Fascinating. "Energy flows, matter cycles" is such a clear way of thinking of the small water cycle, a real Aha! experience. By this formula, wouldn't it follow that the more matter (life) there is cycling, the more heat there is flowing to space. In other words, if we want to help the earth cool itself, we help it grow. Is that thermodynamically correct?
Here's one thing that puzzles me. My understanding is that computer modelers treat the heat dissipated in the atmosphere as part of evapotranspiration as returning entirely to Earth. I've had a couple scientists tell me that the heat released from clouds during rain formation just goes "back into the system." It makes no sense to me. Any clarification would be appreciated.
Yeah its kind of this aha experience to see this whole thing thru these lens..... Systems evolve to absorb more energy, and then cycle their matter to dissipate their energy. In general the fast life cycles the more heat will flow to space, with the caveat that some matter cycles dissipate energy faster than others. So the earth evolves to absorb more sunlight, to cycle its matter more, and then to dissipate higher entropy heat to space.
In terms of the water evapotranspiration heat returning to earth, I have heard climate scientists say too that it returns to the earth. It doesnt seem like all of it does, so it should dissipate radiation faster to space. I am not sure exactly why climate scientists think this, something to investigate more...... There is some complexity to this whole issue. If you evapotranspire some water , but not enough for it to condense into a cloud, it will heat up the earth, because water is a greenhouse gas, and if that water condenses as a very high cloud, high clouds trap heat underneath and can warm up the earth....
I have come to the conclusion that every cycle buils in to a bigger cicly to form and evolve into Gaia, and that every cycle has a smaller cycle that feeds it.
What I have seen in Chile is that as the missing storms describen by Dr Millan in Santiago de Chile we have that the lack of humidity caused by changes in land use, has eliminated the convective storms over los Andes next to Santiago. As you explain in this water does not condense into clouds, it will enlarge the problem of heat.
So maybe it not just de rain we miss with those convective storms. With every we loose a convective storm we loose the opportunity to irradiate heat at 6000 -7000 meters.
And heat goes to de global warming effect.
And as we loose rain, we loose vegetation, vegetation that ads carbon to the fungi bacteria soil. With less soil and water retention less vegetation and a spiral of ecosystem colapse begging's.
We must stop this colapse building from the smaller cycles up. The ones that we can control.
Every square meter of solar albedo in the city should be managed. The relation between albedo reduction and water use should be maximized. Regenerative agricultura and cover crops should stand for its real energy accountability and not as a hippie movement of good will for the planet.
This is more or less what I wanted to talk with you, and that's why and reached you in LinkedIN
I was peaking the same phrase Rob. "Energy Flows, Matter Cycles"
I would like to recap in this relationship between energy and water.
Dont forget that the Oxigen molecule that comes from Photosysntesis comes from the molecule of water. There would be no Photosintesis o oxigen produced by the plants is it wasent for water. 6 CO2 + 6 H2O + light --> C6H12O6 + 6 O2.
The other thing to point out is that Albedo reduction by vegetation has its equivalent in energy transformation and storage plus evapotranspiration that helps small and large water cycles.
That is why is so importante to face land use change, its direct effect in climate disruption and find smart entrepreneurship to revegetate cities to cool down and lower the albedo.
Santiago de Chile is a perfect place to make a pilot of this and see its relation with convective storms over los andes.
The vast thickness of the atmosphere can be modeled as a series of layers. Much of the long heat waves do not or can not travel directly into space. They absorbed and dissipated layer by layer. The convection zone, with water and turbulent climate phenomenon is a thin layer above the surface of the Earth, above this layer the water doesn't play any role in the heat transfer. Though energy must pass this lowest layer as well, and it has serious consequences for us, how it does.
Another important effect of water that can not be neglected is the direct reflection back of the energy into space.
If we disregard the role of carbon dioxide as an important GHG, we make the same mistake of climate experts disregarding the role of water, the small water cycle, and the role of ecosystems regulating the small water cycle. Above the convection zone, the most important player in transporting heat out into space is CO2, 420ppm (in that huge, thick layer practically no water is present <=5ppm).
Interest point, Ferenc. That paper you cite also says: "The results showed that the CO2 concentration in most profiles decreased with the increase in height." Wouldn't this fact mean that at least some warming is being prevented since ground-level heat is being converted to latent heat and escorted past the higher concentrations of CO2 in the bottom atmosphere, up to the convective layer? It may not carry it all the way out of the atmosphere, but at least part of the way, and through a pretty important layer as it has higher CO2 concentrations and is also the living space.
Yes, GHG's shouldn't be discounted, but I don't think most people arguing for a more biophysical perspective do.
I think we agree on the large picture, that ecosystem is not taken into account according to its role in determining, controlling our climate. Though, the details must be handled carefully. Water has effect in about the lower 20 km of the atmosphere (and it is quite important for us) CO2 starts to decompose at about 80 km up in the atmosphere so it has an important role as well. And both can be controlled by the ecosystem...
Fascinating. "Energy flows, matter cycles" is such a clear way of thinking of the small water cycle, a real Aha! experience. By this formula, wouldn't it follow that the more matter (life) there is cycling, the more heat there is flowing to space. In other words, if we want to help the earth cool itself, we help it grow. Is that thermodynamically correct?
Here's one thing that puzzles me. My understanding is that computer modelers treat the heat dissipated in the atmosphere as part of evapotranspiration as returning entirely to Earth. I've had a couple scientists tell me that the heat released from clouds during rain formation just goes "back into the system." It makes no sense to me. Any clarification would be appreciated.
Thanks for your great work.
Yeah its kind of this aha experience to see this whole thing thru these lens..... Systems evolve to absorb more energy, and then cycle their matter to dissipate their energy. In general the fast life cycles the more heat will flow to space, with the caveat that some matter cycles dissipate energy faster than others. So the earth evolves to absorb more sunlight, to cycle its matter more, and then to dissipate higher entropy heat to space.
In terms of the water evapotranspiration heat returning to earth, I have heard climate scientists say too that it returns to the earth. It doesnt seem like all of it does, so it should dissipate radiation faster to space. I am not sure exactly why climate scientists think this, something to investigate more...... There is some complexity to this whole issue. If you evapotranspire some water , but not enough for it to condense into a cloud, it will heat up the earth, because water is a greenhouse gas, and if that water condenses as a very high cloud, high clouds trap heat underneath and can warm up the earth....
Your writing @Alpha Lo have really inspired me.
I have come to the conclusion that every cycle buils in to a bigger cicly to form and evolve into Gaia, and that every cycle has a smaller cycle that feeds it.
What I have seen in Chile is that as the missing storms describen by Dr Millan in Santiago de Chile we have that the lack of humidity caused by changes in land use, has eliminated the convective storms over los Andes next to Santiago. As you explain in this water does not condense into clouds, it will enlarge the problem of heat.
So maybe it not just de rain we miss with those convective storms. With every we loose a convective storm we loose the opportunity to irradiate heat at 6000 -7000 meters.
And heat goes to de global warming effect.
And as we loose rain, we loose vegetation, vegetation that ads carbon to the fungi bacteria soil. With less soil and water retention less vegetation and a spiral of ecosystem colapse begging's.
We must stop this colapse building from the smaller cycles up. The ones that we can control.
Every square meter of solar albedo in the city should be managed. The relation between albedo reduction and water use should be maximized. Regenerative agricultura and cover crops should stand for its real energy accountability and not as a hippie movement of good will for the planet.
This is more or less what I wanted to talk with you, and that's why and reached you in LinkedIN
yes sounds like a good project for Chile
Congratulation @Alpha Lo, Just mind blowing!
I was peaking the same phrase Rob. "Energy Flows, Matter Cycles"
I would like to recap in this relationship between energy and water.
Dont forget that the Oxigen molecule that comes from Photosysntesis comes from the molecule of water. There would be no Photosintesis o oxigen produced by the plants is it wasent for water. 6 CO2 + 6 H2O + light --> C6H12O6 + 6 O2.
The other thing to point out is that Albedo reduction by vegetation has its equivalent in energy transformation and storage plus evapotranspiration that helps small and large water cycles.
That is why is so importante to face land use change, its direct effect in climate disruption and find smart entrepreneurship to revegetate cities to cool down and lower the albedo.
Santiago de Chile is a perfect place to make a pilot of this and see its relation with convective storms over los andes.
The vast thickness of the atmosphere can be modeled as a series of layers. Much of the long heat waves do not or can not travel directly into space. They absorbed and dissipated layer by layer. The convection zone, with water and turbulent climate phenomenon is a thin layer above the surface of the Earth, above this layer the water doesn't play any role in the heat transfer. Though energy must pass this lowest layer as well, and it has serious consequences for us, how it does.
Another important effect of water that can not be neglected is the direct reflection back of the energy into space.
https://www.noaa.gov/media/image_download/60247be8-d80e-4d4d-a482-de49136b195f
If we disregard the role of carbon dioxide as an important GHG, we make the same mistake of climate experts disregarding the role of water, the small water cycle, and the role of ecosystems regulating the small water cycle. Above the convection zone, the most important player in transporting heat out into space is CO2, 420ppm (in that huge, thick layer practically no water is present <=5ppm).
Interest point, Ferenc. That paper you cite also says: "The results showed that the CO2 concentration in most profiles decreased with the increase in height." Wouldn't this fact mean that at least some warming is being prevented since ground-level heat is being converted to latent heat and escorted past the higher concentrations of CO2 in the bottom atmosphere, up to the convective layer? It may not carry it all the way out of the atmosphere, but at least part of the way, and through a pretty important layer as it has higher CO2 concentrations and is also the living space.
Yes, GHG's shouldn't be discounted, but I don't think most people arguing for a more biophysical perspective do.
Thanks, Rob
Hi Rob,
I think we agree on the large picture, that ecosystem is not taken into account according to its role in determining, controlling our climate. Though, the details must be handled carefully. Water has effect in about the lower 20 km of the atmosphere (and it is quite important for us) CO2 starts to decompose at about 80 km up in the atmosphere so it has an important role as well. And both can be controlled by the ecosystem...
Thanks, Feri
I have found an interesting article on the topic, the 'Entropy, Ecology and Evolution: Toward a Unified Philosophy of Biology by Samuel A. Cushman':
"In the thermodynamic perspective advocated here, ecosystems are perhaps best considered
to be networks of self-replicating dissipative structures (organisms) that have emergent
properties of dissipative structures themselves. The predictable pattern of trophic levels,
food webs, utilization and assimilation and production efficiencies across ecological systems
indicate the tight control that energetics has on the structure of communities and ecosystems.
A community or an ecosystem therefore is a kind of dissipative structure, in which networks
of other dissipative structures (organisms) evolve to maximize their fitness in survival and
reproduction, which in thermodynamic terms means the efficiency in which they can utilize,
assimilate and use energy, and which, when stood back upright thermodynamically, means
that ecosystems are the emergent effect of the cascade of energy through the biosphere.
Communities and ecosystems are emergent properties of a system that has evolved to most
efficiently dissipate energy and increase entropy. By focusing on the fundamental entity
(energy), and the fundamental process (dissipation and disordering of energy and increasing
of entropy) we are able to have a much clearer and powerful understanding of what life
is, from the level of biochemistry, to evolution, to the nature of the organism itself, to the
emergent structures of ecosystems, food webs, communities and landscapes."
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/3/405
Thanks for this find, looks very interesting
Thank you so much for this deeper explanation.