Thousands of acres of plants with extremely dense hair will be planted around the world, reflecting more sunlight and cooling the environment
By Bjorn Kerry
As part of the search for new ways in which plants can help fight global warming, environmental scientist Christopher Doughty of the University of California, Irvine noticed that plants that thrive in hot, arid environments are often covered in hair-like fibers.
It turns out that the tiny hairs reflect almost all of the sun's near-infrared rays and allow the visible light rays to reach the leaves to encourage photosynthesis. Since hairy plants absorb less heat and evaporate less water for cooling purposes, they function efficiently and are suitable for hot climates.
The question that interested Doty: if we cover large areas of the earth with hairy plants that will return near-infrared radiation to space, how much will this help to cool the world? He developed a computer model that takes into account hundreds of variables in order to estimate the impact on the climate around the world. When Doty increased the vegetation's regenerative capacity by 10 percent, he found that a scattering of hairy plants between the 30-degree latitude and the poles produced ideal results, reducing temperatures in the region by one degree Celsius.
Unfortunately, most plants are not hairy enough to create the cooling effect, but this can be solved with clever methods of selective breeding. "No one has ever tried to cultivate hairy plants," says Doty, "because until now there was no good reason to try. now there is".
obstacles
Plants with a high return rate may evaporate less water into the atmosphere, which will cause a decrease in the cloud cover that protects against the sun's rays and achieve the opposite result of an increase in temperature.
Expected
Growing enough hairy plants to cause a 10 percent increase in reproducibility may take decades.
14 תגובות
On the same subject, there is research to create electricity through an improved photosynthesis process through genetic engineering
Ami,
I find it strange that you make such a strong opinion before even reading the full article. I don't believe that every theory presented in a scientific article has to be true, but I do believe that you should read the full article before outright opposing the theory.
The popular article presented on the website does not pretend to describe the complete theory. Many times it does not fully reflect the scientific article, the arguments presented in it, or the answers to the claims against it (which often appear in the scientific article itself). When you read a popular article and therefore decide to dismiss an idea raised in a scientific article, you're not actually saying anything, in my opinion. You are simply throwing complaints into the air and refuse to read the original article and see if they were properly addressed.
I'd love to hear what you think of Christopher Doty's idea after you read the full scientific paper. Any other course of conduct does not respect the person whose theory you insist on throwing in the trash - without even reading it.
Greetings friends,
Roy.
Ami:
Your words are simply shameful.
You can make any statistics you want but your claim is unfounded and one example is enough to prove it.
The last time you decided to discredit me in this way, I gave you some examples that even then were only a partial group of the relevant cases and since then more have been added.
There are some people here, and you, unfortunately, are among them, who every time they are unable to deal with my arguments, they think it's okay because they can attack me personally.
But don't worry.
Your words will not deter me from continuing to support positions that seem reasonable to me and to oppose attacks that seem unreasonable to me (and note - the attack can be unreasonable even if the position is just speculation) so that you can come back and mislead the public and divert the discussion from the issue to me many more times.
I accuse!
Michael's matter can be quantified relatively simply, you just need manpower and reading of his talkbacks which can be placed on a graph or table of for or against. The matter does not interest me at all, so I remove myself from the list of possible candidates for the production and analysis of the data.
Regarding the original article, Roy, the answer is no. I did not read the original article. Sometimes it is enough to read an abstract or an article like this so that the problems immediately jump in front of the eyes. And by the way, the main problem in the study, which we didn't even talk about and by virtue of which alone it is not worth even messing around in this article, is all those "hundreds of variables" that he considered in the model. Hundreds of variables, so they say. no less. There are at least two hundred and possibly as many as 999. How will the writer tell us about each variable and how he puts it into the model in one article? How will he even do it in a book! Does anyone know or understand how 2 or more variables affect a system like our Earth? Even Ben's son's son is easy when it comes to many variables (hundreds). I'm guessing (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the article doesn't say what the hundreds of variables are and of course not what their meaning is and their weight in the same "model". Using hundreds of variables as far as I'm concerned is using magic and therefore the article In advance it seems to me the opposite.
Moreover, when it comes to the earth's albedo as a direct cause of global warming (one variable) already here we do not know how to quantify exactly how this will affect the effect, except in cold and ideal calculations of energy flows.
I remember the "bioenergetics" course. There we made calculations of the albedo effect and found the luminous distances for existence as a function of distance from the sun.
With the greetings of friends and hundreds of variables,
Ami Bachar
Ami,
Did you read the full article published by Christopher Doty on the subject, or did you check the hundreds of variables he considered in the model he created?
If not, then 'jumping in the head' and declaring disbelief in the conclusions is not a more reasonable and logical act than the inevitable support of any study, in which you accuse Michael.
Ami:
Apparently the matter is not under your control and you must repeat the claim that the last time you raised it I proved to you that it was unfounded, regarding my consistent support for the researcher.
I support things that seem logical to me, and I do attribute intelligence to researchers, so when something is not clear to me, I think and try to understand, and only if it is beyond me, depending on how confident I am in extracting the information presented, do I present a question or heresy.
Different behavior on the part of others irritates me, even though I have learned to expect it from some of the commenters.
Of course repeating unfounded claims also irritates me.
Michael,
The whole issue of hairiness is questionable in my opinion. An easy matter when it comes to trying to increase the albedo of the earth. I do not accept the hairy plant researcher's position as well as your position which consistently supports the researcher's position. The thing lacks taste and smell and value (although certainly pleasant to the touch) in my opinion if the agenda is to reduce the greenhouse effect by increasing the albedo of the earth while using the hairiness of plants to reflect light.
Ami Bachar
Ami:
And what about the facts?
The inhabited area is really tiny compared to the area of the earth.
No one denies the matter of the roofs and the issue is already being implemented in many places (I myself have already ordered a company to install photovoltaic cells on my roof) but most of the area will not be treated with this method.
The truth is that even with hairy plants, there will still be a lot of untreated land in the sea, but imagine if they find a way to adapt such a plant to life in the desert? Imagine that it would be plants that are also beautiful enough to be planted along the main roads?
The plants are indeed hairy but there is no reason for them to become hairy as hell.
Want to increase your albedo? Add white paint to the tarp on the roofs, add light and cheap materials to the materials used to make roads and harvest solar energy while coupling the heat energy. Taking millions of dunams of land and populating it with several species of hairy plants is an ecological disaster on any possible scale. We have been doing it for almost 12 thousand years since modern man started farming. All we're missing now are huge fields of hairy plants? Not to say a word yet about the reservations in the body of the article.
There are almost no free spaces. The world is hungry and thirsty and all areas have been converted to agriculture or are still forested and will be converted to agriculture someday. At the same time, cities are being built and deserts are growing all the time. Moreover, most of the earth's surface is sea.
What hairy plants, what?
With a hairy blessing,
Zoreal plant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVlA1tvTqd4&feature=related
There are a lot of hairy people in Israel with brain activity like a plant
Ami:
What is questionable?
Increasing the albedo is a way that has been seriously tested for a long time and if there is a plant that does it well enough it could be excellent.
To an anonymous fan of Ami Bachar,
you are not alone
There is already a talkbackist here named
"Ami Bakr Tzedek"
If and only if you are less hairy than a common desert plant, I suggest starting a fan club. You are already 2 and that is a respectable enough initial amount for me. I promise to visit the Lachshivana clubhouse soon these days on a beach in Paraguay.
Greetings friends,
the head of the club
Doubtful is the understatement that encompasses the attempt to avoid the reflection of the thesis thinker
questionable
Welcome
ע