It has long been known that changes in land use can affect local temperatures. Switching from forest to pastureland to a concrete jungle has a measurable effect. Here, we see that the type of crop associated has a dramatic effect:
The scientists found that converting from natural vegetation to crop/pasture on average warmed the cerrado by 2.79 °F (1.55 °C), but that subsequent conversion to sugarcane, on average, cooled the surrounding air by 1.67 °F (0.93°C).
Via Eurekalert: Sugarcane cools climate
Palo Alto, CA—Brazilians are world leaders in using biofuels for gasoline. About a quarter of their automobile fuel consumption comes from sugarcane, which significantly reduces carbon dioxide emissions that otherwise would be emitted from using gasoline. Now scientists from the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology have found that sugarcane has a double benefit. Expansion of the crop in areas previously occupied by other Brazilian crops cools the local climate. It does so by reflecting sunlight back into space and by lowering the temperature of the surrounding air as the plants “exhale” cooler water. The study is published in the 2nd issue of Nature Climate Change, posted on-line April 17.
The research team,* led by Carnegie’s Scott Loarie, is the first to quantify the direct effects on the climate from sugarcane expansion in areas of existing crop and pastureland of the cerrado, in central Brazil.
The researchers used data from hundreds of satellite images over 733,000 square miles—an area larger than the state of Alaska. They measured temperature, reflectivity (also called albedo), and evapotranspiration—the water loss from the soil and from plants as they exhale water vapor.
As Loarie explained: “We found that shifting from natural vegetation to crops or pasture results in local warming because the plants give off less beneficial water. But the bamboo-like sugarcane is more reflective and gives off more water—much like the natural vegetation. It’s a potential win-win for the climate—using sugarcane to power vehicles reduces carbon emissions, while growing it lowers the local air temperature.”
The scientists found that converting from natural vegetation to crop/pasture on average warmed the cerrado by 2.79 °F (1.55 °C), but that subsequent conversion to sugarcane, on average, cooled the surrounding air by 1.67 °F (0.93°C).
The researchers emphasize that the beneficial effects are contingent on the fact sugarcane is grown on areas previously occupied by crops or pastureland, and not in areas converted from natural vegetation. It is also important that other crops and pastureland do not move to natural vegetation areas, which would contribute to deforestation.
So far most of the thinking about ecosystem effects on climate considers only impacts from greenhouse gas emissions. But according to coauthor Greg Asner, “It’s becoming increasingly clear that direct climate effects on local climate from land-use decisions constitute significant impacts that need to be considered core elements of human-caused climate change.”
*Co-authors on the study are David Lobell of the Program for Food Security and the Environment at Stanford University, Gregory Asner and Christopher Field of Carnegie’s Department of Global Ecology, and Qiaozhen Mu of the University of Montana. The work was made possible through the support of the Stanford University Global Climate and Energy Project.
The Department of Global Ecology was established in 2002 to help build the scientific foundations for a sustainable future. The department is located on the campus of Stanford University, but is an independent research organization funded by the Carnegie Institution. Its scientists conduct basic research on a wide range of large-scale environmental issues, including climate change, ocean acidification, biological invasions, and changes in biodiversity.
The Carnegie Institution for Science (www.carnegieScience.edu) has been a pioneering force in basic scientific research since 1902. It is a private, nonprofit organization with six research departments throughout the U.S. Carnegie scientists are leaders in plant biology, developmental biology, astronomy, materials science, global ecology, and Earth and planetary science.
I cannot accept that it is inherently dangerous that the rate of CO2 re-introduction into the atmosphere is un-natural according to some warmists’ artificial concept of a global Carbon cycle.
[snip]
…to sum up the true facts from comments:
Increased water exhalation might cool immediate area but vapor STILL is a GHG
It’s grown to be burnt as fuel not eaten. What’s global percent of arable land use for this?
– There is no such thing as ‘agricultural waste’.. that is an OLD farming precept and still to be disproved. Put everything but the processed food product back into the land it came from to save the soil.
There is no net reduction in fuel-based CO2 production. Probably more per mile or work done
the work is confusing.
The areas monitored in the maps. Are exaggerated large.
The total area of sugar cane cultivation is 100000 km ^ 2 (10 million ha)
http://www.unica.com.br/userFiles/mapa-prod-port.jpg
http://www.deere.com.br/pt_BR/ag/veja_mais/info_mercado/sugar_cane.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1067.html#/f1
It just struck me but didn’t they do the same in Indonesia for palm oil. They got lots of critic for mauling rain forests like crazy, and woo and behold, a study popped up where they claimed that replacing rain forest with palm (oil) and I believe it included palm (sugar) was actually good for nature, less rot and what not less natural emissions of poisonous CO2. So now it is legal to replace rain forest with palms (money) as long as they can claim the forest is “sick” and therefor need replacing . . . to save the planet.
WWF — We came, we saw, and fouled ourselves.
If the primary “cooling” effect is from evaporative cooling, then the story is a waste of bits. Since the impact from evaporative cooling is entirely local and energy neutral, it is uninteresting.
The only plant ground cover impacts that matter to warming are how the ground cover impacts cloud formation (some plants put out better cloud forming nuclei), and albedo. And good luck defining the comparative cloud-forming impact of different ground covers.
@-Justa Joe says:
April 18, 2011 at 11:28 am
“I cannot accept that it is inherently dangerous that the rate of CO2 re-introduction into the atmosphere is un-natural according to some warmists’ artificial concept of a global Carbon cycle.”
The carbon cycle is real, not artificial.
Perhaps you could estimate what influence your inability to accept any inherent danger to the re-introduction of CO2 (geologically sequestered) into the atmosphere at a rate several orders of magnitude greater than any natural process might have on its actual danger?
@-DirkH says:
April 18, 2011 at 11:17 am
“Doesn’t compute.” -link to brief description of the carbon cycle-
You will have to be more specific about what it is you cannot compute about the carbon cycle and the rate and magnitude of the various aspects of it and the comparative rate and amounts from the artificial introduction of geologically sequestered carbon.
@- jknapp says:
April 18, 2011 at 10:18 am
“But the global is the sum of the locals. Raising the atmospheric H2o in a local situation will necessarily raise the global H2O unless you postulate that there is a concurrent drop in H20 elswhere to counter balance the raise. Nothing here would imply that.
But basic knowledge of physics provides that information. I suspect you are aware that it is impossible to maintain a humidity level of over 100% for any specific temperature. The water vapour rains out or condenses in some way.
What is being reported here is that because the sugar cane transpires similar amounts of water to a tropical rain forest it maintains the same temperature. Some of the incoming energy evaporates the water from the plants instead of warming the locality. But with conventional agricultural crops the local temperature is higher because they do not require, or transpire as much water.
However globally the amount of water vapour to have a ‘GHG’ effect is constrained by the temperature. You cannot force more water vapour into the atmosphere than the CC equations dictate.
-“Unless you claim that the extra H2O greenhouse effect cools locally but causes warming where the H2o isn’t.”-
Not exactly, but I am claiming that it is cooler at a lake shore because of the adjacent body of water (local effect) even though that lake may be a (small) source of the total global water vapour that contributes to the ‘GH’ effect – constrained by the limits on how much water vapour can stably exist at a given temperature within the atmosphere.
@-Smokey says:
April 18, 2011 at 11:25 am
Your problem is that per the scientific method, you have failed to show that CO2 is a problem, or that AGW even exists, never mind the thoroughly debunked CAGW conjecture. In other words, you’re operating on a belief system. That triggers the nod reflex at RC and CP, but it fails here at the “Best Science” site, where evidence and the scientific method rule.
How catastrophic global warming might be is dependent on the resiliance of modern technological societies.
The science of AGW is about as old as the theory of evolution by natural selection – Tyndall and Darwin were contemparies – it hardly needs me to show that it is accurate, over a century of science has established that which is why dismissal of AGW is such a fringe activity in the world of science.
If you really think that AGW is still not scientifically verified – or at least a credible theory to account for the last ~50years of observations, perhaps you could explain what WOULD be evidence according to the scientific method which if found would persuade you of the reality of this generally agreed theory within the rest of the scientific community.
Or is there no evidence possible that would change your mind?
Can’t believe no-one else has posted this!
Can’t resist!
Sugar Kane Kowalczyk at her best! Not much cooling in evidence here!
Tim Folkerts says:
April 18, 2011 at 11:21 am
“There will be some minor changes in WHERE the CO2 and H2O are. There will not be any MORE water created by burning biomass. And water maintains are relatively stable balance because of evaporation & precipitation, so any local changes would be fairly short-lived. Changes in CO2 would take longer to return back to balance.”
And so what about the water vapor that forms clouds. Are you saying that this does not occur, or that clouds do not keep heat from radiating back into space at night? Coldest nights here in the northland are cloudless nights, for sure.
izen says:
“How catastrophic global warming might be is dependent on…” & etc.
See what I mean? A scientific skeptic would say, “If CAGW exists, then provide convincing evidence.” Izen’s comment shows that he needs no evidence; he knows that there is catastrophic global warming. His only question is: how catastrophic is it going to be?
And Izen isn’t so clever as he believes he is, trying to re-frame my comment and paint me into a rhetorical corner. I have never stated that AGW doesn’t exist. Even though there is no testable, measurable evidence showing the small fraction of warming attributable human activity, I accept that it exists.
Where we differ is that Izen believes AGW will be catastrophic, whereas I think it is insignificant. And so far the planet agrees with my view, not with Izen or the rest of the alarmist crowd.
@izen says: April 18, 2011 at 11:59 am
“If you really think that AGW is still not scientifically verified – or at least a credible theory to account for the last ~50years of observations, perhaps you could explain what WOULD be evidence according to the scientific method which if found would persuade you of the reality of this generally agreed theory within the rest of the scientific community.”
I know AGW is still not scientifically verified. Unless you happen to believe that a bunch of broadly similar computer models which have all been programmed with way too high climate sensitivity and largely ignoring all the other factors influencing climate amount to “verification”. None of these models exhibit any real skill even when hindcasting. And the real climate keeps on doing its own thing despite all the doom laden “scenarios”. Meanwhile the Hyperthermalists urge the speedy adoption of non-solutions which demonstrably don’t work to fix a non-existent “problem”.
There is about as much “scientific evidence” for Phrenology or Homeopathy. But the cAGW religion is way more dangerous. How many of the poor have already been plunged into fuel poverty? How many in the Third World’s live hopeless lives for want of affordable, reliable energy? What has the effect on the economy of the developed world of this pseudoscientific nonsense? If it is all so robust, how come, wherever you look, the high priests of cAGW are peddling bare faced lies?
Jim G says: April 18, 2011 at 12:12 pm
“And so what about the water vapor that forms clouds. Are you saying that this does not occur, or that clouds do not keep heat from radiating back into space at night? Coldest nights here in the northland are cloudless nights, for sure.”
I’m simply saying that the H2O specifically from burning biofuels will have little effect on overall water cycles and will cause little CHANGE in clouds. Certainly clouds and water vapor will have significant impacts of IR into/out of the atmosphere.
Others seems to be claiming that burning biofuels would CREATE a lot of H2O when in fact it is simply recycling the H2O.
izen says:
April 18, 2011 at 1:19 am [There is growing (!) evidence– —primarily forest – being cleared thousands of years ago.—?!) a warming influence on the climate.]
————————————————————————–
Izen: What, where, when, (like how many thousands) how much and by whom?
Douglas
If only someone could find a way to convert all the organic waste on my 11 acre parcel into something useful. I’d like to be able to convert all my rose, grape vine and tree trimmings into something useful. I refrain from burning the trimmings as I have to clean my PV panels off if the wind is blowing the wrong way- that and my wife hates the smell. It’s been close to 10 years since I worked on a successful bioengineering effort so I know it (develop, genetically modify some bug to eat the organic stuff and poop out something I can use) is technically possible. It will likely be another 20 years, or so, before anyone will invest their research dollars to help with my specific problem (what to do with my organic waste on the ranch that is)……. oh well.
In the mean time the folks down in Brazil seem to be looking at alternative uses for their sugar cane- biodiesel. It will be interesting to see if Amyris’s efforts in converting sugar cane into biodiesel turns out to be commercially viable.
http://www.amyrisbiotech.com/en/markets/fuels/renewable-diesel-fuel
As it appears the gophers, moles, and voles are winning the battle of getting a drink out of my underground drip irrigation lines- leading to way to much mint in the wrong places- I would appreciate it if someone would research a way to get rid of the mint too. The mint does keep the rose garden cooler then otherwise would be the case (as the sucking stuff steals my water to keep propagating itself)………….
izen says:
April 18, 2011 at 11:05 am
“Sam, darling, blaming the warmista for their misconceptions does absolutely nothing to absolve the rejectionists from their idiocy.”
Izen, Sweetheart, are you sure you want to say that? The response kind of speaks itself. What the rejectionists reject are the misconceptions of the Warmista. These misconceptions are the whole and entire reason for the debate. If the Warmista could just awake from their confusion, from their worship of the claim that Earth’s CO2 blanket IS Earth’s climate, then this entire debate would disappear immediately.
@izen says: April 18, 2011 at 11:59 am
“If you really think that AGW is still not scientifically verified – or at least a credible theory to account for the last ~50years of observations, perhaps you could explain what WOULD be evidence according to the scientific method which if found would persuade you of the reality of this generally agreed theory within the rest of the scientific community.”
This has been clear as a bell at least since the publication of “The Great Global Warming Blunder.” If manmade CO2 is to cause dangerous warming, there must positive forcings. The knowledge that there are positive forcings will exist only when there are physical hypotheses that can be used to explain and predict them. At this time, there are none, and you darn well know it.
izen;
The carbon cycle is real, not artificial.
Perhaps you could estimate what influence your inability to accept any inherent danger to the re-introduction of CO2 (geologically sequestered) into the atmosphere at a rate several orders of magnitude greater than any natural process might have on its actual danger?
Easy, I estimate the actual danger at net zero. Since even if your concern for the “natural process” of carbon release into the atmnosphere had any validity you cannot in anyway suggest that the effects are necessiarily universally malicious. I would lean towards beneficial.
If your carbon cycle was 100% in equilibrium how is that #1 the carbon was sequestered underground to begin with. #2 How do we see major fluctuations in carbon concentrations in the atmoshere before the existence of human civilization.
The artificial aspect of the carbon cycle, which I refer to, is your supposition that the Earth has a way of regulating it into near perfect equilibrium, and the miniscule human input of previously sequestered CO2 can throw the balance out of whack. the carbon cycle is whatever the net result of all the inputs and outputs is it doesn’t have a point of stasis or a conscience.
@-Smokey says:
April 18, 2011 at 12:26 pm
“See what I mean? A scientific skeptic would say, “If CAGW exists, then provide convincing evidence.” Izen’s comment shows that he needs no evidence; he knows that there is catastrophic global warming. His only question is: how catastrophic is it going to be?”
My apologies, an attempt to be succinct has reversed the meaning that you have derived from it. I said –
” How catastrophic global warming might be is dependent on the resiliance of modern technological societies.”
To clarify, I make no explicit or implicit assumption in this statement about whether there is global warming or if it is AGW. It is intended to be soley a statement about the degree of catastrophe that might be caused by any degree of global warming from any cause.
The subject of the robustness or otherwise of modern society is a whole nother can of worms. And one in which uncertainty and political froth abound. I find the argument that what threatens societies are not environmental change – that can be adapted to, but diminishing returns on increasing complexity of governance to cope with change.
-“Where we differ is that Izen believes AGW will be catastrophic, whereas I think it is insignificant. And so far the planet agrees with my view, not with Izen or the rest of the alarmist crowd.”-
I have no strong opinions on whether some degree of warming might be catastrophic, I suspect the key factor is agricultural disruption – a society that cannot provide calories dies quick.
I have no objection to a correct charaterisation of my opinions when you give one, but I hope this makes clear my views in this case, sorry if you were misled by your reading of my previous post.
Douglas says:
April 18, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Re- evidence of early land-use change –
” What, where, when, (like how many thousands) how much and by whom?
Douglas”
Try this –
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/71932/title/Climate_meddling_dates_back_8%2C000_years
Climate meddling dates back 8,000 years
Clearing land — first to hunt and gather, and then to farm — removed trees that otherwise would have soaked up carbon dioxide. The new work suggests that humans working the land put nearly 350 billion metric tons of carbon — many times other estimates — into the atmosphere by the year 1850.
or-
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/250311/full/news.2011.184.html
Another study in The Holocene by Dorian Fuller, an archaeologist at University College London, explores methane emissions from livestock and the spread of rice agriculture in southeast Asia. Fuller says that the expansion of rice could account for up to 80% of the additional atmospheric methane as of 1,000 years ago, and suggests that the expansion of livestock could help to plug the gap in previous millennia.
@-Justa Joe says:
April 18, 2011 at 2:44 pm
“The artificial aspect of the carbon cycle, which I refer to, is your supposition that the Earth has a way of regulating it into near perfect equilibrium, and the miniscule human input of previously sequestered CO2 can throw the balance out of whack. the carbon cycle is whatever the net result of all the inputs and outputs is it doesn’t have a point of stasis or a conscience.”
I am happy to be able to reassure you that I have no such adherence to abstract concepts of uniformism or homeostasis that you suppose.
You are quite correct that the carbon cycle is “whatever the net result of all the inputs and outputs is it doesn’t have a point of stasis or a conscience.”
It doesn’t have any means of keeping the process secret either. The amount of carbon in each of the ‘states’ in which it is present is discoverable. The rate at which carbon moves through the system was observed after the atmospheric nuclear tests created a spike of C14. The chemistry of the key short-term sources, air and sea was fully explained in the 1950s.
All this enables a good knowledge of how the magnitude of various inputs and outputs varies from natural fluctuations – and what those natural influences are.
I don’t think there are many who would consider it scientifically credible to assert that the measured rise in atmospheric CO2 with the observed isotope changes is NOT the result of burning fossil fuel. I presume you have some other reason for calling the understanding science has of the carbon cycle into question ?
[sorry about the multiple posts, but so many to respond to, not sure whether to do separate or v long groups…. grin]
izen,
Maybe you missed my point. I don’t argue that man’s combustion of hydrocarbons doesn’t add CO2 to the atmosphere miniscule though it may be. My point is Yeah, man liberate carbon, which was for a period of time undeground… so what?
Martin Brumby says:
April 18, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Ahhhh. Marylyn.
I’m one of those who like it hot.
@-Justa Joe says:
April 18, 2011 at 3:32 pm
“My point is Yeah, man liberate carbon, which was for a period of time undeground… so what?”
Well here is a list of some people that wondered about that…..
Fourier
Tyndall
Arrhenius
Callendar
Plass
Revelle
Keeling
@izen
Here’s, supposedly, for most people, a simple question: Can you at least link to your supposed proofs you claim and hint at?
At least others appear to have rational logical reasoning and links, you seem to have none.
To reveal the great folly of Warmista climate science, consider the case of modern genetics, the genetics of Crick and Watson’s Double Helix and the Human Genome Project. Climate scientists seem to believe that they have found in Arrhenius’ CO2 hypotheses the climate equivalent of the Double Helix and that they are moving forward on the climate equivalent of the mapping of the human genome. What none of them seem to understand is the vast amount of slogging through experimental research for the purpose of creating and testing physical hypotheses that modern genetics depends on.
As is well known, Crick was more inclined to theory and less inclined to experiment than Watson. Enough said about Crick. Watson is the story of the science. Watson worked 24/7/365 for most of his life with his hands immersed in some organic soup. In other words, he slogged daily as a biochemist. All of that work was necessary to support the Double Helix theory and all later developments in genetic theory in which Watson participated. Watson’s notebooks probably contain many thousands of physical hypotheses. These are hypotheses about what is going on biochemically in the many soups that Watson worked in. Some hypotheses were rejected and some accepted. Of course, many other biochemists made contributions of the same sort and still do. Today, genetic science is no less free of biochemistry than it was in 1945. However beautiful the Double Helix and the Human Genome Maps might be, the science is in the thousands of hypotheses about the soups.
Climate scientists have their computer models, Arrhenius’ hypotheses, some highly questionable historical temperature data, their novel statistics, and they believe that their science is no less ready for prime time than is modern genetic science. They believe that they can predict critical features of Earth’s climate for tomorrow, next year, and next century. What are they missing? They are missing the climate-versions of those thousands of hypotheses produced by the daily slogging of Watson and other scientists like him who are working today. Sorry guys, but it is just not going to happen. This little study on sugar cane is one of Watson’s vats. You have to go into it. You have to eventually spell out the importance of Arrhenius’ hypotheses and your computer models through thousands of such little hypotheses. There is no other way.
Izen, So you believe that the ‘anthropogenic ‘ CO2 re-introduced to the atmosphere will have some negligible warming effect? Not at all unreasonable. Prof. Richard Lindzen agrees with that view, but what do you propose to do about all of the alarmists and climate carpetbaggers?