Posted on 02/04/2013 10:35:18 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Clouds over Amazon forest (Rio Negro). Image NASA Earth Observatory.
What if winds were mainly driven by changes in water vapor, and those changes occurred commonly in air over forests? Forests would be the pumps that draw in moist air from over the oceans. Rather than assuming that forests grow where the rain falls, it would be more a case of rain falling where forests grow. When water vapor condenses it reduces the air pressure, which pulls in more dense air from over the ocean.
A new paper is causing a major stir. The paper is so controversial that many reviewers and editors said it should not be published. After two years of deliberations, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics decided it was too important not to discuss.
The physics is apparently quite convincing, the question is not whether it happens, but how strong the effect is. Climate models assume it is a small or non-existent factor. Graham Lloyd has done a good job describing both the paper and the reaction to it in The Australian.
Sheil says the key finding is that atmospheric pressure changes from moisture condensation are orders of magnitude greater than previously recognised. The paper concludes “condensation and evaporation merit attention as major, if previously overlooked, factors in driving atmospheric dynamics”.
“Climate scientists generally believe that they already understand the main principles determining how the world’s climate works,” says Sheil. “However, if our hypothesis is true then the way winds are driven and the way rain falls has been misunderstood. What our theory suggests is that forests are the heart of the earth, driving atmospheric pressure, pumping wind and moving rain.”
Judith Curry has been following this idea for some time.
Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, an author of the standard textbook Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans, is encouraging. “The process they describe is physically correct,” she said. “The main question is its relative magnitude compared with other processes.” She thinks it could explain why climate models do not get monsoons and hurricanes right.
If this is a strong driver, it means Australia is not covered in arid land because rainfall is low. If the trees were planted the rain would fall:
“I would have said Australia is a desert because of the global climate cycles, but if you do the calculations, a forest across the surface of Australia would produce forces strong enough to water it and you wouldn’t need to irrigate.”
Sheil said.
Even New Scientist admits this paper could be a big one.
The implications are huge. “In standard theories, if we lose forests the rainfall in the continental interiors generally declines by 10 to 30 per cent. In our theory, it is likely to decline by 90 per cent or more,” says Sheil.
If the paper is right, it’s a reason to plant many more trees, but it diminishes the role of CO2, shows the climate models are pathetically inadequate and is another reason why a carbon market, giant windfarms, and solar panels are a waste of time and money.
Lead author, Anastassia Makarieva comes from the Theoretical Physics Division, Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Russia. Douglas Sheil hails from Lismore NSW, and the School of Environment, Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University.
The authors describe getting it published as a two year epic.
It’s been an epic process – most papers get published (or rejected) in less than a tenth of that time. The paper is accompanied by an unusual Editor Comment (p. 1054) stating that in the paper we have presented a view on atmospheric dynamics that is both “completely new” and “highly controversial”. They accept that we have made a case to be answered: they clarify that “the handling editor (and the executive committee) are not convinced that the new view presented in the controversial paper is wrong.” That’s not exactly an endorsement but it is progress.
What is new?
We have described a new and significant source of potential energy governing atmospheric motion. Previously, the only such recognised energy source was the buoyancy associated with temperature gradients. Unlike the buoyancy mechanism, that applies to both liquids and gases, our new mechanism applies only to gases. Water vapor condenses and disappears from the gas phase when moist air ascends and cools. For this reason the water vapor pressure declines with height much faster than the other (non-condensable) atmospheric gases… (See Curry’s site for the equations and more theoretical background).
The authors explain why this is a big leap forward for models, and why models are not based on physical laws but are merely fitted to past data.
Fig. 1. (Click to enlarge)
Models and physical laws
The physical laws behind all existing atmospheric circulation models are Newton’s second law, conservation of mass, the ideal gas law and the first law of thermodynamics. Here the first law of thermodynamics is assigned the role of the energy conservation equation (see, e.g., McGuffie and Henderson-Sellers 2001, p. 1084). However, while equilibrium thermodynamics allow the estimation of the maximum possible mechanical work from heat it provides neither information about the actual efficiency of converting heat to work (kinetic energy) nor whether such conversion to motion actually occurs. In practice, this means that models do not define these factors from physical principles but through adjusting model parameters in order to force it to fit observations (i.e., to produce the observed wind speeds). Mostly this pertains to the determination of the turbulent diffusion parameters. An
interested reader see p. 1776 of Bryan and Rotunno (2009) for a simple example (see also here for a discussion). The principle remains the same even in the most complex models.Thus, while there are physical laws in existing models, their outputs (including apparent circulation power) reflect an empirical process of calibration and fitting. In this sense models are not based on physical laws. This is the reason why no theoretical estimate of the power of the global atmospheric circulation system has been available until now.
Fig. 2. (Click to Enlarge).
Phase transitions of atmospheric water play a ubiquitous role in the Earth’s climate system, but their direct
impact on atmospheric dynamics has escaped wide attention. Here we examine and advance a theory as to how condensation influences atmospheric pressure through the mass removal of water from the gas phase with a simultaneous account of the latent heat release. Building from fundamental physical principles we show that condensation is associated with a decline in air pressure in the lower atmosphere. This decline occurs up to a certain height, which ranges from 3 to 4 km for surface temperatures from 10 to 30 C. We then estimate the horizontal pressure differences associated with water vapor condensation and find that these are comparable in magnitude with the pressure differences driving observed circulation patterns. The water vapor delivered to the atmosphere
via evaporation represents a store of potential energy available to accelerate air and thus drive winds. Our estimates
suggest that the global mean power at which this potential energy is released by condensation is around one per cent of the global solar power – this is similar to the known stationary dissipative power of general atmospheric circulation. We conclude that condensation and evaporation merit attention as major, if previously overlooked, factors in driving atmospheric dynamics.
Makarieva, A. M., Gorshkov, V. G., Sheil, D., Nobre, A. D., and Li, B.-L.: Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 1039-1056, doi:10.5194/acp-13-1039-2013, 2013. [Abstract] [Final Revised Paper PDF]
Image Source: NASA Earth Observatory Sept 2 2006, Rio Negro, Amazon
************************************EXCERPT******************************************
If the paper is right, it’s a reason to plant many more trees, but it diminishes the role of CO2, shows the climate models are pathetically inadequate and is another reason why a carbon market, giant windfarms, and solar panels are a waste of time and money.
More inconvenient truths for Al Gore and his toadies.
Greenies should be a lot more concerned about the possible effects hundreds of thousands of windmills will have on downrange climate.
“Do forests drive wind & bring rain?”
Why, any boy knows that the wind blows only because those trees start moving & they stir the air. And if you stand under a tree after a storm, you’re gonna get wet.
;^)
The Alarmist climate modelers are all wet anyway..., eveen when they are standing in the middle of the desert in the hot hot Sun. You don’t suppose lightning will strike them too someday?
Has anyone done any research on how some of the giant windfarms impact this delicate balance? Just curious.
The ‘answer’ is that there is no SINGLE ANSWER.
The Jet Stream is caused by different factors than ground wind. Ground wind is caused by various forces, including the respiration of the trees and plants. One of the larger factors is the movement from high to low pressure zones. The movement of the pressure zones is largely controlled by the Jet Stream. (at least in zones surrounding the jet stream).
Moisture evaporation (Heat from Sun) causes updrafts, electrical discharges cause certain flows of wind around them, traffic flow along a highway, a train speeding down the tracks, and butterflies flapping their wings.
since Israel replanted the forests that the Arabs cut down, the annual rainfall has increased proportionately with the increase in trees.
Nice to see it recognised.
But, how do trees call rain? Its almost like there is a God or something.
All don’t care, his toadies made him rich, so when the jig was up, he sold out to the oil shieks and retired filthy rich.
Now his toadies will have to find another cause to sacrifice for. Cause their Gore-god is dead.
Dude! Wait, what?
Climate models are wrong?
No way, dude. No way!
This article demonstrates how much we have yet to learn about weather and climate.
(If they plant trees in the Sahara, will it return to being a lake? Just wondering.)
As they dig deeper, I believe they will find that the growth & respiration of plants play a great part in this weather influence.
Anyone who has lived in the woods has a sense that the trees do more than just stand there.
Very interesting paper. What they are claiming is that trees soak up existing water and then some of that water evaporates to form clouds. In a desert, there is no water to evaporate. So you have to have trees that are being watered before the desert will pull in even more water vapor. Unless of course they assume the water content in the trees will evaporate and eventually create the pressure drop overhead. So basically they are stating where there is water there is water vapor. That water vapor gas rises and condenses again forming water. That phase state change affects the pressure of the atmosphere.
That is perhaps the basic mechanism explaining how the oceans or water control the atmospheric temperature, wind movement and the pressures. That combined with solar input could give you a very accurate model. Why on Earth the simpletons assumed CO2 controlled everything, is way beyond me. Even they claim though that CO2 has amplifying affects through water vapor.
The Jet Streams control the movement of the pressure zones, but what they are looking into with this paper is what creates the pressure zones. Obviously it is not temperature because we would have nothing but low pressure systems in winter and high pressure systems in summer. My 2 cents anyway.
Climate ‘scientists’ - bunch of obnoxious fools.
How much tme and money has this hoax cost the world?
Make them pay. Let China deal with their corrupt asses. They will pop them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
