It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
THE world’s great forests have long been recognised as the lungs of the earth, but the science establishment has been rocked by claims that trees may also be the heart of its climate. Not only do trees fix carbon and produce oxygen; a new and controversial paper says they collectively unleash forces powerful enough to drive global wind patterns and are a core feature in the circulation of the climate system.
If the theory proves correct, the peer-reviewed international paper co-authored by Australian scientist Douglas Sheil will overturn two centuries of conventional wisdom about what makes wind. And it will undermine key principles of every model on which climate predictions are based.
The paper, lead authored by Anastasia Makarieva, sparked a long-running and furious debate about whether it should be published at all. At the end of a bruising assessment process the editorial panel of the prestigious journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics chose to publish and be damned.
In an accompanying statement the journal editorial board said: “The paper is highly controversial, proposing a fundamentally new view that seems to be in contradiction to common textbook knowledge. The majority of reviewers and experts in the field seem to disagree, whereas some colleagues provide support, and the handling editor (and the executive committee) are not convinced that the new view presented in the controversial paper is wrong.
“The handling editor (and the executive committee) concluded to allow final publication of the manuscript in ACP in order to facilitate further development of the presented arguments, which may lead to disproof or validation by the scientific community.”
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.”
…
“Accepting our theory would basically mean the climate models are wrong. It wouldn’t mean that theories about carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses are wrong.
“The basic physical issues are still there. Winds are still caused to some degree by temperature differences, global warming will still be potentially caused by greenhouse gasses. But what we are saying is one of the major reasons that air moves around the surface of the globe, and one of the main reasons that rain falls where it does, is to do with these patterns of moisture evaporation and condensation.”
…
“Accepting our theory would basically mean the climate models are wrong. It wouldn’t mean that theories about carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses are wrong.
“The basic physical issues are still there. Winds are still caused to some degree by temperature differences, global warming will still be potentially caused by greenhouse gasses. But what we are saying is one of the major reasons that air moves around the surface of the globe, and one of the main reasons that rain falls where it does, is to do with these patterns of moisture evaporation and condensation.”
…
“When we look at the Amazon and ask, is the forest there because there is a lot of rain, we are saying, no, it is the other way around: the rain is there because there is a lot of forest.
“It may sound strange – forests causing wind, forests causing rain – but the physics is quite convincing.”
Climate scientists, however, still say the significance is not as great as has been claimed.
“It has now gone from a discussion about mechanism to a discussion about magnitude,” Sheil says, adding that a key objective of his work is to make climate models more reliable.
“At present the models are incorrect,” he says, “because they are missing one the key mechanisms of how the global climate works. I know it does sound amazing to say this, but once you look at these models they are not as detailed and not as smart as you would think.
“A lot of it is, they are calibrated to fit. There is a little bit of people hiding the problems, and that is bad science.”
Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by jdub297
do you have a link?
I'd like to share this one.
According to a press release on the organization's website, GWPF "is funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, it does not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company."[4] Annual membership contributions are "a minimum of £100".
Citing privacy concerns, Director Benny Peiser declined to reveal the sources of funding for the GWPF. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."
In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income, from its founding in November 2009 until the end of July 2010, came from membership contributions.[11] In response to the accounts, Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, commented that "We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
it all matters. it's an extremely complex experiment, this rock hurtling through space
even black top roads and black roofs matter. natural methane hydrate emmissions matter
solar variations matter
it all matters
yes, even little old us matters
Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by StrangeOldBrew
AGW has been proven to be false...
Notice that these days it's called Climate Change and not Global Warming.....
Also notice that Global temps have been trending towards cooling...not warming.
Oh and CO2...well plant life converts that to Oxygen.....no CO2 = no Oxygen....
It's a scam to tax you.
So why do we have climate change and increased energy ?
Well, we have always had Climate Change ... the increased energy coming into our atmosphere is due to a weak and weakening magnetic field...more energetic particles and rays are penetrating our atmosphere, this is set to continue until the Magnetic field flips and then stabilizes, returning to its full strength, until then get used to it.
...and also get used to politicians telling you it's all your fault and demanding taxes to solve the unsolvable.
C...
Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by StrangeOldBrew
Why don't you just admit you're a guilt ridden Misanthropist, we are just as much a part of the ecology as any other species...stop crying and blaming mankind for everything ...many species have come and gone...and the greater part of those extinctions have absolutely nothing to do with Mankind.
And lastly...don't be posting directly into my profile to tell me to respond to your post...try using the PM.
C...
Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by StrangeOldBrew
AGW has been proven to be false...
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.
“Accepting our theory would basically mean the climate models are wrong. It wouldn’t mean that theories about carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses are wrong.
“The basic physical issues are still there. Winds are still caused to some degree by temperature differences, global warming will still be potentially caused by greenhouse gasses. But what we are saying is one of the major reasons that air moves around the surface of the globe, and one of the main reasons that rain falls where it does, is to do with these patterns of moisture evaporation and condensation.”
Originally posted by StrangeOldBrew
Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by StrangeOldBrew
Why don't you just admit you're a guilt ridden Misanthropist, we are just as much a part of the ecology as any other species...stop crying and blaming mankind for everything ...many species have come and gone...and the greater part of those extinctions have absolutely nothing to do with Mankind.
And lastly...don't be posting directly into my profile to tell me to respond to your post...try using the PM.
C...
Nothing to refute my assertions or even having to do with the topic. Great job dodging a coherent discussion, probably because you've got nothing. Instead you call me names, make assumptions about my character and say I'm crying about it.
You have resorted to the most common cop-out available to you. Its the old "I can't refute what he's saying so I'll just point out the fact that extinctions have occurred before so we shouldn't even try to change our ways" argument. You fail at reading and comprehension of the topic so you just say its happened before so who cares. And you call me a misanthropist.
Why would I even post this if I were a misanthropist? Why would I even care if humans were destroying the planet and themselves if I hated my own species? Can you answer that? Wouldn't I be excited about the prospect of humans killing themselves off if I were a misanthropist?
Take your ad-hominem horse crap and fling it elsewhere.
And I'll post wherever the hell I want.edit on 2-2-2013 by StrangeOldBrew because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by StrangeOldBrew
reply to post by Cosmic4life
Farmland is human encroachment, genius.
Those green fields and farmlands were once forests, but your ancestors cut them down so Britain had to invade foreign countries and steal natural resources to support its bloated human population, which it is still doing. Without the constant exportation of military violence, your country would have almost 0 resources but food, and there's certainly not enough land there to support the food needs of the entire UK. If the rest of the world decided to abandon you, a large portion of the people in UK would starve. Your coal mining accounts for a meager percentage of your energy usage, your minerals mining is so miniscule as to barely be noticed by anyone, and I could go on and on.
The only reason the forests in Britain have been allowed to grow is due to the tireless environmental activism by people like Ray Mears.
Like I said, why would I even care if humans were destroying themselves if I were a misanthropist? Maybe you need to review the definition of the word...edit on 2-2-2013 by StrangeOldBrew because: (no reason given)
THE world’s great forests have long been recognised as the lungs of the earth, but the science establishment has been rocked by claims that trees may also be the heart of its climate. Not only do trees fix carbon and produce oxygen; a new and controversial paper says they collectively unleash forces powerful enough to drive global wind patterns and are a core feature in the circulation of the climate system
AGW has been proven to be false...