Dr. Makarieva; cc Drs. Sheil, and Nobre, list and other ccs:
Thanks for the additional new information. You have changed the focus
of this thread quite a bit by alerting us (below) to Dr. Nobre’s most
interesting new Amazonia report. Biochar enthusiasts will find it especially
interesting as the Amazon is the home of “terra preta”, probably the single
most important (but not a CDR) reason for present interest in biochar.
The important part for me of this exchange is the new realization that
your emphasis on water and forestry seems to have a strong relationship to
atmospheric carbon dioxide removal (CDR). For quite a few on this list,
getting back to 350 ppm is of immediate concern - and your work could have an
impact at the upcoming COP21 in Paris. Is geoengineering a new or old
opportunity to find support for your work?
Not knowing of your own long history in the biotic pump theory (having
only focused on the evaporation/precipitation/pressure modeling papers you
earlier supplied, I repeat below a few of the biochar-related questions I
asked Dr. Sheil yesterday. Hopefully he, you, Dr. Nobre (and other ccs you
have added and all list members) will have also already given thought to the
climate engineering (geoengineering) implications of the papers you have
supplied. Many of my biochar questions relate to other bio-oriented CDR
approaches. I cannot competently ask questions on behalf of other geo
approaches, so hope those proponents will also chime in.
More below.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Anastassia Makarieva <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [geo] Smart reforestation must go beyond carbon: expert | CIFOR
> Forests News Blog
> Date: July 5, 2015 at 1:25:15 AM MDT
> To: "Ronal W. Larson" <[email protected]>
> Cc: Geoengineering <[email protected]>, Douglas Sheil
> <[email protected]>, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>, Mike
> MacCracken <[email protected]>, John Harte <[email protected]>, Brian
> Cartwright <[email protected]>, "a_n.07" <[email protected]>, Antonio
> Donato Nobre <[email protected]>, Larry Li <[email protected]>, ammvgg
> <[email protected]>, Germán Poveda <[email protected]>, Oscar Jose Mesa
> Sanchez <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
> Jan Čermák <[email protected]>
>
> Dear Ron and Colleagues
>
> In our biotic pump collaboration we all have somewhat diverse and
> complementary perspectives on the potential implications of our work, as
> influenced by our backgrounds and regional expertise. For a recent Brazilian
> outlook please see the widely discussed report of Antonio Nobre (available in
> English, Spanish and Portuguese).
[RWL1:
http://www.ccst.inpe.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The_Future_Climate_of_Amazonia_Report.pdf
For Dr. Nobre (with thanks to Dr. Makarieva for adding you) - I have
been twice to Manaus and been in several terra preta sites. I was able to walk
into the heavily instrumented (and much lowered temperature) of an old growth
native forest near the Manaus Embrapa research facility. I am greatly
impressed that the Brazilian Acdemy of Science has a special section on terra
preta, but know little of their work. Have you participated in any Brazilian
biochar work? Can you suggest any other cites that might tie this above report
to any part of geoengineering? I enjoyed listening to your TED talk. I
believe many would appreciate your thoughts on my questions following.
> Below I express what Victor Gorshkov and I think is the bottomline. Douglas
> will hopefully add his insights -- see also his blog post on this topic with
> a few pictures illustrating the mechanism here.
[RWL2:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/15/forest-climate-and-condensation/ This
cite leads one to hours of further reading. A few of the hundreds of comments
are interesting, but none seemed to break the strong opinions we have heard
from your team. Here, Dr. Sheil is responding as forcefully as have you. But
I believe none of this 2013 dialog relates to the Amazon and only a little to
the biotic pump. I think it would be very hard to find any of this early 2013
dialog that relate to geoengineering (but hope I am wrong). I hope also that
Dr. Sheil can help tie your team work closer to this list’s interests, through
further “geo-related” comments.
>
> Water on land is an exceptionally fragile resource; it leaks back to the
> ocean very quickly (the global freshwater store can be depleted by the
> exisiting runoff in just a few years). Thus, life on land exists at the
> expense of a continuous import of moisture from the ocean via the atmosphere.
> In our work we argue that this inflow can only persist if there is an intense
> evaporation flux over land. This flux, which under appropriate circumstances,
> can greatly exceed evaporation from the ocean, is maintained by the forest
> cover. The forest both stores moisture and supplies it to the atmosphere to
> initiate condensation that drives winds. Without a forest cover life inland
> cannot flourish as the moisture inflow on average declines exponentially with
> distance from the ocean (with a e-folding length of a few hundred
> kilometers). In some places lack of vegetation can cause arid conditions even
> very close to the ocean where otherwise one could expect intense rainfall.
> Examples are the Brazilian caatinga and the Horn of Africa.
>
> This means, briefly, that no forests -- no rivers, no rain on a continental
> scale. Forest preservation and forest restoration are the main priority for
> sustaining normal conditions for the operation of our land-based civilization.
>
> An essential point is that the biotic pump moisture transport is a very
> complex mechanism that is controlled by vegetation. A great variety of
> biochemical substances emitted by plants and the associated biota change the
> dew point (which depends on how clean the atmosphere is). This gives a
> physical possibility to the forest to switch condensation on/off at different
> amounts of atmospheric water vapor. These forest properties are different at
> different stages of forest succession. E.g. in our boreal zone early
> successional species are all leafy, so they cannot provide a significant
> evaporation flux early in spring when the foliage has not yet developed.
> Primary coniferous species like spruce start photosynthesis and transpiration
> immediately with the onset of warm weather. Therefore, large-scale
> destruction of primary forests and their successional re-growth via the stage
> of deciduous trees can trigger continent-scale biotic pump disruption and
> associated climatic shifts that will last for decades.
[RWL3: These last three paragraphs sum up numerous papers by your team
on the forestry side as well as the modeling side of your work. I was unaware
of this large amount of bio work - much of it cited in Dr. Nobre’s report.
> This is to emphasize that reforestation must really be SMART, i.e. it should
> take into account the stability of the forest ecosystem itself. Reforestation
> seen just as re-planting (as done in China) is a dead-end. Lots of
> territories that are now occupied by what we city-dwellers would call a
> "forest" is in fact just a slowly or rapidly degrading tree-covered land, not
> self-sustainable forest ecosystems with a high climate mitigation potential
> as they used to be. We need a totally new, cutting-edge science of forest
> medicine to start returning our land to a self-sustainable state.
[RWL4: I hope you can tell us more about your concerns on Chinese
reforestation efforts - which I believe over the last several decades has been
more extensive than the rest of the world combined. I can believe that they
were not trying to ensure the inward flow of moisture normal to the isohytes
that is central to your recommendations, but have there been no inadvertent
successes at all? Can you recommend a different strategy? Many think the
Chinese have probably taken the lead in biochar implementation. There are a
huge number of recent Chinese papers on biochar.
You have emphasized that soot is not helpful - and China (and India)
have a lot. Biochar can help here as well.
The new leads you and Drs. Sheil and Nobre have provided suggest a very
strong possible relation to the geoengineering work of this list. Here are the
questions I recently sent to Dr. Sheil (and a few more). I apologize in
advance for their number - but your past work could greatly advance all the bio
types of CDR - and maybe more.
4a. Cverall: Can/should reforestation lead to more biochar (harvest
earlier, use of more coppicing and pollarding, emphasizing flows as well as
stocks, etc).
4b. One reason to favor biochar is the presumed/claimed increase in
NPP (Terra preta soils giving double or more NPP today (500+ years after
placement) in the Amazon). Should biochar-amended soils then have roughly
double annual evaporation per unit area as well?
4c. More biochar should also give better rainfall retention (less
runoff). Should this lead to more (and more even) annual evaporation (and
therefore more beneficial inland rainfall)?
4d. Apparently forest roughness is beneficial. Harvesting for biochar
could presumably be organized to emphasize greater roughness. Can you give any
more guidance on roughness preferences?
4e. Generally speaking, biochar feedstock is not hugely critical,
aside from wanting large annual NPP. Probably species could be added or
favored that have maximum particulate release. Can you give any cite to trees
that appear best or worse in this regard? We hear of preferences for micnthus
and (very tall perennial) grasses. Might any also be good particulate emitters?
4f. . There is considerable concern that biomass sequestration via
reforestation is vulnerable to forest fires. Forests created for biochar
(carbon negativity - and carbon neutrality both) should be less vulnerable,
since dead material would be regularly harvested, and fire breaks could be
maintained. Pyrolysis with gas utilization seems to be cleaner (less soot)
than combustion. Also, since employment for biochar (and energy availability)
would be considerably greater than for reforestation, there should be better
forest protection by locals. There is no requirement I know of for monoculture
plantations. Have you (anyone) heard of anything related to biochar sources or
production that would seem to be in the wrong direction?
4g. Are there places in the world where we might want reduced
rainfall - and so avoid biochar there?
4h. The SRM side of this list would presumably want to better
understand any changes in albedo that you have been able to work on -
especially cloud brightening, but possibly there are some higher altitude solar
radiation aspects as well. There is tremendous uncertainty on even the sign of
the impact of clouds in climate modeling. Can your work so far address any of
the uncertainties related to the many different kinds and heights of clouds -
on both long and short wavelength radiation?
4i. You have stated that ocean evaporation is much smaller than that
over land. However, some on this list are interested in fostering ocean
biomass (more than the biochar community). The Sargasso sea for instance may
have species that emit similarly to trees. Mangroves are fast growing and need
reforestation many places. Should these shoreline biomass species be favored
at all?
4j. I have visited a few island and coastal sites that have a regular
cloud (and I think regular predictable rainfall). Might there have been any
that can relate to either the removal of forests - or reforestation? I am
trying to think through luture low cost experiments - as island
countries/communities are those most supportive of CDR; I understand that your
theory is normally working over 100’s of kilometers.
5. Again thanks for your helpful responses as we come up to speed.
All the above is to ask for anything further you might want to add about
bringing the geoenegineering world closer to what you have been working on.
Ron
Best wishes
> Anastassia
>
> 2015-07-04 3:35 GMT+03:00 Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]>:
> List: cc Drs. Sheil and Makarieva and Andrew (+ many more who probably
> received the two messages already)
>
> 1. A few of us received a request a few hours ago from Dr. Sheil to
> forward this first message below - which had bounced for him. A quick look
> at the “Geo” site says that that from Dr. Makarieva probably also bounced.
> Perhaps Andrew can check if there was some problem he can fix. I am
> forwarding this to all the other addressees as well - so they don’t
> duplicate the forwarding of either of the messages.
>
> These are responses to a thread last commented on a month ago. I
> believe all of the past thread is still below.
>
> 2. I have only glanced at the two new “Sheil” papers (whose pdfs are
> at the very bottom of this message). They suggest to me that we need to
> start significant reforestation - perhaps especially in Brazil. Can be
> thought of in terms of several bio-based CDR approaches, as well as simple
> reforestation.
>
> 3. Dr. Makarieva has also supplied (below, maybe lost in copying) two
> new personal cites: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.04543v1.pdf and
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.02679v1.pdf. The other references are at:
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S167900731500016X
> and
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2615/abstract
>
> I believe she is below repeating the claim that existing models are not
> handling the physics correctly. I hope that she and Dr. Sheil could comment
> on how this should impact readers of this list. The CDR side seems important
> - and maybe new (I don’t recall seeing biochar operations linked to greatly
> enhanced rainfall; another possible source of funding). SRM’s cloud
> whitening (inland) also seems possibly impacted.
>
> Thanks to both for the responses and the new information.
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Douglas Sheil <[email protected]>
>> Subject: RE: [geo] Smart reforestation must go beyond carbon: expert | CIFOR
>> Forests News Blog
>> Date: July 3, 2015 at 8:23:56 AM MDT
>> To: Anastassia Makarieva <[email protected]>, "Ronal W. Larson"
>> <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Mike MacCracken <[email protected]>, John Harte
>> <[email protected]>, Geoengineering <[email protected]>,
>> Brian Cartwright <[email protected]>, a_n.07 <[email protected]>,
>> Antonio Donato Nobre <[email protected]>, Larry Li <[email protected]>,
>> ammvgg <[email protected]>, Germán Poveda <[email protected]>, Oscar Jose
>> Mesa Sanchez <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
>> <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>>
>> Thanks for the interest.
>> Please share the attached papers if you think they might be of interest.
>> They are intended to help explain some of the ideas and implications and may
>> be useful primers before digging into the more technical literature (much of
>> which is free online … search for “Makarieva and Gorshkov” on google
>> scholar).
>> Best wishes (from Uganda on a slow link)
>> Douglas
>> p.s. I note I did not get previous messages. Perhaps you used a different
>> email? (My CIFOR email lapsed for a period in error, but best to use this).
> [RWL: Yes, I did use a different email address.
>>
>>
>> From: Anastassia Makarieva [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: 3. juli 2015 10:36
>> To: Ronal W. Larson
>> Cc: Mike MacCracken; John Harte; Geoengineering; Brian Cartwright; a_n.07;
>> Antonio Donato Nobre; Douglas Sheil; Larry Li; ammvgg; Germán Poveda; Oscar
>> Jose Mesa Sanchez; [email protected]; [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [geo] Smart reforestation must go beyond carbon: expert | CIFOR
>> Forests News Blog
>>
>> Dear Colleagues
>>
>> Thank you for your interest in our work and for sharing your thoughts.
>> Victor and I have just returned from our two months' field trip (completely
>> offline), so it is only now that we could read this exchange. Below are
>> seven comments aiming to clarify the current situation around the biotic
>> pump theory and its relevance to the existing models. If there are any
>> questions they are very welcome.
>>
>> 1. First, we note that the biotic pump is not about winds in general -- it
>> is about winds that bring rain. Rain occurs when the air ascends; this
>> means, by mass conservation, that there is a horizontal inflow towards the
>> area of ascent; such inflow can only occur if there is a low pressure area
>> in the area of ascent. Thus, the rain-making winds involve motion of
>> low-level air ACROSS isobars (from high to low pressure).
>>
>> 2. On the other hand, we know that this cross-isobaric motion (or, which is
>> the same, motion along the pressure gradient) represents the power of
>> kinetic energy generation: the pressure gradient force performs work on the
>> air parcels. Per unit volume, this power is equal to the product of
>> horisontal velocity and pressure gradient (yields W/m^-3). If we integrate
>> it over the atmospheric column we find the wind power for a closed
>> stationary circulation. The biotic pump theory successfully predicts this
>> number from the known rainfall rate for the global circulation as well as
>> for the more compact circulations like hurricanes. Competitive theoretical
>> predictions from the conventional approach do not exist, for the reasons
>> outlined below.
>>
>> 3. In a stationary atmosphere all kinetic energy dissipates at the same rate
>> it is generated. In the existing circulation models dissipation is governed
>> by turbulent viscosity. Turbulent viscosity cannot be predicted a priori
>> from a theory, it is a parameter. For example, if we put it equal to zero,
>> then the existing differential heating (equator vs poles) will produce
>> geostrophic winds -- that is, winds blowing ALONG the isobars. In such an
>> atmosphere winds do exist, but the wind power is zero: kinetic energy is
>> neither produced nor dissipated. Obviously, rainfall is zero as well.
>>
>> 4. Therefore, in the existing models turbulent viscosity is chosen such
>> (including its dependence on altitude), that the observed pressure gradients
>> produce the observed winds. In these models, the larger the characteristic
>> value of turbulent viscosity (i.e. friction) one sets, the higher the rate
>> of kinetic energy generation one obtains. (Which is odd, if we think a
>> moment).
>>
>> 5. We, on the other hand, assert that as far as kinetic energy generation is
>> governed by condensation, in a dry atmosphere it would be negligible
>> compared to the real Earth. By consequence, the dissipation rate will be low
>> as well.
>>
>> 6. In current modelling efforts aimed to estimate deforestation effects (see
>> e.g. the recent study in QJRMS --thanks German for the link) this is done by
>> automatically switching evapotranspiration off or on using some advanced
>> global circulation model. But since the dynamic core of the model, including
>> parameterization of turbulence, remains unchanged, the actual effects of
>> condensation on regional circulation dynamics are not evaluated in such
>> (quite numerous) studies. Unsurprisingly, all GCMs notoriously fail in
>> predicting/simulating regional circulation patterns.
>>
>> 7. We are persistently trying to initiate a discussion of these issues in
>> the meteorological community. Our recent efforts:
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04543
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.02679
>>
>> The concluding paragraph of the latter study reads:
>> "Let us conclude by giving an example of possible implications for these
>> mechanisms.
>> Kinetic energy generation governed by the product of horizontal velocity and
>> pressure gradient reflects
>> cross-isobaric motion towards the low pressure area, which is related to air
>> convergence. If it is proportional to condensation, then on a dry continent
>> where condensation is absent the low-level air convergence will be strongly
>> suppressed, and a geostrophic (or cyclostrophic) balance will be
>> established. The low pressure area over a dry hot land will not lead to
>> moisture convergence from the ocean, and drought will persist. This
>> indicates that removal of forest cover which is a significant store and
>> source of moisture on land can lead to a self-perpetuating drought. This
>> mechanism may contribute to the recent catastrophic drought in Brazil."
>>
>> Thank you again and comments/questions very welcome!
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Anastassia
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-06-02 5:55 GMT+03:00 Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]>:
>> List and ccs
>>
>> Thanks to both Mike and John.
>>
>> I think John is closer to my question (in talking about horizontal flows and
>> forestry) on how this whole topic might impact different aspects of
>> geoengineering. Especially because so much of this list’s dialog has
>> revolved around precipitation - and because of this paper’s claim that
>> present modeling is missing an important physical principle. True or not?
>>
>> As I read this and several other papers by these authors, I found little use
>> of the word “clouds” - which clearly is still an important topic for
>> modelers. Is there a cloud message somewhere in here?
>>
>> I have included Drs. Makarieva and Shiel this time to see if they have given
>> thought to geoengineering impacts of this paper (or any other of their many
>> related to climate topics). Dr. Shiel is important as an English speaking
>> co-author and a forestry expert.
>>
>> My two questions here are what is the impact of this paper/topic for
>> geoengineering and why there has been so much (welcome) emphasis on forests.
>> Should we be paying more attention to water availability and drought
>> mitigation on this list?
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 1, 2015, at 6:35 PM, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi John—I am not sure one can separate then. For example, where one has a
>> thin boundary layer and then the free atmosphere above, it is like having
>> two different fluids that don’t mix all that well, so if far inland one gets
>> convection pulling the lower layer in with a horizontal gradient, so
>> resolution can matter in the vertical to maintain the distinction of the two
>> layers, allow wave, etc. AS I said before I am not sure one can really
>> separate the two aspects.
>>
>> Best, Mike
>>
>>
>> On 6/1/15, 8:16 PM, "John Harte" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm not a climate modeler and my understanding of what goes in to
>> conventional physics process-based atmospheric models is very limited, so
>> correct me if I am wrong mike, but I was under the impression that it was
>> the horizontal not the vertical pressure gradients that M & G think is
>> inadequately treated in conventional models. Isn't it those horizontal
>> pressure forces that power their biotic pump.
>>
>> At least in the context of the Amazon, I would like to see a back of the
>> envelope comparison of the pressure forces driven by condensation and the
>> larger-scale forces that power the trade winds.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John Harte
>> Professor of Ecosystem Sciences
>> ERG/ESPM
>> 310 Barrows Hall
>> University of California
>> Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
>> [email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:56 PM, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Re: [geo] Smart reforestation must go beyond carbon: expert | CIFOR Forests
>> News Blog
>> 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; I‘d 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 Mexico’s 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, I’d 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 don’t 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 someone’s extra time (if you
>> know someone who could do it, student or prof, I’d be happy to go into a bit
>> more detail). Whether this might have anything to do with the Amazon
>> situation I don’t 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]
>> <x-msg://1239/[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 I’m 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 paper’s 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-version/#comment-291429
>> Summary and outlook
>> The Editor’s 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 Earth’s 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 “Revisiting forest impact on
>> atmospheric water vapor transport and precipitation”, 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 “Geo”.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> On May 31, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]
>> <x-msg://1239/[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://1239/[email protected]> <x-msg://153/[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 thepressure 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://1239/[email protected]>
>> <x-msg://153/[email protected] <x-msg://153/[email protected]> >
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 30, 2015, at 2:49 PM, Brian Cartwright <[email protected]
>> <x-msg://1239/[email protected]>
>> <x-msg://153/[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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Anastassia M. Makarieva
>> Theoretical Physics Division
>> Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute
>> 188300, Gatchina, St. Petersburg, Russia
>> fax: +7-813-713-19-63
>> http://www.bioticregulation.ru
>> http://bioticregulationru.wordpress.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anastassia M. Makarieva
> Theoretical Physics Division
> Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute
> 188300, Gatchina, St. Petersburg, Russia
> fax: +7-813-713-19-63
> http://www.bioticregulation.ru
> http://bioticregulationru.wordpress.com
--
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.
