HI Tom, I have been giving much thought to the sensitivity issue from a hydro/ecological perspective, as you know that I believe that our focus on co2 as the main problem is in itself becoming part of the problem. If we see our adverse impact on this planet as a sensitivity enhancer then this becomes a multiplier on the co2 sensitivity . Say co2 sensitivity is 3 and our environmental impact is creating increased sensitivity in regards to incoming solar radiation through ecological and hydrological changes is 2 then the overall sensitivity is 5 or 6 depending on a time feedback loop. This is a number being thrown around a lot in regards to the rate of increase we are currently experiencing. If we can turn our land and ocean impact sensitivity into a fraction instead of a multiplier through work aligned with hydrological as well as ecological repair then we allow ourselves ample time to bring about a safe and profitable transition. Deforestation of tropical rainforest for biofuels is an example of how wrong I think our understanding is and the danger we are amplifying through our lack of understanding. Maybe we should think again about a sensitivity piece.
Hi Theodore, That’s a very interesting suggestion. Multiple layers of sensitivity than are summed or multiplied to produce a temporal sensitivity that could change over time and through positive and negative actions.
It would be good to work up something on this idea. I’ll email you.
The way I see it each el Nino gives us a glimpse of what neutral years would be without sulfate aerosol pollution; what el Nino temperatures would bring without the disguising mask of fossil fuel pollution are hotter again.
HI Tom, you are probably aware of the work on the biotic pump and the importance of forested regions as the key driver of the moisture transport from the oceans into the interior of larger land masses through phase change pressure of water. If one uses this premise and extrapolates this into this ocean based system using nutrient flow and associated bioaerosols as the main driver of atmospheric conditions, we then see that this creates a biochemical coupling creating the ocean equivalent of the terrestrial biotic pump. Therefore artificial nutrient application could alter the severity of the conditions as seen with the triple dip la Nina thought to have been a result of the severity of the Australian fires in 2019 and their oceanic nutrient application. So in theory if we were to add say iron to an impoverished ocean this would provide an important opportunity in relation to the severity of possible future conditions. Nutrient is to oceans as water is to land in relation to the control of energy flow through the system especially in this regard the atmosphere. Thanks again for your diligent work.
HI Tom, I have been giving much thought to the sensitivity issue from a hydro/ecological perspective, as you know that I believe that our focus on co2 as the main problem is in itself becoming part of the problem. If we see our adverse impact on this planet as a sensitivity enhancer then this becomes a multiplier on the co2 sensitivity . Say co2 sensitivity is 3 and our environmental impact is creating increased sensitivity in regards to incoming solar radiation through ecological and hydrological changes is 2 then the overall sensitivity is 5 or 6 depending on a time feedback loop. This is a number being thrown around a lot in regards to the rate of increase we are currently experiencing. If we can turn our land and ocean impact sensitivity into a fraction instead of a multiplier through work aligned with hydrological as well as ecological repair then we allow ourselves ample time to bring about a safe and profitable transition. Deforestation of tropical rainforest for biofuels is an example of how wrong I think our understanding is and the danger we are amplifying through our lack of understanding. Maybe we should think again about a sensitivity piece.
Hi Theodore, That’s a very interesting suggestion. Multiple layers of sensitivity than are summed or multiplied to produce a temporal sensitivity that could change over time and through positive and negative actions.
It would be good to work up something on this idea. I’ll email you.
The way I see it each el Nino gives us a glimpse of what neutral years would be without sulfate aerosol pollution; what el Nino temperatures would bring without the disguising mask of fossil fuel pollution are hotter again.
HI Tom, you are probably aware of the work on the biotic pump and the importance of forested regions as the key driver of the moisture transport from the oceans into the interior of larger land masses through phase change pressure of water. If one uses this premise and extrapolates this into this ocean based system using nutrient flow and associated bioaerosols as the main driver of atmospheric conditions, we then see that this creates a biochemical coupling creating the ocean equivalent of the terrestrial biotic pump. Therefore artificial nutrient application could alter the severity of the conditions as seen with the triple dip la Nina thought to have been a result of the severity of the Australian fires in 2019 and their oceanic nutrient application. So in theory if we were to add say iron to an impoverished ocean this would provide an important opportunity in relation to the severity of possible future conditions. Nutrient is to oceans as water is to land in relation to the control of energy flow through the system especially in this regard the atmosphere. Thanks again for your diligent work.