Australian Scientist Turns Climate Models Upside Down: Forests Drive Climate, Not the Reverse!

Australian scientists have published a paper in the peer-reviewed and prestigious journal, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, that asserts that Earth climate forces are mainly driven by forestation and the related effects they have on water condensation and evaporation. “Mainstream” climate scientists, have long neglected to consider such a factor in climate models and projections.

Needless to say, the paper is highly controversial, and deeply invested adherents to current modeling and “the settled science” are up in arms since their models almost completely fail to take into account water vapor’s influence on climate drivers such as wind and rain patterns.

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.

www.theaustralian.com.au...

Scientists Anastasia Makarieva and Douglas Sheil faced vigorous opposition during the peer review process, with entrenched climate modelers clinging to the conventional wisdom; refusing to acknowledge that climate science is evolving, and that their models are imperfect.

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.”

Of course, basic science tells us that any theory should be verifiable and subject to disproof; something that AGW advocates have refused to consider, and harshly criticized; frequently resorting to disparaging those who challenge basic “climate science” assumptions and “the consensus” that adheres to the AGW party line.

This paper, however, has dep implicarions for current climate modeling, because current and popular models almost completely fail to consider or account for the effect of atmospheric pressure changes resulting from water vapor, evaporation and condensation.

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.”

Common sense would seem to dictate that the presence of desert in once-forested lands, such as northern Africa, indicates that the new theory has considerable merit.

Unfortunately, the “consensus” clings to the basic tenets of the AGW faith and the funding-supported apologists for models that don’t and predictions that aren’t.

Sheil and his colleagues are aware of the problem of those whose careers and wealth are tied to the conventional wisdom of current AGW, and the retrenching that will take place, instead of a reasoned assessment of these new findings.

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.”

NEW RESEARCH BLOWS CLIMATE SCIENCE WIDE OPEN

reply to post by jdub297


do you have a link?
I'd like to share this one.

reply to post by jdub297


This video talks about the water vapor theory as well. This channel does a daily global weather report and goes into detail about why and the causes of elements that contribute to climate changes.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by jdub297

 

do you have a link?
I'd like to share this one.

Hi grey

heres a link, its the bottom paper..
www.atmos-chem-phys.net...

Interesting article. I'm not sure what you mean by "mainstream" scientists though. Just because scientists are defending their research does not mean there's some sort of global warming conspiracy. This is commonplace in the scientific community; people come up with new data, people debate and argue, more research is conducted and, if valid, is generally accepted if the new data is determined to be valuable.

The article you posted sure does a great job of making it seem like there is a conspiracy though. However, the scientist who has presented this new data also states that greenhouse gases will still be a driving factor behind climate change, so he hasn't really "turned climate models upside down," has he? Nice bit of exaggeration there. You also overstate the importance of forests in your title, making it sound like forests are the only "driving" factor behind climate, which is obviously not true, nor does this scientist make that claim.

As far as I know, climate scientists have always considered forests to be an important factor in weather and climate patterns; hell, even my local meteorogist knows this. This is the reason the scientific community is so adamant about the importance of healthy forests and wilderness in general, and is why they are so worried about the massive deforestation that is taking place.

So, climate science hasn't really been turned upside down, but it does have new data to add to the models which, even with this new data, will say that humans are having a negative impact on ecology and climate by mass scale global deforestation.

On another note, this website you have linked this article from has been under scritiny because of the organization's source of funding, which it refuses to divulge, even after a Freedom of Information request.

From Wikipedia:

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."

Sounds fishy to me. Where is the other £495,000 coming from? Gee, I wonder...

By the way, I'm still waiting for a response to my post on your last thread. Still waiting...

but but AL said it was the s.u.v's.



but your still going to pay a carbon tax regardless, you useless eater.

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 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

Exactly my point. The OP is so focused on proving anthropogenic global warming to be false that he has fallen into the trap of denying all evidence that clearly shows that humans are having a massive negative effect on the biodiversity and ecological systems of this planet.

Looking at his/her thread history, it really seems like he/she is one of these people being paid to post on forums like this in order to influence and distort public perception of this issue. He/she pops in every few days, posts a couple of articles refuting AGW, calls everyone that disagrees or has a slightly different view "unscientific" or "alarmist" and then only responds with more of the same, despite coherent and undeniable arguments that are contrary to his/hers, and ignores any tough questions or in-depth discussion about the topic. Check out his/her thread previous to this one. Classic example of cherry-picked articles, except in that one, he got caught.

I even said in that other thread that the anthropogenic global warming debate is essentially pointless, and he/she comes along and calls me a global warming alarmist.

There seems to be this trend that anyone who supports protecting the environment from the ever-expanding influence of industrial pollution, human encroachment, and resource exploitation is lumped in with so-called global warming alarmists in an attempt to invalidate all the arguments as one.

While there is legitimate debate over the AGW issue, there is no debate in the scientific community that humans are having a serious and global negative effect on biodiversity and ecological health, and yet people like the OP don't understand or don't know how to separate the two issues. I guess its hard when your only motivation is to spread propaganda that only supports one side of the chosen argument, instead of desiring only to bring more clarification of the facts.

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

 

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...

Good god did you even read a word I wrote? I neither said that AGW is true, nor did I say it was false. I said its a meaningless topic to debate and that I really don't give a crap about it.

Can you provide a coherent argument, with sources, that refutes the fact that humans are having a negative impact on BIODIVERSITY and ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS by way of resource exploitation, environment encroachment, and industrial pollution? Can anyone quote any study by any scientist that would refute this claim?

Global climate change is a useless topic to debate, because if true, it would only be an indication of the extent to which humans have done irreversible damage to the planet's ecological systems. If false, the fact still remains that humans are destroying the planets ecosystems through the ways I described above. So as you see, either way its a pointless argument, and yet people use it to distort and confuse the slow thinking public into thinking that anyone who supports environmental protection and conservation is a nature nazi trying to push some kind of tax agenda and that all we care about is whether global warming is real or not.

Get your heads out of your asses and read what I've written here. I swear reading comprehension on this website is extremely poor. It seems people read the first sentence of a post and then just blurt out their media controlled presupposed diatribe on their black and white view of the topic.

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

 

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.

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by StrangeOldBrew

 

AGW has been proven to be false...

in the same way, and by the same people, that the ridiculous idea the Earth is more than 6,000 years old has been proven to be false For some that proof is absolute.

Anyway, back on subject, the abstract of this paper is:

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.

www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net...

Full paper here:

www.atmos-chem-phys.net...

Read it and understand it. If you can.

Then make your own mind up. Or just believe what your fundamentalist religious leaders tell you. As you wish. Are you a man? Or a sheeple?

Wow. Just. Wow.

The article in the OP goes to enormous lengths to make the argument among the scientific community, regarding this paper, about AGW when it most definitely is not. The argument boils down to a very simple one: Are forests the heart or the lungs of the planet?

It has been scientific consensus for a while now that forests are the lungs of the planet. The paper discussed, puts forth that forests are the heart of the planet and even quotes the author as saying that the new theory:

“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.”

Doh. That's about the dumbest cherry picking I've ever seen.

ETA: Either way this organization shoots itself in the foot as even if deforestation is the leading cause of climate change (it most certainly plays a part and probably a large one but it isn't what the paper asserts anyway) it is still anthropological... lmfao the Koch's would look so adorable slung in trees holding signs that say protect our forests!

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)

Blah blah blah..the rantings of another armchair expert.

We have been beneficial to this Planet more than anything...where we threaten the existence of species we change our behavior.

And you waffle about encroachment....most of mankind lives in a city....for example 90% of the UK is Greenfields or Farmland..just what is getting encroached? still plenty Badgers, plenty Fox's, Otters etc etc.

I'm getting the impression that I hit the nail on the head when I asserted your guilt ridden misanthropy...

And no you cannot post where-ever you damn well please....post in my profile again and you will feel the Ban-Hammer.

C...

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. And where there are now otters, badgers, etc, there were also once wolves, bears, and thousands of other species your anscestors wiped out.

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...

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 Sahara desert was once a Forest...Egypt and Iraq were once Forests..the Gobi Desert was once a Forest...the North Sea was once a Forest...etc etc etc....of course the fact that they are no longer Forests must be our fault right ?

C...

reply to post by Cosmic4life


Actually they were most likely lakes or ocean affected by continental drift, frequent tectonic activity or catastrophic climate interference such as a large meteorite, super volcano etc...

reply to post by jdub297

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

The worlds forests are not recognized as the lungs of the earth. The ocean are the great carbon sinks of the world. Nor do trees produce carbon and fix oxygen. They do both. One by day and the other by night. Sorry nor do forests drive global wind patterns. Again this is done by the currents of the ocean and the spin of the earth. The article you have posted looks very misinformed...

reply to post by Cosmic4life

AGW has been proven to be false...

Maybe in your dreamland. Within the remit of science the opposite holds true with strength. Over 98% of published papers on the subject are in support of AGW...

If you have knowledge that can contend with this science. Write a paper. In other words put up or shut up.