understanding is that this KEY factor is only estimated (guessed) from complex climate change models where factors like Radiative Forcing and Global Warming Potential are featured in statistical models as part of investigations trying to understand what is going on.
Sensors on satellites detect the amount of IR radiation emitted by the Earth's surface and the retardation effect of carbon dioxide should be measurable by comparing accumulated or aggregated day and night cycles of IR measurements from satellites over North America with seasonal variations of CO2 in the atmosphere versus corresponding low level or ground-based radiation sensors. But hours of searching the internet using Google’s A.I. tool did not help me find a direct measurement of this key factor. So, I conclude that retardation effects of IR radiation are only assumed from attempts to see what variables and data entered in climate change models match other measurable data over particular periods.
Climate change models are essentially complex correlations, and I think you agree that correlation does not prove causation. Scientists agree that while extensive deforestation can theoretically cause global warming, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide cannot theoretically cause extensive deforestation, although deforestation can cause droughts which aggravate forest fires. Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is merely the result of correlations and extrapolations to predict long-term temperature rise under certain conditions.
Although the rate of deforestation has slowed it nevertheless continues at slightly decreased rates. But the damage is done, so inertia in this deviation from equilibrium will last several years before climate monitoring data shows an improvement. For example, massive mechanized agricultural expansion during the 1930s in the United States, Canada, Germany, and Ukraine was only visible in the climate data of the 1940s.
As I stated in my video presentations, when considering the life cycle of commercial forest plantations, these contribute only about one third the effect of natural forests in stabilizing temperatures and rainfall. Experiments prove that burning fossil fuels in large greenhouses to produce small increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, heat and moisture produces corresponding increases in plant growth (biomass) which help moderate atmospheric temperature. The key factor in the equation for explaining global warming is changes in total global biomass accumulated over each year.
Inspection of data shows that average global temperatures generally correlate with total deforestation and other contributing Land Use Changes apart from atmospheric carbon dioxide. But climatologists seem to minimize greenhouse experiments and wider biological factors while they focus on their atmospheric gas theories.
The cause of global warming is better investigated as “interactive causation” with amplification and damping effects complicating the picture. If we had a directly measured and quantified figure for the extent to which increasing concentrations of CO2 in air retards heat energy radiation through the atmosphere, then non-linear multi-factorial analysis will point to two or three credible factors (like deforestation, land use changes, atmospheric CO2 and air pollution) which can be sensibly measured and contrasted in terms of their respective influences on global warming. Until then I see Land Use Changes and deforestation as our major problem.
There’s nothing different about co2 from other gases. It continuously emits radiation at the same wavelengths as it absorbs. The emission rate depends on the It warns warming
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization approximately 37% of the Earth's land mass is now dedicated to agriculture. This includes both cropland (12%) and permanent meadows and pastures (25%). In addition, urban areas comprise approximately 3% of the Earth's land surface. Scientists have built large experimental greenhouses to model global warming and study its effects on ecosystems and plant life. However, I don’t believe greenhouses reflect the complexity of the planet and results would have to be interpreted with deep insight and cautionary notes.
Thanks for your detailed reply, Richard. I questioned how much outgoing IR radiation rate is retarded when CO2 reaches 435 ppm versus outgoing IR radiation rate when CO2 was 256 ppm or less. I cannot find any consensus of figures which climatologists provide for measuring or calculating the change in IR radiation rate due to absorption and scattering. The models seem extremely complex and according to scientific debates on this forum, no one really knows.
You wrote: “There’s a very high correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature.” I am looking for a test of correlation between mean global temperature and all Land Use Changes? Or better still multi-factorial analysis of variables. Have you seen any?
During the years leading up to WWII great advances in mechanized agriculture across the USA, Canada and Germany took place but when they discovered how that changed the climate, they were forced to plant millions of trees which reduced heat and evaporation and calmed dust storms.
Here is an example of one of my sources: "Locally at all latitudes, forest biophysical impacts far outweigh CO2 effects, promoting local climate stability by reducing extreme temperatures in all seasons and times of day. The importance of forests for both global climate change mitigation and local adaptation by human and non-human species is not adequately captured by current carbon-centric metrics, particularly in the context of future climate warming."
Virtually all carbon stored in all plants will eventually return to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide given the equilibrium which exists during our two millennia on the earth. If humans progressively reduce plant cover (biomass) over the earth, warmer air will speed up the process of carbon dioxide returning to the atmosphere even from ploughed fields. The cycle is quicker, and the return speed is faster for grass and weeds than for mature trees. In addition, as I argued, huge land use changes have slightly accelerated this decay and return process. I have not been able to find any test of correlation between mean global temperature and all Land Use Changes. Have you found any? A similar cycle of carbon takes place in the oceans also having an equilibrium established over thousands of years. I assume that increasing ocean temperatures probably also accelerates carbon dioxide emission into the atmosphere. The big question: Does fossil fuel combustion or Land Use Changes provide the slight heating effect to catalyze an increase in biological processes in the oceans? I have not seriously examined this.
In the last 20 years, the rate of deforestation has decreased, but the rate of temperature rise has increased (in concert with the increasing rate of CO2 levels), as shown in the 3 links below. But remember that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.
The number you're looking for is the 'climate sensitivity', defined as the change in temperature expected for a doubling of CO2 concentrations above pre-industrial values.
According to Wikipedia, the equilibrium value (ECS) value is as follows.
"The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) stated that there is high confidence that ECS is within the range of 2.5 °C to 4 °C, with a best estimate of 3 °C."
James Hansen argues, based on paleantology records rather than just climate models, that it's closer to the upper limit and may even exceed it. The statement that its 'all absorbed in the first kilometre' is simplistic and wrong because there are hundreds of CO2 absorption lines of varying strength in the IR window region. Some are saturated while others aren't. For saturated lines, additional absorption still occurs, but only in the wings of the lines, so increases logarithmically rather than linearly with the amount of gas. The sensitivity for CO2 is lower than for CH4 because there's less line-saturation in the latter. All these things are included in the models. An excellent authoritative source of information on climate forcing is John Houghton's book, 'The Physics of Atmospheres'.
As I said before, CO2 changes rather than land use changes are the main driver of climate change. Therefore, I'd expect correlations with land use to be still positive, but not as strong as for CO2. Sorry, I haven't seen a plot showing that.
Hello Richard, A few weeks ago, you asked me to post a link to my source of information about the effect of deforestation on global warming. But I reached my conclusions after gathering and analyzing information from many sources as described in this video lecture.
If you can find time to critique or correct my explanation in this lecture, I will appreciate that. Or forward my request to another NIWA scientist who might do that for me.
Thanks Mike. I watched the video a couple of times. It was difficult to follow in places because some of the figure axes weren’t labelled (the plot of deforestation didn’t even seem to have a linear x-axis). But I got the gist of where you’re coming from and will try to address the points here.
I don’t think your point about the different specific heats of CO2 compared with water and nitrogen is relevant. To my knowledge, the specific heat is not related to the IR absorption or the emissivity. And, since the concentrations of CO2 are so small compared with that of nitrogen, those differences won’t have any effect on the bulk temperature.
The World War II anomaly (slight cooling in the 1940s), that you drew attention to, may be due to increased aerosol pollution during that period. Shipping patterns were also affected, which may have affected clouds and temperatures. Most of the earth surface is oceanic, and during that period a major source of sea surface temperature data was from commercial shipping. Wartime disruptions to shipping patterns may also have affected temperature records.
Your main point was about the importance of deforestation. You are quite correct that deforestation is important. But it was definitely not ignored, at least in the most recent IPCC report, which found – among many other things - that:
1. Land use changes remain a major driver of climate change, contributing approximately 13-21% of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions (primarily through deforestation)
2. Agricultural expansion continues to be the primary cause of deforestation and associated emissions
3. The assessment noted increasing rates of forest degradation in some regions, even as deforestation rates have declined in others
4. Land use change also affects local and regional climate through biophysical effects (albedo changes, evapotranspiration, etc.)
5. The assessment emphasized the potential of improved land management practices for climate mitigation, including reforestation, afforestation, and soil carbon sequestration
But deforestation isn’t the main cause of the problem. The main cause is the increase in CO2 due to the burning of fossil fuels which increases trapping of outgoing IR radiation. I’m always a bit puzzled why people seem so unwilling to accept that basic fact. I can understand why the fossil fuel industry doesn’t like the idea, and I’m aware that they’ve mounted a very successful disinformation campaign to try to delay action. But that doesn’t explain the scepticism of independent scientifically-minded people.
There’s a very high correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature, but the correlation isn’t perfect because of the effects of other GHGs, land-use changes, and other climate factors like the QBO and El Nino/la Nina
The main reason why deforestation is so important is because, through photosynthesis, trees are a sink for some of that extra carbon dioxide. As you note, there are other reason too, which are included in the IPCC’s modelling.
The three forms of heat transfer (conduction, convection and radiation) are all considered in the climate models, and the time step for the calculations is small enough (typically about an hour) to include accurate estimates of the diurnal differences you mentioned between different surfaces. So that shouldn’t be a problem. I think all atmospheric physicists, including the modellers, will be well aware that radiative transfer is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature difference (in both directions).
Calculated changes over the last century or more are in excellent agreement with observations, so there’s no obvious need for concern about the validity of current theory, as implemented in these models.
I hope this helps. In case you want to follow up in more detail, please follow the link below to the IPCC web site.
Thank you Richard. Anger is almost always needed for change. Otherwise you're just gently stirring the heating pot.
It's good to be reminded of the changes in richness demography in the USofA - though I suspect similar statistics apply in much of Europe, Russia and China.
Revolt seems a million miles away nevertheless, despite growing wealth inequality, and maybe we need to identify another trigger that might set off any change because it has the mass needed to overcome system inertia.
The epidemic seemed a likely candidate for a while. But no. And I did wonder whether climate change related storms, fires and big low pressure sea level rises might be a tipping point. But again. No. Not yet.
Well said Richard!
I’ve lived in three american states, including six years in New York during the Dubbya years including the 9/11 disaster.
Trump was constantly in the public eye for either bankruptcies (at least 11 to date, defaulting in $billions) or litigation. No philanthropy or anything good that I can remember.
Like so many others, I laughed when he was nominated by the republicans in 2016 because I could not imagine anyone voting for him as president.
Now that he is in his second term, I don’t think we have seen the worst of him yet.
I’ve lived first hand during Baby Bush attack on science in 2004, but this attack by American Fascist is more severe. Perhaps some recall Baby Bush attack on science then. Frankly I hope that entire world chooses to isolate US till t Rump and tea party no more. I hope all the other countries assist scientists to leave US as written in NY Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/03/opinion/young-american-scientists.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
I think Trump will go down in history as the person who initiated the US' decline as a superpower and who enabled China to become number 1. But the thing is this doesn't help us. Yes I would love for Trump to get what he deserves and to see how he ruined his country for his personal gain, but this is all around bad for all of us.
I remember it well. I resolved then and there never to publish again in American journals. I got used to publishing in the European ones and never got around to rescinding that order to myself after sanity returned.
You are so right. It is as insane as Jews voting for Hitler, excuse the crass comparison but I can't find any better example.
The poor lower class is Trump's base, they cheer for him as he takes what little they have and distributes it to his 1% friends. It's so unbelievably kind numbing to witness this and you just cannot understand how it is possible that people are this dumb and chose to act 100% against their own interest. And they love him for making their lives worse. All because of words. All because of lies.
As a European, this is why we still learn so much about history.
Because we know that these things can happen so quickly. Americans believe they can't.
They cannot comprehend how easy it is for a strongman to manipulate simpletons into voting completely against what is good for them.
And they are experiencing it live, but they still don't get it.
What a dystopian world we have reached here.
At the end of this insanity tRump (love it) and his billionaire class friends will come out of it richer, the world will be paying another 50% of inflation, and we will have gotten another big step closer to total collapse. And they will still cheer for him, despite every single metric proving them wrong.
Great article, Richard. I must say that my extensive reading of relevant research tells me that a major change from petrol- or diesel-powered vehicles to EV’s will NOT save our planet from the current path of ruin. Earth scientists are at last acknowledging that human destruction of natural forests and shrub-lands, plus drainage of swamps and wetlands have caused approximately 80% of anthropogenic global warming and associated extreme weather events.
Thanks Michael. Yes, the problem is definitely bigger than EVs alone.
Are the articles you mention suggesting that CO2’s not a problem, or just that these land-use changes also need to be factored in? If the former, I’d be interested in seeing links to them.
I noted that one climate change model assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the cause of global warming and another assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the effect of global warming. Atmospheric CO2 generally correlates with global warming, and I conclude that we are seeing an interactive causation effect rather than one-way cause-effect. Water, ice and steam having different and relatively high specific thermal capacities are also significant factors in climate change. This topic is too big to discuss here.
Analysis of systematic biological processes operating to control our weather and climate indicates that if all the governments around the world do not embark on a concerted program to immediately start repairing the damage and loss of the Earth's biomass, sufficient to replace half of what has been lost, then merely reducing fossil fuel combustion will be too little too late. Vegetation provides a key factor in the Earth's biological processes which interact to maintain equilibrium and stable climate. Fossil fuel combustion provides carbon dioxide, steam, and heat which increase growth of plants and favourably increase the Earth's biomass to maintain equilibrium temperatures. Humans obstructed this process by removing vegetation faster than it could grow and increase naturally even accelerated by additional production of carbon dioxide, heat, and steam emitted when burning carbon from underground at climate sustainable rates.
But my emphasis was on interaction and SYNERGY of the two major factors when both are constantly increasing. Climate scientists do not seem to appreciate that. We do not have to stop deforestation nor fossil fuel combustion. Only control these climate changing factors at sustainable rates by controlling population growth. But capitalists do not want to do that because population growth is essential for business profits.
I agree that both are important, but I think 'they' (the IPCC) do consider both. They certainly talk a lot about both in their most recent assessment.
Our problem is that we're way out of equilibrium because CO2 locked up for millions of years is suddenly being liberated into the atmosphere. And at the same time the ability of the biosphere to soak it up is decreasing. We need afforestation, not the deforestation we're getting. But, most importantly, we need to hugely slow down the burning fossil fuels.
Important new research on land use changes:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/adb7f2
My conclusion: Both fossil fuel combustion and loss of biomass through deforestation/ land use changes contribute in combination towards global warming, with other minor factors like air pollution. But rather than describing these different contributions as additive factors (percentages on a pie-chart) I believe the situation is best described as the product (multiplication) of factors, with two major factors being fossil fuel combustion and loss of the earth’s biomass acting synergistically. In other words, loss of biomass enables and magnifies the warming effect of increasing fossil fuel combustion.
This can be understood in terms of system analysis:
Scenario #1: Without any loss of biomass, biochemical processes would normally maintain temperature and climate equilibrium if fossil fuel combustion takes place at a constant rate. This situation would merely increase atmospheric carbon dioxide and enhance growth in trees and shrubs sufficiently to return after many years to previous mean global temperature conditions. A new equilibrium condition would settle with slightly more atmospheric carbon dioxide, immeasurable decrease in atmospheric oxygen and more plants and trees but no increase in temperature.
Scenario #2: For a fixed rate of fossil fuel combustion and increasing destruction of forests, natural bush and grasslands, or progressively replacing natural forests with fast-growing commercial forest plantations and cycles of lumbering operations, return to equilibrium conditions is impossible. When biological processes for restoring equilibrium are progressively diminished, atmospheric carbon dioxide and the mean global temperature will continue to increase in proportion to the extent of biomass destruction.
Scenario #3: As above, biochemical processes would not be able to maintain temperature and climate equilibrium, while the rate of fossil fuel combustion constantly increases even if the earth’s natural biomass had been conserved. The climate system’s inertia has a lagging effect which retards and hinders return to equilibrium as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels progressively increase.
Scenario #4: The situation today is dire because we have both a progressively increasing rate of fossil fuel combustion and a progressively increasing destruction of climate stabilizing biomass. The concept “climate stabilizing biomass” is important.” Commercial crops with seasonal ploughing and forest plantations with cycles of lumbering operations restore only about one third of the contribution of natural forests towards reversing negative effects of fossil fuel combustion.
Conclusion: Loss of natural biomass enables and magnifies the warming effect of fossil fuel combustion as a product of these two factors rather than summation of factors. Therefore,
extensive and very costly ongoing forest plantations of fast-growing trees under strict conservation without lumbering in previously forested and new regions of the continents will be required to offset global warming if the rate of fossil fuel combustion is allowed to increase constantly. Alternatively, extensive restoration of forests in previously forested regions under strict conservation will be required to offset global warming if the rate of fossil fuel combustion merely continues at existing rates.
I agree. Both are important …
Scattering and diffusion of radiation in the atmosphere will not be a problem if lasers are used to generate strong waves of infrared light directed to an array of satellites. Besides measuring transmission retardation effects of carbon dioxide molecules, it will also measure the extent of scattering and diffusion from the presence of carbon dioxide molecules.
As you know, incoming versus outgoing radiation is a complex derivative of factors like air pollution especially plastic nano particles, atmospheric moisture, exhaust gases from jet airliners, Ozone, and recent unpublished geoengineering experiments, previously only by the military, to seed stratospheric clouds. I am looking for a measured factor which quantifies the extent by which increasing concentrations of CO2 in air retards heat radiation through the atmosphere from the ground to outer space. This is a KEY factor in greenhouse gas models. My understanding is that this factor has not been directly measured. A series of different values are hypothesized and then entered in complex correlations to see which hypothesized value best fits other data.
Richard, I thought about the method I described using data from IR radiation sensors on satellites versus corresponding data from low level or ground-based sensors to measure the extent by which increasing concentrations of CO2 in air retards heat radiation through the atmosphere. The extend of retardation is too small to be measured that way. But this key factor can be measured by using IR radiation generators and equipment on the ground to create artificial signals of pulsating IR radiation and have satellite sensors measure the reception of transmission in the frequency band absorbed by CO2 molecules versus the reception of transmission of signals in other frequencies. Then repeat the experiment at different times of the year. A set of satellites at different locations will reveal the big picture.
Interesting idea. I suspect a lot of energy wold be needed at the sources. In principle, you could alternatively use balloons. One difficulty would be making sure the field of view is small enough.
Is the number you're after the energy imbalance? The incoming solar energy is about 1000 W/m2 (of which about 300 Wm2 is absorbed by planet Earth). To maintain stability, the outgoing energy should match. But the outgoing energy is be smaller. That's the energy imbalance (or net radiation). In 2010 the imbalance was inferred to be about 0.5W/m2, but its getting worse. Current estimates are much larger, around 1 W/m2.
Satellites:
NASA's CERES suite of satellite sensors, along with other satellite instruments, measure the amount of solar radiation entering the Earth's atmosphere and the outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the Earth's surface. This allows for the calculation of the net radiation, which is the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation.
Thanks again Richard.
Regarding absorption and saturation, as I understand this, carbon dioxide molecules absorb energy until saturated and then release energy, causing scattering and diffusion of radiation, but I am talking about the overall result, namely transmitting energy more slowly through the atmosphere. All gases in the atmosphere absorb and then release heat with carbon dioxide theoretically releasing more slowly due to scattering and diffusion. Therefore, I am looking for a measured factor which quantifies the extent to which increasing concentrations of CO2 in air retards heat radiation through the atmosphere. My understanding is that this KEY factor is only estimated (guessed) from complex climate change models where factors like Radiative Forcing and Global Warming Potential are featured in statistical models as part of investigations trying to understand what is going on.
Sensors on satellites detect the amount of IR radiation emitted by the Earth's surface and the retardation effect of carbon dioxide should be measurable by comparing accumulated or aggregated day and night cycles of IR measurements from satellites over North America with seasonal variations of CO2 in the atmosphere versus corresponding low level or ground-based radiation sensors. But hours of searching the internet using Google’s A.I. tool did not help me find a direct measurement of this key factor. So, I conclude that retardation effects of IR radiation are only assumed from attempts to see what variables and data entered in climate change models match other measurable data over particular periods.
Climate change models are essentially complex correlations, and I think you agree that correlation does not prove causation. Scientists agree that while extensive deforestation can theoretically cause global warming, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide cannot theoretically cause extensive deforestation, although deforestation can cause droughts which aggravate forest fires. Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is merely the result of correlations and extrapolations to predict long-term temperature rise under certain conditions.
Although the rate of deforestation has slowed it nevertheless continues at slightly decreased rates. But the damage is done, so inertia in this deviation from equilibrium will last several years before climate monitoring data shows an improvement. For example, massive mechanized agricultural expansion during the 1930s in the United States, Canada, Germany, and Ukraine was only visible in the climate data of the 1940s.
As I stated in my video presentations, when considering the life cycle of commercial forest plantations, these contribute only about one third the effect of natural forests in stabilizing temperatures and rainfall. Experiments prove that burning fossil fuels in large greenhouses to produce small increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, heat and moisture produces corresponding increases in plant growth (biomass) which help moderate atmospheric temperature. The key factor in the equation for explaining global warming is changes in total global biomass accumulated over each year.
Inspection of data shows that average global temperatures generally correlate with total deforestation and other contributing Land Use Changes apart from atmospheric carbon dioxide. But climatologists seem to minimize greenhouse experiments and wider biological factors while they focus on their atmospheric gas theories.
The cause of global warming is better investigated as “interactive causation” with amplification and damping effects complicating the picture. If we had a directly measured and quantified figure for the extent to which increasing concentrations of CO2 in air retards heat energy radiation through the atmosphere, then non-linear multi-factorial analysis will point to two or three credible factors (like deforestation, land use changes, atmospheric CO2 and air pollution) which can be sensibly measured and contrasted in terms of their respective influences on global warming. Until then I see Land Use Changes and deforestation as our major problem.
There’s nothing different about co2 from other gases. It continuously emits radiation at the same wavelengths as it absorbs. The emission rate depends on the It warns warming
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization approximately 37% of the Earth's land mass is now dedicated to agriculture. This includes both cropland (12%) and permanent meadows and pastures (25%). In addition, urban areas comprise approximately 3% of the Earth's land surface. Scientists have built large experimental greenhouses to model global warming and study its effects on ecosystems and plant life. However, I don’t believe greenhouses reflect the complexity of the planet and results would have to be interpreted with deep insight and cautionary notes.
Thanks for your detailed reply, Richard. I questioned how much outgoing IR radiation rate is retarded when CO2 reaches 435 ppm versus outgoing IR radiation rate when CO2 was 256 ppm or less. I cannot find any consensus of figures which climatologists provide for measuring or calculating the change in IR radiation rate due to absorption and scattering. The models seem extremely complex and according to scientific debates on this forum, no one really knows.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/525177/can-anyone-explain-the-real-reason-why-co-2-increases-global-temperatures-not
You wrote: “There’s a very high correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature.” I am looking for a test of correlation between mean global temperature and all Land Use Changes? Or better still multi-factorial analysis of variables. Have you seen any?
During the years leading up to WWII great advances in mechanized agriculture across the USA, Canada and Germany took place but when they discovered how that changed the climate, they were forced to plant millions of trees which reduced heat and evaporation and calmed dust storms.
Here is an example of one of my sources: "Locally at all latitudes, forest biophysical impacts far outweigh CO2 effects, promoting local climate stability by reducing extreme temperatures in all seasons and times of day. The importance of forests for both global climate change mitigation and local adaptation by human and non-human species is not adequately captured by current carbon-centric metrics, particularly in the context of future climate warming."
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/forests-and-global-change/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2022.756115/full
Virtually all carbon stored in all plants will eventually return to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide given the equilibrium which exists during our two millennia on the earth. If humans progressively reduce plant cover (biomass) over the earth, warmer air will speed up the process of carbon dioxide returning to the atmosphere even from ploughed fields. The cycle is quicker, and the return speed is faster for grass and weeds than for mature trees. In addition, as I argued, huge land use changes have slightly accelerated this decay and return process. I have not been able to find any test of correlation between mean global temperature and all Land Use Changes. Have you found any? A similar cycle of carbon takes place in the oceans also having an equilibrium established over thousands of years. I assume that increasing ocean temperatures probably also accelerates carbon dioxide emission into the atmosphere. The big question: Does fossil fuel combustion or Land Use Changes provide the slight heating effect to catalyze an increase in biological processes in the oceans? I have not seriously examined this.
In the last 20 years, the rate of deforestation has decreased, but the rate of temperature rise has increased (in concert with the increasing rate of CO2 levels), as shown in the 3 links below. But remember that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.
See https://www.ecobirdy.com/blogs/stories/climate-change-statistic-part-3
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51111176
In response to your note "The models seem extremely complex and according to scientific debates on this forum, no one really knows.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/525177/can-anyone-explain-the-real-reason-why-co-2-increases-global-temperatures-not"
The number you're looking for is the 'climate sensitivity', defined as the change in temperature expected for a doubling of CO2 concentrations above pre-industrial values.
According to Wikipedia, the equilibrium value (ECS) value is as follows.
"The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) stated that there is high confidence that ECS is within the range of 2.5 °C to 4 °C, with a best estimate of 3 °C."
James Hansen argues, based on paleantology records rather than just climate models, that it's closer to the upper limit and may even exceed it. The statement that its 'all absorbed in the first kilometre' is simplistic and wrong because there are hundreds of CO2 absorption lines of varying strength in the IR window region. Some are saturated while others aren't. For saturated lines, additional absorption still occurs, but only in the wings of the lines, so increases logarithmically rather than linearly with the amount of gas. The sensitivity for CO2 is lower than for CH4 because there's less line-saturation in the latter. All these things are included in the models. An excellent authoritative source of information on climate forcing is John Houghton's book, 'The Physics of Atmospheres'.
As I said before, CO2 changes rather than land use changes are the main driver of climate change. Therefore, I'd expect correlations with land use to be still positive, but not as strong as for CO2. Sorry, I haven't seen a plot showing that.
In answer to the question posed here
Hello Richard, A few weeks ago, you asked me to post a link to my source of information about the effect of deforestation on global warming. But I reached my conclusions after gathering and analyzing information from many sources as described in this video lecture.
https://www.brighteon.com/f3ff49da-da85-49ee-a2c1-a4c8aded9e3b
If you can find time to critique or correct my explanation in this lecture, I will appreciate that. Or forward my request to another NIWA scientist who might do that for me.
Thanks Mike. I watched the video a couple of times. It was difficult to follow in places because some of the figure axes weren’t labelled (the plot of deforestation didn’t even seem to have a linear x-axis). But I got the gist of where you’re coming from and will try to address the points here.
I don’t think your point about the different specific heats of CO2 compared with water and nitrogen is relevant. To my knowledge, the specific heat is not related to the IR absorption or the emissivity. And, since the concentrations of CO2 are so small compared with that of nitrogen, those differences won’t have any effect on the bulk temperature.
The World War II anomaly (slight cooling in the 1940s), that you drew attention to, may be due to increased aerosol pollution during that period. Shipping patterns were also affected, which may have affected clouds and temperatures. Most of the earth surface is oceanic, and during that period a major source of sea surface temperature data was from commercial shipping. Wartime disruptions to shipping patterns may also have affected temperature records.
Your main point was about the importance of deforestation. You are quite correct that deforestation is important. But it was definitely not ignored, at least in the most recent IPCC report, which found – among many other things - that:
1. Land use changes remain a major driver of climate change, contributing approximately 13-21% of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions (primarily through deforestation)
2. Agricultural expansion continues to be the primary cause of deforestation and associated emissions
3. The assessment noted increasing rates of forest degradation in some regions, even as deforestation rates have declined in others
4. Land use change also affects local and regional climate through biophysical effects (albedo changes, evapotranspiration, etc.)
5. The assessment emphasized the potential of improved land management practices for climate mitigation, including reforestation, afforestation, and soil carbon sequestration
But deforestation isn’t the main cause of the problem. The main cause is the increase in CO2 due to the burning of fossil fuels which increases trapping of outgoing IR radiation. I’m always a bit puzzled why people seem so unwilling to accept that basic fact. I can understand why the fossil fuel industry doesn’t like the idea, and I’m aware that they’ve mounted a very successful disinformation campaign to try to delay action. But that doesn’t explain the scepticism of independent scientifically-minded people.
There’s a very high correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature, but the correlation isn’t perfect because of the effects of other GHGs, land-use changes, and other climate factors like the QBO and El Nino/la Nina
The main reason why deforestation is so important is because, through photosynthesis, trees are a sink for some of that extra carbon dioxide. As you note, there are other reason too, which are included in the IPCC’s modelling.
The three forms of heat transfer (conduction, convection and radiation) are all considered in the climate models, and the time step for the calculations is small enough (typically about an hour) to include accurate estimates of the diurnal differences you mentioned between different surfaces. So that shouldn’t be a problem. I think all atmospheric physicists, including the modellers, will be well aware that radiative transfer is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature difference (in both directions).
Calculated changes over the last century or more are in excellent agreement with observations, so there’s no obvious need for concern about the validity of current theory, as implemented in these models.
I hope this helps. In case you want to follow up in more detail, please follow the link below to the IPCC web site.
https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/.
There are PLENTY of words there, so I suggest you start at the smaller Synthesis report and work in from there.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/.
Thank you Richard. Anger is almost always needed for change. Otherwise you're just gently stirring the heating pot.
It's good to be reminded of the changes in richness demography in the USofA - though I suspect similar statistics apply in much of Europe, Russia and China.
Revolt seems a million miles away nevertheless, despite growing wealth inequality, and maybe we need to identify another trigger that might set off any change because it has the mass needed to overcome system inertia.
The epidemic seemed a likely candidate for a while. But no. And I did wonder whether climate change related storms, fires and big low pressure sea level rises might be a tipping point. But again. No. Not yet.
Hi Joel
Yes, very similar patterns in Role and the UK. But at least they don’t have nutters running the show.