Hi Ronal, Brian, John, et al.‹As a modeler, I would imagine the question is just what is it that one would want added to the models. Quite a number of skeptics want the models to add in long cycles evident in the observations‹that would be fine in empirical models, but the whole idea of physical models (i.e., models based on the physics, chemistry, etc.--but process based on physical principles, etc.) is not to put in arbitrary items for which there is not a physical process.
So, for this forest case, what might this be? Well, having finer resolution would likely help and as one goes down to relatively fine resolution the hydrostatic assumption enforced by the formulation of the equations in these models needs to be adjusted so that non-hydrostatic influences can be included (i.e., so that the models can treat the vertical acceleration of the winds). Whether that would help in the simulations I have no real idea or experience. Another reason for going to finer resolution is to better represent orographic features, and this might be a contributing factor. There is also an aspect of doing this that I have been suggesting needs to be included. For those who remember flying into Los Angeles and seeing thin, elevated levels of pollution during the descent, it took a while to understand what was causing these (it was not formation and reformation of the inversion, for example). What a UCLA meteorology professor named James Eddinger, as I recall, found was that in the afternoon when the Sun was shining on hillsides facing to the southwest thin layers of air could rise along the heated slope, and the heating of the air would compensate the adiabatic cooling, so the air parcel would keep rising into the inversion. This continued until the air reached the top of the mountain and so ran out of the surface heating. At this point, the polluted air, having started in the marine boundary layer, could neither rise further through the inversion nor sink due to its warmth, so it spread out at its density in the inversion, forming widely spread thin layer at the altitude of the mountain. I have been suggesting there are at least two other examples of this happening (i.e., of low level air being carried up the sun-heated slopes of mountain sides that faced the afternoon sun position). One likely place would seem to be India and the Himalayas‹in the region, the polluted air is of order 9K meters high or so‹how could moist polluted air get to that altitude; IŒd suggest only by hot mountainsides in the Himalayas carrying such air upward, keeping it warm so that it does not cool and precipitate out the particulate matter. The second is the late afternoon mountain top precipitation that occurs along Mexico¹s Pacific coast mountain ridge; the whole area is under an intense anticyclone, so very dry air and a strong inversion, and yet there is precipitation at the top of the mountains in the late afternoon‹so, I¹d suggest that most marine air is rises along the heated, southwestward facing mountain slopes in the afternoon until it reaches the mountaintop, where it can cool and so condensation occurs, leading to the misty precipitation in what would otherwise be a very dry air mass. The global models really don¹t represent this‹their resolution is too coarse and their vertical layering is generally more box-shaped than sloped (use of the sigma vertical coordinate system could technically handle this if resolution fine enough). I had encouraged a modeler experienced with finite element models to do some schematic tests of the idea, but, being retired, no way to really push for that to get done on someone¹s extra time (if you know someone who could do it, student or prof, I¹d be happy to go into a bit more detail). Whether this might have anything to do with the Amazon situation I don¹t know. Another general problem with the climate models has been not having fine enough resolution to really do the boundary layer very well‹having to retain strong vertical layering an be pretty difficult to do. So, again, resolution may be an issue. And then there is the issue of the CCN loadings and sources and types, etc. So, indeed, there could be model problems, but to fix them in such models one needs to focus on getting the physics right, not introduce arbitrary empirical observations‹those are what we need to evaluate the representations of the physics. Best, Mike On 6/1/15, 7:05 PM, "Ronal W. Larson" <[email protected]> wrote: > List, especially Mike and John, cc Brian (who started this) > > 1. This is to explore further how this biotic pump topic would influence any > part of geoengineering. I have concluded, like Brian, that this paper is > important in promoting regrowth of forests. John certainly agrees and > probably (?) Mike. Anyone disagree? > > 2. Inadvertently (I thought this was a 2015 paper for a while), I read not > only the final paper, but the many difficulties in getting it published (> > 1000 days). From the 24 subsequent papers found through Google Scholar, I > conclude that it is not now a continuing controversy - but I have found no > evidence that the paper has changed any existing models (as I¹m sure the > authors intended and hoped). Anyone know? > > 3. Others may find it interesting to see how the controversy was handled. > Although it took a long time, I think the Journal basically did a good job > and made a correct (but controversial) decision to publish. I was surprised > how all (?) the editorial review correspondence is still available (nothing > anonymous) - at a site given by the main editor in the paper¹s last paragraph. > The main author, Dr. Makarieva, was indefatigable - many dozens of pages > defending everything in the paper. Here is the summary (with forest-oriented > emphases added) from her invited post-publication comment at: > > http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/31/condensation-driven-winds-an-update-new-vers > ion/#comment-291429 > Summary and outlook > The Editor¹s comment on our paper ends with a call to further evaluate our > proposals. We second this call. The reason we wrote this paper was to ensure > it entered the main-stream and gained recognition. For us the key implication > of our theory is the major importance of vegetation cover in sustaining > regional climates. If condensation drives atmospheric circulation as we claim, > then forests determine much of the Earth¹s hydrological cycle (see here > <http://www.bioticregulation.ru/pump> for details). Forest cover is crucial > for the terrestrial biosphere and the well-being of many millions of people. > If you acknowledge, as the editors of ACP have, any chance however large or > small that our proposals are correct, then we hope you concede that there is > some urgency that these ideas gain clear objective assessment from those best > placed to assess them. > > 4. A slightly later paper entitled ³Revisiting forest impact on atmospheric > water vapor transport and precipitation², by many of the same authors is also > NOT behind a paywall - and carries this forest theme further: > http://www.bioticregulation.ru/common/pdf/taac-en.pdf. There are numerous > other climate related papers from this Russian group - that almost certainly > have relevance also on the SRM side of ³Geo². > > Ron > > > On May 31, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Re: [geo] Re: Smart reforestation must go beyond carbon: expert | CIFOR >> Forests News Blog >> How are they not both important‹the condensation releases the heat that >> carries the air upward, creating a pressure gradient that pulls the air >> ashore? >> >> Mike >> >> >> On 5/31/15, 10:09 AM, "John Harte" <[email protected] >> <x-msg://153/[email protected]> > wrote: >> >>> The work of Makarieva and Gorshkov (note: not Gorshkov and Makarieva; she is >>> first author on their papers on this topic) is challenging atmospheric >>> scientists not because it points to the huge role of forests in the >>> hydrocycle (I have been teaching that for decades) but rather the specific >>> mechanism they propose. Their argument is that it is the pressure >>> difference created by condensation, not the heat released by condensation, >>> that is the more important driver. Certainly both play a big role; my >>> understanding is that the pressure effect was largely ignored in the past. >>> >>> John Harte >>> Professor of Ecosystem Sciences >>> ERG/ESPM >>> 310 Barrows Hall >>> University of California >>> Berkeley, CA 94720 USA >>> [email protected] <x-msg://153/[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 30, 2015, at 2:49 PM, Brian Cartwright <[email protected] >>> <x-msg://153/[email protected]> > wrote: >>> >>>> To the geoengineering group, >>>> >>>> I'm curious whether group members are familiar with the "biotic pump" model >>>> of Gorshkov and Makarieva; this article gives a quick introduction: >>>> >>>> http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0130-hance-physics-biotic-pump.html >>>> >>>> A big climate benefit of inland forests is that phase change from >>>> evapotranspiration -> condensation creates low-pressure areas that pull in >>>> moisture and create healthy weather circulation. Seems to me that >>>> widespread deforestation is aggravating stalled hot-weather trends by >>>> blocking this kind of circulation. The leaf area of a mature forest offers >>>> considerably more surface area for evaporation than the same area of open >>>> water on ocean or inland lake. >>>> >>>> Brian Cartwright -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
