Cultivating a Defense Against Global Warming

Cultivating a Defense Against Global Warming (internet archive)

Cultivating a Defense Against Global Warming – ScienceNOW

B22133 / Thu, 8 Mar 2007 06:29:54 / Environment

All we have to do is turn the temperate zones of the planet into one great big irrigated Iowa cornfield and the ice caps will be saved and we can all drive about between these rows of corn on E-85 in our new GM flexfuel vehicles.

We’ve been warned about the impact of CO2 and discontinuing the use of those fossil fuels in our cars and trucks and irrigation of more semi-arid cropland to grow fuel is just
the ticket according to

Some absolutely brilliant climate scientists from California have found the cure for our CO2 induced climate ills.

Won’t that be cool. Thank goodness for the ICE effect. Isn’t science great!

It is absolutely amazing what you can learn from computer climate models.

None of that old layman common sense for us modern thinkers here in the US of A.  We’ve got university scientists getting big grants to tell us what to believe.

This article illustrates for the critical reader the need for vigilance and skepticism of the current “scientific consensus” of global warming and just how poorly climate scientists
understand the basic physics of the forces that surround them.

If you can’t find the obvious flaw in the thinking of this article, you couldn’t possibly begin to understand the global warming issue or maintain any skepticism of the CO2 centric explanation for it put forth in the media.

This is a perfect example of the junk science and flawed climate models that predict gloom and doom for the future climateof the earth.

Agriculture and agricultural irrigation are the primary cause of the anthropogenic warming of earth’s climate system, not a mitigating factor.


Kueppers’ modeling results match Lobell’s own observations, which have shown warming for most of the state during the summer, except for areas with irrigated agriculture. This effect could explain why climate models get it wrong in those areas, he says.  But in the future, agriculture won’t be expanding in California’s expensive real estate market.  So, the irrigation effect will likely flatten out while the greenhouse effect
continues to intensify

So according to his observations irrigation does reduce warming.  That’s not just from his climate model, that sounds to me like recorded fact.

Szamko @ 03/08/07 09:37:45

So according to his observations irrigation does reduce warming. That’s not just from his climate model, that sounds to me like recorded fact.

Irrigation reduces sensible heat.  Solar radiation is converted to latent heat when there is water sufficient to fuel evapostranspiration.  This energy (heat) doesn’t dissappear.

It stays close to the surface in the form of the heat of vaporization of the water that has been converted to water vapor.

This water vapor later returns this heat in the form of sensible heat to the atmosphere when it condenses to form precipitation, warming the surface and the lower portion of the troposphere with this conversion of latent to sensible heat.

That is why a still cloudy night doesn’t allow the land to cool as does a still cool dry one does.

The fact, as in the data gathered is correct.

It is the fact that these scientist simply discount the latent heat of vaporization in the water vapor that scews the conclusion that irrigation cools the planet and mitigates the impact of global warming.

Though they note the increases it causes in humidity, they fail to recognize that this increased water vapor is a far more potent greenhouse gas than is any incremental increase in CO2.

This on top of the fact that they act as though the law of energy conservation doesn’t apply to the thermodynamics of the atmosphere.

The earth is swamp cooled. This effect is the bulk of what the greenhouse effect actually is. Increasing the availability of water increases this impact and further warms the planet.

That is a recorded and well established fact.

This article and the scientists and the conclusions they have come to are 180 degrees off. They are mad whack.

They are also the components of the CO2 centric global scientific consensus.

Deserts get extremely hot in the heat of the sun, they also become extremely cold during the night.

This is due to the near absence of water and very limited evapotranspiration.

This extreme daytime heat radiates back into the atmosphere and is convected into the higher levels of the atmosphere. The dry desert surface has a relatively high albedo to directly reflect solar radiation back into the atmosphere and to space.

The availability of water increases evapotranspiration and moderates the rise in sensible heat and reduces convection.  The albedo of a cornfield is much lower than that of the
open desert.

Anybody that can’t comprehend the point I am making and see the intellectual bankruptcy of these scientists and these computer models isn’t trying to think this through.  They are simple believing what they read.

Follow this argument to the somewhat extreme example I’ve referred to.

The entire temperate zone converted to irrigated cornfield.  Impossible?  No.
Burn some of that ethanol to desalinize sea water and what’s to prevent it from being possible?

Irrigated corn fields right to the 49th parallel nationwide.  According to these “climate scientists” that will mitigate the warming.  I’m trying to point out that it would create an
unmitigated climate disaster.  When you take it to the extreme it becomes obvious, they are whack.

Take a ride through Nebraska in July if you think I’m missing something.
It may get hotter at noon in South Dakota, but at least it cools off at night.

Want to save the icecap.  Stop worrying about CO2 and start eating lower on the food chain and forget about biofuels.

George Bush is on his way to Brazil as we speak to tout the benefits of bio-ethanol as a motorfuel.

One of us is lying.


GWHunta @ 03/08/07 10:18:31

Does your argument explain rapid rates of warming at arctic latitudes?

Szamko @ 03/08/07 10:29:10


GWHunta @ 03/08/07 10:30:08

How does CO2 get to the Arctic anyhow?

Szamko @ 03/08/07 10:40:19

I live just north of the 45th parallel.  In one of the areas of heaviest snowfall in the country, Alger County in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.  Munising, which is basically my hometown is built around a bay at the southernmost point on the shore of Lake Superior.

We get snow.  Lake effect snow and tons of it.  Soon it will get warm and the snow will
begin to melt. The days of still warm weather with warm sunshine will have an impact, but won’t melt much of the snowpack because most of the sun’s energy is simply reflected back by the high albedo of the snow.

Even the moderate temperatures won’t have much of an impact as the snow is somewhat self insulating and the evaporation of the melting snow mitigates the impact.

The weather conditions that will absolutely eat the snow, so fast you can actually watch it go, will be when the damp cool cloudy weather from the south begins to blow up this way as the cultivation season begins.

The temperatures will of course be above freezing, but the skies will be cloudy and grey and outside it’ll feel like a cool damp fog you can actually see blowing across the snowpack.

The high moisture content and latent heat of the water vapor in the air will rapidly melt the snow as the water vapor condenses from it directly onto the surface of the snowpack.

That moist air from the south simply eats the snow, day and night without much assistance from the sun whatsoever.

Increasing the amount of water vapor over the continental interiors continues this process further north as the snowpack and ice cover retreats and continues this impact long after the snow is gone here.

The arctic is becoming cloudier and foggier and when colder, ice fog is becoming more prevalent as a weather condition.

Additionally, most weather systems in the U.S. move from west to east.

The Gulf Stream, which is typically 70-100 miles wide is a fast flowing current, almost a river within the Atlantic that flows by the east coast of the U.S.

Increasing both the air temperature and particularly the amount of water vapor in the offshore winds that blow over this current reduce the ability of this river of warm water to dispense its heat and hence it is carried ever farther northward.

What is not working against the polar ice in terms of additional latent heat carried by the atmosphere to the polar regions and the winds in terms of increased water vapor is attacking the ice from below as these currents release their heat further north than had the offshore breezes been less laden with the water vapor from an irrigated heartland.


GWHunta @ 03/08/07 10:51:50

How does CO2 get to the Arctic anyhow?

CO2 is very evenly dispersed throughout the atmosphere as a trace gas and the availability of CO2 only varies widely in pockets very close to the surface.

Certain plants, corn being one of them, will release CO2 back to the atmosphere from their leaves when they become overheated and stressed by the lack of water.

Other than under these specific growing conditions or a grass, brush or forest fire and where human use of fossil fuels creates localized pockets of higher concentrations, CO2
is evenly dispersed throughout the troposphere and even the stratosphere by atmospheric mixing, regardless of the region of the globe.


GWHunta @ 03/08/07 10:59:30

Put an ice sculpture in a room with warmer air but with low relative humidity and another in a room with cooler air but high relative humidity.

See where it’ll melt fastest.  In the cool damp air the water vapor will condense directly onto the ice and drip to the base of the sculpture. The water vapor in the air will give up its latent heat to the sculpture and rapidly melt it.

It’ll drip far less as it melts in the warmer but drier environment and the cool of the ice is
somewhat maintained by the evaporation of some of the liquid water as it melts from the sculpture.

Then maybe you can understand why the ICE (irrigation cooling effect) isn’t the mitigating factor in global warming these scientists claim it to be.

Sensible heat is a poor indicator of the actual energy contained in an air mass and the impact that this air will have on the environments to which it is carried by the wind.

New climate models that are more physics based and less observation (data) based are in the works, but are by several factors more complicated than those currently in use.

When they are perfected, these models will end the CO2 centric theory of global warming and should properly identify agriculture and particularly agricultural irrigation as the main human factor forcing climate change.

Until this happens, we shall have to think.


GWHunta @ 03/08/07 11:23:22

I can’t believe this headline.

Sometimes no Peace,

GWHunta @ 03/08/07 22:21:01

Being led down the garden path. Ho, Ho, Ho

GWHunta @ 03/13/07 09:37:37

Learn a new term, “agricultural evapotranspirative forcing”, or AEF as this is the primary anthropogenic impact on climate.


GWHunta @ 03/18/07 10:25:12

Sometimes no Peace.

GWHunta @ 03/24/07 08:47:21

A solution? to hydrate the arid Middle East.

In addition to all the rivers dammed and reservoirs that have been constructed, who by virtue of their existence are increasing the heat storage capacity of and evaporation rates of the continental surface, mankind is then using this water withheld from the sea to green up through irrigation many millions of square kilometers of arid or marginal agricultural land, further increasing the overall continental evapotranspiration rates.

Now factor in the “fossil water” that is being pumped from aquifers around the globe far faster than the rates of natural replenishment and you arrive at a grand total of over 12
cubic kilometers per day of additional water vapor added to the troposphere on an annual daily average.

Now the latest major “advancement” in the field of human technological achievements altering the planet’s hydrological cycle.

Industrial scale desalinization of sea and ocean water.

Though the volumes currently produced by this means is relatively minuscule in terms of the total anthropogenic alteration of the hydrological cycle, it is a growing industry, with growing need and though desalinization is extremely energy intensive and also impacts the carbon cycle as well; because of the ready availability of cheap fossil fueled energy in the
arid regions making these huge capital investments, we can expect continued growth along with increasing regional climate impact from the desalinization industry, which is currently “producing” more than 3 billion cubic meters of water per year.

At an average rate of energy consumption of about 3 kilowatt hours of electricity for each gallon of water produced.

GWHunta @ 12/10/07 13:49:50

One Response to Cultivating a Defense Against Global Warming

  1. GWHunta says:

    Myths about industrial agriculture
    (Rainfed) Organic farming is the “only way to produce food” without harming the planet and people’s health.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s