Another New Study Says Warming And CO2-Induced Greening Leads To COOLING Of Land Surface Temperatures

From the NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard on 21. January 2021

Since the 1980s, warming and rising CO2 fertilization have spawned a global-scale greening trend. This leads to an “Earth greening-induced cooling effect” of land surface temperatures.

In the last 9 months we have highlighted a study (Haverd et al., 2020) asserting rising CO2 and warming are the dominant drivers of Earth’s strong post-1980s greening trend. This greening expands Earth’s carbon sink so profoundly that by 2100 the greening of the Earth will offset 17 years (equivalent) of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Image Source: Haverd et al., 2020

In August we featured another study, Piao et al., 2020, that expands upon these same principles, further suggesting the net effect of more CO2-driven greening is more cooling and carbon sink expansion.

Since the 1980s, 29% of human CO2 emissions were cancelled out by the CO2-induced greening of the Earth. The post-2000 vegetative greening expansion has been so massive (5.4 million km²) its net areal increase is equivalent to a region the size of the Amazon rainforest.

Image Source: Piao et al., 2020

In late November (2020) another study (Chen et al., 2020) was published that highlighted the “widespread increasing trends” in greening/Leaf Area Index (LAI) since the 1980s that is “due to warming…CO2 fertilization” and land management.

The authors strongly supported the “Earth greening cools LST [land surface temperatures]” conclusions that others have emphasized, noting that “the area of LAI-induced cooling (30%) is six times that of LAI-induced warming (5%).”

Image Source: Chen et al., 2020

Finally, a visual representation affirming the strong cooling effects of greening/reforestation was highlighted in another 2020 study.

Huang et al. (2020) found an astonishing -0.12°C per year (-1.2°C per decade!) cooling trend associated with recent (1992-2015) land cover changes (LLCs) across Europe – a region where croplands are increasingly being converted to forests.

“At an average European level, transitions from forest to any other land cover class show mean warming effects, including conversion of forests to cropland (+0.15 ± 0.03 °C), grassland (+0.23 ± 0.06 °C), and urban (+0.27 ± 0.06 °C). Urban sprawling always shows warming contributions, irrespective of the type of previous land cover.”
Image Source: Huang et al., 2020

Want to warm local and regional land surface temperatures? Cut down forests and build up urban areas.

Want to cool local and regional land surface temperatures? Plant trees and return croplands to forest areas.

The latter option would appear to be far more effective and less costly than trying to mitigate CO2 emissions as our simultaneous demand for energy rapidly expands across the global landscape.

4.8 29 votes
Article Rating
80 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scissor
January 22, 2021 2:03 pm

Hurray for science.

Bryan A
Reply to  Scissor
January 22, 2021 3:04 pm

News flash
That Noble Global Warming GHG CO2 Causes Cooling
Film at 11

gringojay
Reply to  Bryan A
January 22, 2021 6:40 pm

The degree of cooling or heating directly attributable from eCO2 (elevated) leafy increase has a relationship with leaf carotenoid content. Then too, it is not a linear relationship. In a general extrapolation: given well watered conditions plants under eCo2 make fewer carotenoids & in partially watered conditions under eCO2 they make more carotenoids. Furthermore, again generalizing, a plant acclimated to full sun under eCO2 makes less carotenoids, yet a plant acclimated to shade under eCO2 makes more carotenoids.

Carotenoids are part of the plant mechanism to deal with light; since plants usually can not use all the energy of light for photosynthesis a portion of that light must be dealt with if leaf damage is to be avoided. [Photosynthesis naturally excites chlorophyll & then oxygen in the leaf becomes a free radical (unpaired electron super-oxide); this reacts with hydrogen peroxide produced when oxygen meets electrons from photosynthesis. And the by-product is then a dangerously reactive hydroxyl.] It is carotenoids that quell excited chlorophyll so that it is stymied from reacting with oxygen (this is desirable).

In brief: carotenoids alter a state of chlorophyll (triplet) & in doing so that energy is dissipated as heat. Thus, in well watered eCO2 scenarios the reduced capacity to shunt excess light energy into leaf heat is ameliorated by moisture. Experiments with different kinds of plants indicate eCO2 is related to between 6% & 26% lower carotenoid content; however, not all carotenoids are equally efficient so their profile of representation in a leaf can vary among different kinds of plants.

January 22, 2021 2:16 pm

Every living thing on Earth is now benefiting from the increase in CO2 levels in the air that all the governments on Earth are now actively working to reduce.

Richard Page
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
January 22, 2021 2:26 pm

Basically exactly that. I think.

fred250
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
January 22, 2021 2:40 pm

beat me to it

CO2 is NOTHING but totally beneficial to ALL LIFE ON EARTH.

comment image

Jon Salmi
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
January 22, 2021 3:35 pm

Nicholas, this results from a phenomenon known as MGH (Mass Governmental Hysteria).

czechlist
Reply to  Jon Salmi
January 23, 2021 2:51 pm

Government manipulation. They know CO2 is not a problem; it is a means to their ends – a plutocratic kakocracy.

Bill Everett
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
January 23, 2021 6:15 pm

The CO2 mapping based upon data from the new CO2 measuring satellite repeatedly show higher levels of CO2 associated with the location of higher levels of vegetation, particularly broadleaf vegetation. If the vegetation is not a source of new CO2 then there should be a dearth of CO2 shown in such locations because of its absorption by the increased vegetation.

Richard Page
January 22, 2021 2:26 pm

Ok. I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop. It’s good but where’s the alarmist rhetoric and pleas for more grant money? sarc

Peter W
Reply to  Richard Page
January 22, 2021 3:47 pm

The additional growth will crowd us out of the green areas of earth, causing us to spend years wandering in the deserts. Al Gore will make another movie about this >growing threat!<
It will feature terrifying scenes of hurricane-force winds toppling supertrees, able to demolish tall buildings with a single crash. The title of the movie will be “Little Planet of Horrors!” It will be required showing in our schools on a weekly basis, along with instructions on how to limit our breathing, since with every breath we exhale, we add more CO2 to the atmosphere.

How was that? Will that fill the bill for you for starters?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Peter W
January 23, 2021 4:10 am

“The title of the movie will be “Little Planet of Horrors!””

I hope it’ll be as funny as the Steve Martin film “Little House of Horrors”. I never laughed so hard in my life as watching that film. “Feed me- feed me” said the fast growing meat eating plant. But now it’ll be “the green energy industrial complex” crying “feed me, feed me”.

Richard Page
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 23, 2021 9:47 am

“Little Shop of Horrors” was pretty good – I enjoyed the original and the remake with Steve Martin.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Page
January 26, 2021 7:44 am

The alarmists could claim that CO2 will cause too much greening which will cause too much cooling and send Earth into another Ice Age. They will need more grant money to expand on this.

January 22, 2021 2:33 pm

I just watched a video about 5 ways solar cells are being improved….the desperation of these solar cell lovers is pathetic….it seems solar cells do not like warmer temps so one way to help is install above fields growing food so the moisture from the plants helps cool the solar cells….and more ways include cells in clothing and windows in buildings….less than 2 % of electric power is from cells ….and I think it is going to be that way for a long time.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  T. C. Clark
January 22, 2021 3:00 pm

If the solar cells are installed above the plants, how do the plants get any sunlight?

Bryan A
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
January 22, 2021 3:06 pm

SHHH
You can’t go around spreading viscous truths

n.n
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
January 22, 2021 4:10 pm

Yes, clear the Green Blight for a greener environment.

gringojay
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
January 22, 2021 4:38 pm

Once it is accepted that solar panels be mounted at elevation above plants the situation becomes more rational. And then the issue of what specific crop yields show differences becomes more nuanced.

The general concept is to not cover 100% of the crop with solar panels; with another
innovation being the use of transparent panels for greenhouse roofs.Then too the tracking solar panels offer better conditions than fixed panels.

Out in the field fixed panels 5 meters off the ground set 3 meters apart allowed greater yields than fixed panels set only 1.5 meters apart. Seasonally the northern hemisphere sun in summer is higher in the sky than it is in winter & thus the panel shading is less during summer. Since morning (& afternoon sun) are lower in the sky
the shading is lower then; while the orientation of arrays north to south is going to be better than an axial placement east to west.

Only about 50% of sun light reaching the ground is in the required photosynthetic range; yet different plants react to low light differently. Since may experiments use distinct parameters I won’t try summarizing here how key crops perform, other than to say any trade off seems to be acceptable. Laymen should bear in mind that diffuse light has certain benefits for plants over continuous direct illumination. In some kinds of plants this can include increased biomass, while in others simply larger leaves & in others just almost comparable % of yield.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  gringojay
January 22, 2021 7:25 pm

Here’s one for ya’.
Place the solar panels so your Cannabis crop gets morning sun and shade during the hottest part of the day. That way the terpenes don’t get “baked out” and the colas have a strong, skunky fragrance. There will also be larger trichomes that way.
😎(tips for liberals)

DMacKenzie
January 22, 2021 2:33 pm

And lets not forget the albedo difference between leafy green and earthy brown….

B2221B10-7F6E-484D-9EF2-F6BEAAE67663.jpeg
Vuk
January 22, 2021 2:50 pm

OT (frightener)
Forget about global warming catastrophe, today the UK’s PM announced that the new UK virus mutant, mutated in just one year to be 30% more deadly.
Back of the envelope calculation:
Assuming the world population of about 6 billion is currently rising by 1% (18/1000 births, 8/1000 deaths) a year, but in a year 2 million died from the Covid virus. If rate of population goes rising by 1% but virus annually becomes year by year 30% more deadly (assuming previous infection immunity lasting about 6 months and not effective against the new mutant and vaccine unable to track new mutations) a quick calculation shows that in 30 years time world population will be down to about 1.4 billion and humans becoming extinct just a few years later.
To late here(UK) to double check my numbers, anyone like to have a go.

Last edited 4 months ago by Vuk
Sara
Reply to  Vuk
January 22, 2021 3:02 pm

OK, Vuk, do you have a reference link that you can provide to support that? If you do, please post it. Thanks.

Bryan A
Reply to  Sara
January 22, 2021 4:39 pm

The WaPo just had an article that indicated

England’s chief scientific adviser, Patrick Vallance, offered an example. He said that among 1,000 men in England age 60 or older, the original virus would kill 10. The new variant, he said, would kill 13 or 14. That would represent a 30 percent rise in mortality, though it is important to note that absolute risk of death remains low.

John Tillman
Reply to  Bryan A
January 22, 2021 6:19 pm

Even if that be the case, the new strain probably is no more lethal to younger demographic cohorts and women, just more contagious.

Anyway, it’s not in a pathogen’s interest to become more lethal steadily. Less fatal strains will be naturally selected for.

TonyL
Reply to  Vuk
January 22, 2021 3:38 pm

You start with 30% more deadly, OK.
then you go to:
“virus annually becomes year by year 30% more deadly”
??????
It just keeps getting more and more deadly, by leaps and bounds, every single year.
{A fabricated exponential curve if I ever did see one!}

Really, Vuk. We expected better than this from you.

Vuk
Reply to  TonyL
January 22, 2021 4:03 pm

Well it did become 30% more deadly in a less than a year, so why it could not be another 30% more deadly in another year than it is now ?
I said assuming,… but that is not the worse possible scenario, the PM said that the new mutant is now 30-40% more deadly than 9 -10 months ago. With 30% increments in the current mortality rate in about 22 years time population would be back where it is now at about 6 billion, but virus which in the first year killed only 0.03% in 22 years time would be killing about 6% of population, and from then on humans would be doomed.
I did not say it will or would but on basis what is now known, it could happen taking into account assumptions I made. On the other hand, the best possible scenario is that from next year on there would not be any single excess death, but anything in between is possible.

BobM
Reply to  TonyL
January 22, 2021 5:20 pm

He said “If”, and the virus HAS (at least in UK) become 30% more deadly in its first year… why not another 30% more deadly mutation next year? That’s his “OT (frightener)” back of the envelope assumption. Granted, a big “if”, but that’s his frightening scenario. Kinda like the climate crisis.

Rod Evans
Reply to  TonyL
January 23, 2021 1:21 am

30% increase of a very small number which in the UK it is 0.14% of the population had died in the past twelve months with Covid detected during the previous 28 days. These old frail patients had Covid but died with it rather than from it. So a 30% increase will result at worst with 0.185% dying while carrying Covid.
To put that the other way round 99.815% of the population will be celebrating New Year next year.
Why are we not all celebrating?

leitmotif
Reply to  Vuk
January 22, 2021 4:16 pm

Just under 1% of the world population dies every year for some reason or other, about 60 million people. That’s 5 million every month. Business as usual.

n.n
Reply to  Vuk
January 22, 2021 4:16 pm

Range is proportional to host viability and an abundance of Posterity. Mother Nature is not Pro-Choice.

John in Oz
Reply to  Vuk
January 22, 2021 5:00 pm

With the Covid lockdowns, expect the birth rate to increase.

We should be seeing a baby boom now after over 12 months of forced co-habitation.

Jean Parisot
Reply to  John in Oz
January 22, 2021 5:44 pm

And/or divorce

Lrp
Reply to  Jean Parisot
January 22, 2021 8:44 pm

Poor kids!

Notanacademic
Reply to  John in Oz
January 23, 2021 3:57 am

Assuming the stalks delivering the babies aren’t killed by windmills.

Jirka
Reply to  Notanacademic
January 27, 2021 9:49 pm

You mean storks?

John Tillman
Reply to  Vuk
January 22, 2021 5:07 pm

Pathogens typically evolve to become less lethal.

The UK variant isn’t more deadly. It’s more infective, but its mortality rate is the same. More infections might raise the absolute number of fatalities, but the IFR is still very small for all but the most vulnerable groups, most likely to succumb to other diseases.

Vuk
Reply to  John Tillman
January 23, 2021 1:50 am

England’s chief scientific adviser, Patrick Vallance, offered an example. He said that among 1,000 men in England age 60 or older, the original virus would kill 10. The new variant, he said, would kill 13 or 14. That would represent a 30 percent rise in mortality, though it is important to note that absolute risk of death remains low.

Vuk
Reply to  Vuk
January 23, 2021 3:23 am

Taking into account what is known and the hypothetical assumptions (as in the original post) do materialise this graph
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/WPCI.gif
shows evolution of the total number of the world population in the next three decades. Even in the ‘worst case scenario’ science has good 20 years to come up with a solution in order to prevent catastrophe in population collapse.
(p.s. it is job of a citizen ‘would be scientist’ to probe the ‘no go areas’ of politicians and responsible scientist)

Vuk
Reply to  Vuk
January 23, 2021 4:19 am

Something for the AGW population control protagonist to consider, do nothing about Covid19 for 20 years on. Even if the exceptionally extreme assumptions come to being, which is unlikely, in 2043 (two more low sunspot cycles with below average UV, CV19 virus will be booming) the world population numbers would be more or less same as now.

Last edited 4 months ago by Vuk
Paul C
Reply to  Vuk
January 23, 2021 11:21 am

That would be the B.1.1.7 variant of SARS-COV-2? Alternatively, the UK/Kent version of the CHINESE/WUHAN coronavirus. We all seem to be falling into the trap of obfuscating the origins of the virus, while at the same time attaching regionality to each mutation of the virus. For consistency, if it is convenient to mention a location for a variant, the location for the original should also be specified.
Plus, if it gets that bad, they might have to start using ivermectin – perhaps just for the new strains – so they don’t have to admit to the lives lost by refusing to treat patients of the original strain.

Richard Page
Reply to  Vuk
January 23, 2021 12:26 pm

That 30% figure is simply an initial estimate. There isn’t enough data on the new strain to get an accurate fix on what it’s doing yet. Time will tell how virulent it really is.

Rory Forbes
January 22, 2021 2:51 pm

Imagine my surprise! So, in short, pretty much everything we’ve been told about AGW and “bad CO2” has been nonsense and a gross waste of precious resources, payer’s money and needless angst. The use of fossil fuels that provided the world with this wonderful standard of living has provided its own means to repair the environment … or near enough.

Bryan A
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 22, 2021 3:09 pm

No No No…it’s the Good CO2 that is causing greening and Mann’s Bad CO2 that’s causing warming worming

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Bryan A
January 22, 2021 5:38 pm

You’re completely right! I got it all wrong, how stupid of me. Mea culpa!

Bryan A
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 22, 2021 7:35 pm

As Penance do 10 Hail Mikeys and 15 ReGretas …
And the stations of the Hockey Stick

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Bryan A
January 22, 2021 8:57 pm

I’d rather lick razor blades and stick needles in my eye balls, thanks.

(I bought 10 of Al Gore’s CCX carbon credits @ $.15 in 2010 … that might help). He made ~ $65 million, I believe.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 22, 2021 5:36 pm

Oooops … just noticed; that should have been “tax payers money”.

January 22, 2021 2:52 pm

Beginning of the retreat because of previewed cooling trend to come and a follow-up of “it’s cooling because it’s warming” 😀 😀

Graemethecat
Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 23, 2021 11:23 am

Interestingly, Greenpeace was pushing their usual “cooling is evidence for warming” idiocy on their Twitter feed a few days ago, and it got absolutely laughed out of court by the commenters. That wouldn’t have happened a few years ago. Perhaps reality is finally catching up with them.

Richard Page
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 23, 2021 12:30 pm

Greenpeace have always lied and have increasingly been caught doing it. I’m always hopeful that they’ll go too far and get themselves banned but so far not. I do still live in hope.

Kalsel3294
January 22, 2021 2:56 pm

Increased plant growth from the CO2 also depends on more precipitation from the increased moisture carried by a warmer atmosphere.

Scissor
Reply to  Kalsel3294
January 22, 2021 3:13 pm

Not really. In fact, increased CO2 can allow some plants to be as productive with lesser amounts of moisture.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Kalsel3294
January 22, 2021 5:40 pm

Increased CO2 reduces the size and number of the stomata, greatly reducing the demand for water. More CO2 increases the plant’s water efficiency. Look it up.

julian braggins
Reply to  Kalsel3294
January 23, 2021 4:05 am

I know that the projected increase of precipitation was 7% for every 1 degree C.
The EPA’s precipitation figures for the World over the hundred years 1910 to 2010 was an increase of 0.8 inches.

So either it didn’t really warm much or the projections were waaaay out’
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-precipitation

Richard Page
Reply to  julian braggins
January 23, 2021 12:32 pm

Or any increase or decrease in precipitation has little to do with increases or decreases in temperature.

Kpar
January 22, 2021 3:09 pm

Absent the Global Warm-monger hysteria, this information would be self-explanatory… and obvious.

H. D. Hoese
January 22, 2021 3:27 pm

“One highlight of our study is that it treats changes in the LAI [Leaf area index] as the forcing and changes in the LST [Land surface temperature] as the response, thereby avoiding the potential causality issues involved in the coevolution between LST and LAI.” From Chen, et al.

Had a lot of botany but never recall hearing a professor say anything like that. Coevolution yes, avoiding no.

leitmotif
January 22, 2021 4:05 pm

Everyone knows that Cooling Of Land Surface Temperatures can only be achieved by government legislation.
Or by lukewarmers concentrating really really hard.

n.n
January 22, 2021 4:08 pm

CO2 is a first order forcing of green environments and climate calming.

leitmotif
January 22, 2021 5:19 pm

WUWT is the climate change website I go to. It’s great. It has working and retired scientists and engineers contributing on a daily basis. But it has to divorce itself from the concept that atmospheric CO2 really has anything to do with as a control dial for climate change.

This website has supporters who believe the doubling of CO2 etc etc causes warming of etc etc. It also has those who do not support this view.

This website has supporters who believe back radiation is a real flux that can interfere with the heat transfer/cooling of the earth’s surface. It also has those who do not support this view.

When are you going to become a truly sceptical website and say that an increase of atmospheric CO2 has no effect on the climate even when it alters the composition of the atmosphere in such a minor way?

You believe atmospheric CO2 has an effect on the planet’s climate(s)? Shame on you.

WUWT is just playing into the warmist hands.

Willis has to go.

gringojay
Reply to  leitmotif
January 22, 2021 5:40 pm

You proposition sounds like it advocates de-platforming.

Robert Austin
Reply to  leitmotif
January 22, 2021 5:51 pm

I would prefer that leitmotif “go” if he/she/it shames us for thinking it likely that radiative physics shows that CO2 concentration has some theoretical (probably small to immeasurable) effect on the earth’s global temperature. This site is not about staking out some ideological position and excommunicating those that question it. Troll begone!

leitmotif
Reply to  Robert Austin
January 23, 2021 3:55 am

Is that all you have got? Lukewarmer begone!

Richard Page
Reply to  leitmotif
January 23, 2021 9:57 am

Not sure you really understand what WUWT does. I enjoy viewing it because it is science – based, not necessarily politically partisan (although there’s a lot of overlap and political posts).

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Page
January 26, 2021 8:00 am

“although there’s a lot of overlap and political posts”

It can’t be helped. The Left has turned Human-caused Climate Change into a poltical movement and left science far behind.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  leitmotif
January 26, 2021 7:58 am

“WUWT is just playing into the warmist hands.
Willis has to go.”

WUWT does not speak with one voice. That would be an echo chamber.

Willis needs to write more articles. 🙂

Peta of Newark
January 22, 2021 7:42 pm

How do you are argue with magically-thinking people in various states of panic-induced hysteria?

It goes wrong from the very start..
Quote:
“”Another New Study Says Warming And CO2-Induced Greening Leads To COOLING Of Land Surface Temperatures“”
“”Another“”
Sorry, but I’m seeing the same tired, old & fuzzy Global Greening Graphic that been doing the rounds since forever.

“” warming cause cooling“”
They really have Lost It haven’t they?

“”CO2- Induced Greening“”
=Perfectly zero comprehension of how plants and agriculture work while demonstrating a desperate urge to part part if The In Crowd.

“”Greening leads to cooling“”
Entirely beyond the (rocket) science capabilities of NASA but obvious to any 7 or 8 year-old.

Greenery has vastly higher albedo than has bare soil. About 0.4 vs 0.1
The observed Greening is due primarily to the change, by arable farmers, to cultivating Autumn-planted crops in favour of Spring-plantings
Bare soil is thus only visible to the Sputniks for 6 or 7 weeks per year instead of 7 or 8 months..

Bingo!!
In the modern vernacular so that everyone understands:
The Sputniks see “”Massive, super masssive, squigga gigga kilonewtonmassive massive bigger than a massive and unprecedentedly massive big thing, Greening
Except those trapped by their own Magical Thinking – which really does comprise 97% of the entire world.

So massive in fact that is is 24.9742123456789104297% more Globally Green than before.
(Just ‘get’ the hubris implicit in that)

Before‘ being any time you like between 1989 and the start of the Inrevolutional Disturnance – scientists know it that accurately because they have a Super Computer Model.
lets all swoon, bow down, show respect and pay our fines taxes & tariffs

Some points from the comments..
1) Putting a very limited number solar panels in farmers fields may increase yield BECAUSE, the panels act as wind-breaks, reducing evaporative cooling and water loss.
They would also slow the escape into the sky of CO2 coming from the soil.
Hello hello – Its why forests make canopies and why stomata are on the underside of leaves.
Not = Rocket Science

2) For the Nth time where N is now a Supermassive Number, CO2 is not the Liebig Limiter on plant growth out in The Real World.
(Stuff that comes from ‘pollution’ actually is)

3) Plants will use less water when grown in soil with higher fertility than when in ancient, eroded and highly weathered soils. All the water they need for sugar/energy production comes in through the stomata, attached to the CO2 they need
(Stuff name of: Carbonic Acid)
They only really use/need water from the soil to provide other stuff they need

4) Re: Boris and Covid..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55768627

Quote:
“”The directive also misapplies accounting rules for bioenergy originally created for the U.N. Framework Convention Climate Change (UNFCCC). Under the rules of that treaty, countries that burn wood for energy can ignore emissions, but countries where the trees were chopped must count the carbon lost from the forest. Although this rule allows countries switching from coal to wood to ignore true emissions figures, it balances out global accounting, which is the sole purpose of those rules, and does not make bioenergy carbon free””

From here

The operative in there is: “misapplies accounting rules

Think on people, before you open your mouth or hit the keyboard..
Are YOU being misapplied – are you being turned into a (useful) idiot….

We do have visit us quite often, more than one like that.
You know who I mean.

Last edited 4 months ago by Peta of Newark
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 22, 2021 10:39 pm

You really should stop ingesting all that refined sugar.

Actually, based on that last rant, you must have an IV.

Ghowe
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 23, 2021 5:49 pm

Whhaddayyamean, the guy from Newark got great rants. Always good to read em after a few beers and a hard day in the cold. More sense than 97%of anything from across the pond,,,! IMDO.

Richard Page
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 23, 2021 10:04 am

Don’t think of it like that. Consider it as a long conversation with a child in which they are saying “no” and we are saying “yes” – at some points it is funny to switch to no and see them switch as well. Eventually the child, and these people, will switch and convince themselves that it was their position all along.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 26, 2021 8:11 am

“How do you argue with magically-thinking people in various states of panic-induced hysteria?”

Good question. And I think that is a good description of our current state of affairs. There are millions of people walking around in false realities, completely oblivious to their own situation, and making bad decisions as a result. Exascerbated by a Lying Leftwing Media pushing a political agenda. Greatly exascerbated. Dangerously exascerbated.

Pop Piasa
January 22, 2021 7:44 pm

I’d be curious how much albedo competes with SSTs in nudging the weather around on our planet. Considering that 99.9% of the heat is stored in the oceans and they cover around 3/4 of the globe, I would be inclined to think that long-term trends in climate would be largely unaffected by transient effects like albedo and more controlled by the complexity of cloud formation over the oceans, particularly in the equatorial and temperate latitudes.

Redge
January 23, 2021 12:14 am

It’s been known for the best part of 20 years that installing a green roof i.e. plants, grasses, sedum instead of hard surfaces, reduces temperatures in the urban landscape.

Hardly a stretch of the imagination that more vegetation equals cooling.

Hmmm, maybe that’s why all the vegetables who believe in catastrophic global warming think it’s cool. 😀

Greg
January 23, 2021 3:20 am

Ah, so I guess the “correct” way to view is that global warming is being masked by CO2 fertilised growth and in fact : IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT !

Joseph Zorzin
January 23, 2021 3:56 am

“Want to warm local and regional land surface temperatures? Cut down forests and build up urban areas.”

The state of Mass. climate czar in a webinar recently said – if every building in the state has solar panels installed and thousands of wind turbines are installed in the state or at sea- then we’ll still need 60-120 thousand acres of land (mostly forest) to be destroyed to install ground based solar- to meet the requirements of the new 2050 decarbonization bill. The bill requires the state to be carbon net free by that date. I keep trying to tell everyone here that destroying forests to save the climate is nuts.

Climate believer
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 23, 2021 7:43 am

Here in France they want to build the biggest Solar park in Europe. Their plan is to take out 10 km² of forest. The price? only 650 million €.

Climate believer
Reply to  Climate believer
January 23, 2021 7:45 am

Nuts

Saucats solar park sat view.png
Timbersfine
January 23, 2021 12:41 pm

Worlds total land mass approx 14.8 billion ha
Pre large scale human changes to planet (8,000 years ago) estimated 6 billion ha forests.
Present day, estimated 3 billion ha forests remain, of which 40% are large self sustaining. Most forests destroyed past 200 years …. oh surprise temps rise across the world, oh but wait human impact climate change isn’t real ….

No wonder very little work is done on deforestation impact. If your a AGW climate change believer, it’s CO2, not forest removal. If your a AGW denier or skeptic, there is no significant climate change therefore deforestation has no concerning impact.

I cannot find anywhere on line a chart showing deforestation totaling overtime (only year by year), nor global temperature changes vs deforestation total across the globe over time.

Prjindigo
January 24, 2021 5:16 am

The effects of alleged “global warming” and “climate change” from CO2 cannot be measured from the ground to begin with.

%d bloggers like this: