Have any studies or modeling been done, using biomass heat distribution?

Question

It was a speculative moment, I was just considering the microbial interactions on a terrestrial scale. After all a compost pile can be up to four x higher then the ambient temp. If one was to consider the places this could occur, would it really be a small scale factor?

Answer 1

The entire energy budget of the planet (disregarding nuclear reactions) is a zero sum game, since it all comes from the sun, that is true.  But if that was the bottom line, global warming wouldn't be an issue.  It is the redistribution, accelerated cycling, and more intensive utilization of energy that has resulted in current conditions and may be driving global warming.  The original question seems to me to be, does the fact that there are 7 billion humans on the planet now, along with greatly increased agricultural production and animal husbandry (as compared to pre-agricultural revolution conditions) contribute significantly to these factors?  Does this biomass, and the way in which it is cycled, contribute to global warming in a significantly greater way than did stable climax ecosystems that existed before human alteration?

I have often wondered about that myself, and I do not know the answer.  But simply saying that biomass cycling of thermal energy is a zero sum game does not provide any kind of relevant answer.

Answer 2

I have not seen any studies about biomasses creating heat?

The closest you can come to understanding the process of biomasses and rotting vegetation would be found at:

http://www.co2science.org/

When you think about it - Forests can not exist without a vast amount (many generations) of previous plant 'rotting' to condition the soils with nutrients that allow forests to exist.  

To give an idea about the process go here and look at South America:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbon...

At different times (weather conditions permitting) Trees/Forests will Outgas CO2 and moisture as well as biomass rotting.  The impact of Amazon forests is FAR greater than what little man can create.

Answer 3

Cute

Answer 4

I don't know if there have been studies about the heat distribution.  But I do know that endothermic account for a substantial percentage of CO2 emissions.

This process occurs at landfills around the US and produces methane gas.  Currently I know there are people researching how to tap this gas and use it for power.  I do not know if a land fill of this type have been built yet.

Answer 5

exothermic.  Exothermic means "generating heat"

endothermic means absorbing heat.  

Anyway, that heat released by biological reactions came from the sun anyway (mostly), so it's not net heat produced at the surface.  It's already part of the global energy budget.  And it is a small fraction of the incident surface shortwave solar energy flux.

The biosphere weighs roughly 75 trillion kg and produces perhaps 2 watts per kg for 150 trillion watts of energy produced.  The solar flux is 350 W/m^2 and the radius of the planet is 4000 km.  Doing the math, the Earth receives around 100 times more solar energy than that released by the biosphere.  But the biological energy released actually came from solar energy to begin with (chlorophyll absorbs photons and turns them into sugar etc. which the release that energy when animals eat the sugar and use it to power their muscles).  

Zero sum game.

Answer 6

I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

All the good models have provisions to account for the different heat capacities of land and water.

"biomass", if you mean the mass of all living things, in clearly insignificant.  WAY too small.  So is the heat generated by living things.