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.
From The Australian:
"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."
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 deep 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.
“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.
“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.”"
“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.”"
No comments:
Post a Comment