|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 7, 2023 14:21:59 GMT
What I meant was " does CO2 cause more cooling (by photosynthesis) than warming (by greenhouse effect)" - as should have been obvious by the rest of the post. We've been talking about this for some time but you still don't get the point. CO2 has two opposite effects but the warming lobby ignore the cooling effect. Do you understand the question yet Zanygame? If so that would be a start. It's no wonder that the warming lobby can hoodwink people like you with their pseudo-science. That's the subtleties of language for you. But the answer your your clarified point is no . This is because all of Co2 takes part in warming the planet, but only a small proportion takes part in photosynthesis. Before we started adding more Co2 the balance was. Co2 atmospheric warming effect, minus Co2 cooling effect through photosynthesis = ave planet temp of 14 degrees C. Now that same sum = ave 15 degrees. This is because atmospheric Co2 has increased significantly, but global vegetation has not. (Excuse my crude average numbers, I am making a point not a calculation) This is utter nonsense.  You're just making stuff up again. There are two completely different effects taking place, which bear no relation to each other. The warming effect depends on how the radiation from the Sun interacts with C=O bonds in CO2. How much energy is trapped depends on the wavelengths of the sun light and the resonant frequency of the C=O bonds. Whereas with photosynthesis the amount of energy trapped is dependent on the efficiency of plants in absorbing the Sun's energy and the amount of energy they can store in carbohydrates. Broadly plants are very efficient at absorbing the Sun's energy - they absorb about 90% of it, compared to a solar panel's 20%. They mainly reflect green light. The greenhouse effect traps far less. We know pretty well how much energy CO2 traps (though not water vapour, which is far more powerful) but the only way of calculating how much energy plants capture is by experimenting. And to the best of my knowledge the experiments have never been done. Why not? Because the Climate Change lobby are only interested in talking about the warming effect of CO2. But if you look at the mechanics of the process it would seem likely that photosynthesis is far more efficient at cooling than the greenhouse effect is at warming. But We DON'T know. We do know however that the effect of CO2 warming obeys a logarithmic rule that means the its warming effect drops off very rapidly with higher concentrations. Its cooling effect also drops off at higher concentrations, but not at the same rate (as far as we know). We've been talking about this for ages and you still haven't assimilated the basic facts. The question remains whether plants trap more energy than the greenhouse effect. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 7, 2023 14:36:59 GMT
That's the subtleties of language for you. But the answer your your clarified point is no . This is because all of Co2 takes part in warming the planet, but only a small proportion takes part in photosynthesis. Before we started adding more Co2 the balance was. Co2 atmospheric warming effect, minus Co2 cooling effect through photosynthesis = ave planet temp of 14 degrees C. Now that same sum = ave 15 degrees. This is because atmospheric Co2 has increased significantly, but global vegetation has not. (Excuse my crude average numbers, I am making a point not a calculation) This is utter nonsense. You're just making stuff up again. There are two completely different effects taking place, which bear no relation to each other. The warming effect depends on how the radiation from the Sun interacts with C=O bonds in CO2. How much energy is trapped depends on the wavelengths of the sun light and the resonant frequency of the C=O bonds. Whereas with photosynthesis the amount of energy trapped is dependent on the efficiency of plants in absorbing the Sun's energy and the amount of energy they can store in carbohydrates. Broadly plants are very efficient at absorbing the Sun's energy - they absorb about 90% of it, compared to a solar panel's 20%. They mainly reflect green light. The greenhouse effect traps far less. We know pretty well how much energy CO2 traps (though not water vapour, which is far more powerful) but the only way of calculating how much energy plants capture is by experimenting. And to the best of my knowledge the experiments have never been done. Why not? Because the Climate Change lobby are only interested in talking about the warming effect of CO2. But if you look at the mechanics of the process it would seem likely that photosynthesis is far more efficient at cooling than the greenhouse effect is at warming. But We DON'T know. We do know however that the effect of CO2 warming obeys a logarithmic rule that means the its warming effect drops off very rapidly with higher concentrations. Its cooling effect also drops off at higher concentrations, but not at the same rate (as far as we know). We've been talking about this for ages and you still haven't assimilated the basic facts. That's incorrect. Plants absorb three bands of light. One is in the red at about 660nm, one is in the blue at about 450nm and then they need a bit in the near infrared too or else the photosynthesis process becomes far less efficient. The two main bands correspond to two reaction centres called type one and type two. If the plant has carotene in it, i.e. the leaves are not totally green then there are some mid wavelengths absorbed as well. This is a secondary thing and not related to the main photosynthesis process. They are more for the optimum health of the plant or else it might freak out a bit. Plants do suffer from stress and if they do they stop growing and go into survival mode. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 7, 2023 19:20:02 GMT
That's the subtleties of language for you. But the answer your your clarified point is no . This is because all of Co2 takes part in warming the planet, but only a small proportion takes part in photosynthesis. Before we started adding more Co2 the balance was. Co2 atmospheric warming effect, minus Co2 cooling effect through photosynthesis = ave planet temp of 14 degrees C. Now that same sum = ave 15 degrees. This is because atmospheric Co2 has increased significantly, but global vegetation has not. (Excuse my crude average numbers, I am making a point not a calculation) This is utter nonsense. You're just making stuff up again. There are two completely different effects taking place, which bear no relation to each other. The warming effect depends on how the radiation from the Sun interacts with C=O bonds in CO2. How much energy is trapped depends on the wavelengths of the sun light and the resonant frequency of the C=O bonds. Whereas with photosynthesis the amount of energy trapped is dependent on the efficiency of plants in absorbing the Sun's energy and the amount of energy they can store in carbohydrates. Broadly plants are very efficient at absorbing the Sun's energy - they absorb about 90% of it, compared to a solar panel's 20%. They mainly reflect green light. The greenhouse effect traps far less. We know pretty well how much energy CO2 traps (though not water vapour, which is far more powerful) but the only way of calculating how much energy plants capture is by experimenting. And to the best of my knowledge the experiments have never been done. Why not? Because the Climate Change lobby are only interested in talking about the warming effect of CO2. But if you look at the mechanics of the process it would seem likely that photosynthesis is far more efficient at cooling than the greenhouse effect is at warming. But We DON'T know. We do know however that the effect of CO2 warming obeys a logarithmic rule that means the its warming effect drops off very rapidly with higher concentrations. Its cooling effect also drops off at higher concentrations, but not at the same rate (as far as we know). We've been talking about this for ages and you still haven't assimilated the basic facts. The question remains whether plants trap more energy than the greenhouse effect. It doesn't matter that each works differently, what we are measuring is their effects on temperature. So Photosynthesis causes X amount of cooling, Atmospheric Co2 causes Y amount of warming. Y is greater than X to the planet warms. We do know that all the photosynthesis in the world and everything else kept the planet at an average 14c when Co2 was at 200ppm. But Co2 has increased and vegetation has not. What makes you think that vegetation will suddenly start having a greater cooling effect to compensate for the increased Co2 Other matters. Co2 amplifies the effects of water vapour. Here you go. climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAs%20humans%20add%20carbon%20dioxide,a%20planet%20without%20water%20vapor.%E2%80%9D |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 7, 2023 20:02:02 GMT
This is utter nonsense. You're just making stuff up again. There are two completely different effects taking place, which bear no relation to each other. The warming effect depends on how the radiation from the Sun interacts with C=O bonds in CO2. How much energy is trapped depends on the wavelengths of the sun light and the resonant frequency of the C=O bonds. Whereas with photosynthesis the amount of energy trapped is dependent on the efficiency of plants in absorbing the Sun's energy and the amount of energy they can store in carbohydrates. Broadly plants are very efficient at absorbing the Sun's energy - they absorb about 90% of it, compared to a solar panel's 20%. They mainly reflect green light. The greenhouse effect traps far less. We know pretty well how much energy CO2 traps (though not water vapour, which is far more powerful) but the only way of calculating how much energy plants capture is by experimenting. And to the best of my knowledge the experiments have never been done. Why not? Because the Climate Change lobby are only interested in talking about the warming effect of CO2. But if you look at the mechanics of the process it would seem likely that photosynthesis is far more efficient at cooling than the greenhouse effect is at warming. But We DON'T know. We do know however that the effect of CO2 warming obeys a logarithmic rule that means the its warming effect drops off very rapidly with higher concentrations. Its cooling effect also drops off at higher concentrations, but not at the same rate (as far as we know). We've been talking about this for ages and you still haven't assimilated the basic facts. The question remains whether plants trap more energy than the greenhouse effect. It doesn't matter that each works differently, what we are measuring is their effects on temperature. So Photosynthesis causes X amount of cooling, Atmospheric Co2 causes Y amount of warming. Y is greater than X to the planet warms. We do know that all the photosynthesis in the world and everything else kept the planet at an average 14c when Co2 was at 200ppm. But Co2 has increased and vegetation has not. What makes you think that vegetation will suddenly start having a greater cooling effect to compensate for the increased Co2 Other matters. Co2 amplifies the effects of water vapour. Here you go. climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAs%20humans%20add%20carbon%20dioxide,a%20planet%20without%20water%20vapor.%E2%80%9D You can easily calculate the net energy absorption of the plant. It's just a bit of chemistry in that the formation of the plant material contains more chemical energy than the molecules which went in to making it. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 7, 2023 20:25:22 GMT
You can easily calculate the net energy absorption of the plant. It's just a bit of chemistry in that the formation of the plant material contains more chemical energy than the molecules which went in to making it. It gets more difficult when its a billion plants. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 7, 2023 22:10:45 GMT
You can easily calculate the net energy absorption of the plant. It's just a bit of chemistry in that the formation of the plant material contains more chemical energy than the molecules which went in to making it. It gets more difficult when its a billion plants. Not really because you do it by weight. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 7, 2023 22:45:29 GMT
It gets more difficult when its a billion plants. Not really because you do it by weight. To many other factors. You could average it, but the deniers would never accept that. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 8, 2023 8:23:09 GMT
This is utter nonsense. You're just making stuff up again. There are two completely different effects taking place, which bear no relation to each other. The warming effect depends on how the radiation from the Sun interacts with C=O bonds in CO2. How much energy is trapped depends on the wavelengths of the sun light and the resonant frequency of the C=O bonds. Whereas with photosynthesis the amount of energy trapped is dependent on the efficiency of plants in absorbing the Sun's energy and the amount of energy they can store in carbohydrates. Broadly plants are very efficient at absorbing the Sun's energy - they absorb about 90% of it, compared to a solar panel's 20%. They mainly reflect green light. The greenhouse effect traps far less. We know pretty well how much energy CO2 traps (though not water vapour, which is far more powerful) but the only way of calculating how much energy plants capture is by experimenting. And to the best of my knowledge the experiments have never been done. Why not? Because the Climate Change lobby are only interested in talking about the warming effect of CO2. But if you look at the mechanics of the process it would seem likely that photosynthesis is far more efficient at cooling than the greenhouse effect is at warming. But We DON'T know. We do know however that the effect of CO2 warming obeys a logarithmic rule that means the its warming effect drops off very rapidly with higher concentrations. Its cooling effect also drops off at higher concentrations, but not at the same rate (as far as we know). We've been talking about this for ages and you still haven't assimilated the basic facts. The question remains whether plants trap more energy than the greenhouse effect. It doesn't matter that each works differently, what we are measuring is their effects on temperature. So Photosynthesis causes X amount of cooling, Atmospheric Co2 causes Y amount of warming. Y is greater than X to the planet warms. We do know that all the photosynthesis in the world and everything else kept the planet at an average 14c when Co2 was at 200ppm. But Co2 has increased and vegetation has not. What makes you think that vegetation will suddenly start having a greater cooling effect to compensate for the increased Co2 Other matters. Co2 amplifies the effects of water vapour. Here you go. climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAs%20humans%20add%20carbon%20dioxide,a%20planet%20without%20water%20vapor.%E2%80%9D We don't know that Y is greater than X - for the umpteenth time. It's never been measured. Unless you can show me the figures. We know Y roughly, but not X. And you're again assuming that the correlation between C2 and global temperature is established when it's not. As I've pointed out often, there has been a period of warming that occurred between 1920 and 1940 that almost exactly matches the current warming - but there was very little increase in CO2. In science, Zanygame, your theories have to match the data and they don't. And the models based on the assumption that CO2 causes warming don't work. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 8, 2023 8:38:48 GMT
BvL said: "You can easily calculate the net energy absorption of the plant. It's just a bit of chemistry in that the formation of the plant material contains more chemical energy than the molecules which went in to making it".
Yes, the plant uses the Sun's energy to drive the reaction - and we get that energy back when we reverse the reaction by burning the plant. That's fair enough. But firstly, as I said, we don't have the data to make the calculation and secondly, in science, you always have to check your calculations against the reality. This is particularly true with a system as complex as the Earth.
So why have the climate change bodies (like IPCC) ever done this experiment? They've done the experiment to demonstrate CO2 warming in an environment with no photosynthesis - which was never in doubt. But if the experiment were carried out in an environment WITH photosynthesis (like a rural area of a wood) would they get the same result? If so, why have scientists ONLY EVER managed to demonstrate CO2 warming in an environment without photosynthesis?
Any ideas? Any ideas why rural areas are significantly cooler than similar areas with little of no vegetation?
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 8, 2023 8:56:37 GMT
This is utter nonsense. You're just making stuff up again. There are two completely different effects taking place, which bear no relation to each other. The warming effect depends on how the radiation from the Sun interacts with C=O bonds in CO2. How much energy is trapped depends on the wavelengths of the sun light and the resonant frequency of the C=O bonds. Whereas with photosynthesis the amount of energy trapped is dependent on the efficiency of plants in absorbing the Sun's energy and the amount of energy they can store in carbohydrates. Broadly plants are very efficient at absorbing the Sun's energy - they absorb about 90% of it, compared to a solar panel's 20%. They mainly reflect green light. The greenhouse effect traps far less. We know pretty well how much energy CO2 traps (though not water vapour, which is far more powerful) but the only way of calculating how much energy plants capture is by experimenting. And to the best of my knowledge the experiments have never been done. Why not? Because the Climate Change lobby are only interested in talking about the warming effect of CO2. But if you look at the mechanics of the process it would seem likely that photosynthesis is far more efficient at cooling than the greenhouse effect is at warming. But We DON'T know. We do know however that the effect of CO2 warming obeys a logarithmic rule that means the its warming effect drops off very rapidly with higher concentrations. Its cooling effect also drops off at higher concentrations, but not at the same rate (as far as we know). We've been talking about this for ages and you still haven't assimilated the basic facts. That's incorrect. Plants absorb three bands of light. One is in the red at about 660nm, one is in the blue at about 450nm and then they need a bit in the near infrared too or else the photosynthesis process becomes far less efficient. The two main bands correspond to two reaction centres called type one and type two. If the plant has carotene in it, i.e. the leaves are not totally green then there are some mid wavelengths absorbed as well. This is a secondary thing and not related to the main photosynthesis process. They are more for the optimum health of the plant or else it might freak out a bit. Plants do suffer from stress and if they do they stop growing and go into survival mode. Plants absorb nearly all the light in the visible spectrum and they're pretty efficient at converting it to sugars. The main problem is lack of CO2 from what I've read. More CO2 is needed to make the process more efficient. However this is not really relevant to the discussion. The fact is that CO2 has TWO effects and no one has measured the effect of photosynthesis - unless you know of an experiment (not a calculation) to measure it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2023 10:53:06 GMT
 Looks like global warming has been cancelled out. 0.04C below the 1991-2020 mean. Source wattsupwiththat.com |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 8, 2023 13:46:50 GMT
That's incorrect. Plants absorb three bands of light. One is in the red at about 660nm, one is in the blue at about 450nm and then they need a bit in the near infrared too or else the photosynthesis process becomes far less efficient. The two main bands correspond to two reaction centres called type one and type two. If the plant has carotene in it, i.e. the leaves are not totally green then there are some mid wavelengths absorbed as well. This is a secondary thing and not related to the main photosynthesis process. They are more for the optimum health of the plant or else it might freak out a bit. Plants do suffer from stress and if they do they stop growing and go into survival mode. Plants absorb nearly all the light in the visible spectrum and they're pretty efficient at converting it to sugars. The main problem is lack of CO2 from what I've read. More CO2 is needed to make the process more efficient. However this is not really relevant to the discussion. The fact is that CO2 has TWO effects and no one has measured the effect of photosynthesis - unless you know of an experiment (not a calculation) to measure it. You do not know the first thing about physics. The leaves are green, not black. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 8, 2023 13:56:51 GMT
Plants absorb nearly all the light in the visible spectrum and they're pretty efficient at converting it to sugars. The main problem is lack of CO2 from what I've read. More CO2 is needed to make the process more efficient. However this is not really relevant to the discussion. The fact is that CO2 has TWO effects and no one has measured the effect of photosynthesis - unless you know of an experiment (not a calculation) to measure it. You do not know the first thing about physics. The leaves are green, not black. Prat. Like I said leaves reflect green light (or other colours depending on what colour they are). They still absorb nearly all the energy in the visible light spectrum. And if you think you're so clever how about answering some of the questions I asked? Instead of trying to nitpick on irrelevances - and getting it wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 8, 2023 14:36:12 GMT
You do not know the first thing about physics. The leaves are green, not black. Prat. Like I said leaves reflect green light (or other colours depending on what colour they are). They still absorb nearly all the energy in the visible light spectrum. And if you think you're so clever how about answering some of the questions I asked? Instead of trying to nitpick on irrelevances - and getting it wrong. Try educating yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 8, 2023 16:30:37 GMT
Looks like global warming has been cancelled out. 0.04C below the 1991-2020 mean. Source wattsupwiththat.com It is strange that those who question the accuracy of the global warming argument are called deniers yet those who are presented with information as regards the erroneous predictions of the warming models (extracted from the very observations they place their faith in) seem incapable of doing anything else than sticking their fingers in their ears whilst shouting Not true Not true. It certainly has the hallmarks of cultism. |
|
You're just making stuff up again.
