Getting rid of wetlands alone will not solve the global warming problem.

We must relax - no, remove - existing controls on particulate emissions, especially those covering emissions from combustion that produces CO2. If we could dim-out the overall sunlight just a little bit more, make ways to reflect more sunlight back into space before it hits earth, then the greenhouse gases won't have so much heat to trap.

I sure do miss those spectacular shows of contrails from thousands of B-17 bombers all in the air at one time. Now I know why I miss them: all that exhaust was keeping me cool! And how stupid could we be, to have given up all those wonderful B-52s and old jet engines on all kinds of old multi-engine aircraft, for those awful, clean-burning, "stealth" bombers. Let's get those old powerplants (and people) a-smokin' again!

Oh what the heck, the beetles are eating all the trees in Alaska now anyway, so let's just clear-cut and desertify that whole joint, go with the flow (of melting glaciers and snowpacks and permafrost, that is), and burn all that plant material so there'll be more smoke hanging in the air all over the world. Start more wildfires during the dry seasons in California and elsewhere. Go back to till-twice-per-year farming everywhere, mandatory, and leave entire states fallow for a whole year, or two, or more. We NEED the dust storms! Quit killing off those locusts so they can strip more land bare for MORE dust storms!

And push those South Americans and Africans and Asians to finish off those pesky rainforests - clear-cut and desertify those places too. For a next-to-last resort, let's break up all the oil tankers while they're full and set the slicks alight. Worst case, let's start an all-out nuclear war...

I can hear the chant now, swelling from the ranks of the army marching to fight the war on global warming..."mo al-be-do, mo al-BE-do, MO AL-BE-DO!!!

Nah: that's all too simple, and not enough fun; so let's just launch more satellites. And burn more religious books.

great rant stiches...not sure what mo al-be-do means, nonetheless you were successful in addressing a wide range of fears. Not sure why you would want to reflect back the sun's rays to keep temps more comfortable, would not less light generated artifically also need to occur...I remember the old susiebake ovens that used a light bulb to bake the small cookie-size cake in.

gggg, good point: we also must ban those Suzibakes! And, er, "end-of-calendar-year holiday" lights!

"MO-AL-BE-DO" is intended to mean "more albedo." I love that word! So bourgeois!

Ocean water absorbs about 95% of the sun's rays; Masonry 50-70%; average soil 30%; cultivated bare soil 20%; and grass and leaf covered soil 5%; and snow absorbs very little of that heat.

More labido?

Might I also suggest, Stitches, that people should eat far less protein and instead consume mostly green vegetables? My own diet more approximates that of the methane-producing cow than it does a scavenging omnivore and so my emissions are correspondingy higher.

That could help counteract the loss of methane-producing bogs .

What is "bourgeois" about the word albedo? I would think that you would assign the word to represent perhaps the Period of Englightenment.

Seems to me the issue is the role of water bodies in modifying the microclimates in the vicinities of the waters, not changing local albedo or even altering local gas exchanges and attendent effects on heat trapping or escaping as in "green house effect."

My own ag experiences in semi-arid subtropical climates prove time and again that the presence of orchards increases chances of frosty nights and that a ground cover under or between the trees increases the chances of damaging frost.

stitches; The reason I do not frequent (I skim it for agriculture stuff and this evening I'm bored) this site often is that words like "albedo" are used...so then I have to look it up...which is not all that bad...and then it is described with Marxist stuff...and I have to go waste time to figure what I'm missing. It's almost better being bored.

And I too, Marshall, try to have the Spring weeds mowed tight in the prunes...our only defense against frost for the canals are not yet filled...but then more often than not it's raining and the equipment can't pass through the orchard. So I can see this; as wetlands are cleared for farming the potential for freezing increases. I had the impression that the wetlands are protected or were being restored...aparently not all of them. David

David, California is said to have lost over 90% of its wetlands, especially along the coastal strip and in the Great Central Valley. There are a few token restoration projects, mostly centered on vernal (seasonal) pools.

Interesting that, Marshall, about orchards and frost. So if the ground were tilled and bare between the trees it would add a few degrees of frost protection?

In Florida citrus groves, the ground is usually bare sand, so I suppose that helps.

Cold air flows downslope like any fluid; anything that slows the flow literally piles up the cold air, deeping the inversion layer where warmer air overlies the colder. The use of orchard fans or smudge pots seeks to break down this inversion layer.

If the orchardist maintains an inter-row groundcover of oat/legume, the radiative surface effectively becomes the top of the groundcover; in other words, the "surface" temperature at the top of the cover is lower than the underlying soil surface. Pushing up this "surface" temperature closer to the orchard crowns and the damming effect of the groundcover increase the frost threat to the foliage and fruit.

Marshall; Uh, I wasn't thinking of California wetlands...the Delta and its islands are all farming...so I have to rethink. My presupposition of Calif. is everything that I have grown up with. I was mostly thinking of Florida and articles I have read about re-claiming the land to wetlands. Perhaps I have been overly imaginative about the progress. David

David1, I apologize for unintended consequences on my account. No one here means to waste anyone else's time.

I won't waste time defending the bourgeois quality of the term, "albedo."

Marshall, please help us all to keep something else straight. A groundcover between orchard rows can increase the threat of frost damage. That's truth to me. But bare earth instead of a groundcover aggravates the threat further - right? All other conditions being equal, bare earth experiences greater extremes of temperature than land with a groundcover. Or are there (living) ground covers for which that is untrue? My next purchase of mulch is pending your clarification - thanks.

Stiches,

a ground cover not only reduces the absorption of heat but acts as an insulator holding in whatever heat the soil was able to absorb. Bare earth loses its heat; In an orchard, some of this heat is lost to the trees.

Ryan

SoCal has it right. A field with grass abutting a large area of paving or dirt while often show frost on the grass but none on the unvegetative surfaces. Wetting the soil surface layer (and fruit trees) improves frost protection too; heat is released when water freezes.

Thanks Marshall and SoCal, for some reason I had it locked in my mind that the bare earth would make the fruit trees more vulnerable. I think I get it now. The ground loses the heat, as I thought, but that loss is the trees' gain.