6 ms·

Without its rainforest, the Amazon will turn to desert (2015)

57 points by jgilias 5y ago

sampo 5y ago
This article is based on the biotic pump theory [1], which is not accepted by the mainstream meteorology [2]. Textbook understanding is that winds are created by pressure differences in the atmosphere, which are created by temperature differences. Since 2013, Makarieva et. al. [3] have suggested that all numerical weather and climate models would have overlooked a second pressure difference generating process: The volume loss, when water vapour condenses into liquid aerosols and cloud droplets. I think the posted article fails to communicate, how much of it is based on a theory that mainstream meteorology currently considers to be fringe. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump [2] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/controversial-russian-theory-claims-forests-don-t-just-make-rain-they-make-wind https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/controversial-russia... Some further correspondence: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/75/10/jas-d-17-0293.1.xml https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/75/10/jas-d-... https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/76/7/jas-d-18-0358.1.xml https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/76/7/jas-d-1... [3] https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/1039/2013/ https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/1039/2013/
- jgilias 5y ago
  You make it sound as if the theory is pure quack, but from the second article: > The other reviewer was Judith Curry, then an atmospheric physicist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who has long had concerns about the atmospheric dynamics at the core of climate models. She felt it was important to publish the paper and says the standoff was “very bad for climate science, which badly needs an infusion from hard-core physicists.” After 3 years of debate, the journal’s editor overruled Held’s recommendation and published the paper, saying it was published “not as an endorsement” but “to promote continuation of the scientific dialogue on the controversial theory [that] may lead to disproof or validation.” > Since then, there has been neither validation nor disproof, but largely a standoff. To me this sounds more like the theory really needs more consideration and research. Because the potential implications are huge. There was a time when the existence of aether was common sense scientific view.
  - sampo 5y ago
    > You make it sound as if the theory is pure quack My apologies. I tried to phrase neutrally, and give good references. What can you do, when an idea sounds interesting, but is quite clearly rejected by current mainstream science? Personally, I agree with you. But the topic goes above my level of experience in fluid mechanics and numerical meteorology. Some of the best minds in numerical atmospheric fluid mechanics should thoroughly examine the proposed theory. Like you say, the potential implications could be big. But the current short attention span of science funding does not support or reward such work.
    - jgilias 5y ago
      That's the thing though. The theory is commonly rejected, but not debunked. And after reading the peer review[1] I came away even more convinced that the reasons of why it is opposed are based in confirmation bias and preconceived notions. Frankly, the author seems to have a stronger grasp of the underlying physics and mathematics than the people criticizing the theory. [1] https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039-2013-discussion.html https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039...
PaulHoule 5y ago
In most places the pattern is water evaporates over the oceans and then condenses over land. Not in the Amazon. If you look at it from space https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/sector_band.php?sat=G16&sector=nsa&band=GEOCOLOR&length=240 https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/sector_band.php?sat=G1... you see a very complex pattern of circulation where rain falls then the water evaporates and re-condenses multiple times before some of it goes "down the drain" of the river while some of it goes north or goes south. The clouds don't move consistently to the east or the west like they do in the temperate zone so the area makes water deliveries in directions you wouldn't expect, such as to the snowpack and hydroelectric dams of USA West.
- jgilias 5y ago
  Yeah, the premise that rain patterns can actually be affected significantly by what is growing on land seems to be further supported by how the local climate has seemingly been affected in the Ernst Gotsch plantation by his activities: https://www.renature.co/articles/ernst-gotsch-planting-water/ https://www.renature.co/articles/ernst-gotsch-planting-water... EDIT: Ok, so the article doesn't actually talk about increased rainfall, only about increased water absorption in soil, which then provides water for local streams.
blastonico 5y ago
> We must save the Amazon... In other words: pressure Brazilian poor people to pay more taxes to "save Amazon", while rich countries will continue to exploit everywhere to keep their standards.
- justicezyx 5y ago
  +1 Everything comes at a cost, if people cannot profit from it. In this case, looks like protecting Amazon is not making a profit. Then someone must pay the cost.
- meiraleal 5y ago
  Exactly this. If the Amazon was American or European it would be a desert long time ago.
- Jeff_Brown 5y ago
  Please correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is that the primary economic interest driving the Amazon's deforestation is (wealthy) cattle ranchers and to a lesser extent loggers. The loggers make money off a tract of land once, the ranchers make money off it for years. Neither of those groups employ a particularly large share of Brazil's poor, nor do they exert a price effect that particularly benefits the poor.
  - meiraleal 5y ago
    No, it is not for cattle ranchers but for soy farming which is mostly exported to US and China.
    - Jeff_Brown 5y ago
      Ah, it looks like you're largely right. Brazil export 83 million tons of soy in 2020[1] and produced 137 million tons in the 2020-2021 "marketing year"[2]. Can I assume most of what it didn't export went to feed Brazillian livestock? [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/721215/soybeans-export-volume-brazil/#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20exports%20of%20soybean,billion%20U.S.%20dollars%20that%20year https://www.statista.com/statistics/721215/soybeans-export-v.... [2] https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/cropexplorer/pecad_stories.aspx?regionid=br&ftype=prodbriefs#:~:text=Brazil's%202019%2F20%20soybean%20production,8%20percent)%20from%20last%20year.&text=Soybean%20area%20continues%20to%20increase,the%20world's%20leading%20soybean%20producer https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/cropexplorer/pecad_stories.aspx?re....
otrahuevada 5y ago
Brazilians clearly want it gone though, or they'd have mounted a stronger defense around it. There's no way around that, it's been demonstrated time and time again they just can't possibly care less about their rainforest. I wonder how its disappearance is going to impact neighboring countries though, water patterns are going to be heavily disrupted and plenty turmoil is guaranteed to come from that.
- meiraleal 5y ago
  > Brazilians clearly want it gone though, or they'd have mounted a stronger defense around it. How come? This is the biggest natural landscape conserved in the world, the country (and its population) could have profit trillions from it but it is still there, working on behalf the whole world, and nobody (besides Brazilians) paid for it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- kortex 5y ago
  > just can't possibly care less about their rainforest Is it their rainforest though? It raises some interesting philosophical and geopolitical questions. Paving the Amazon rainforest would almost certainty disrupt many things outside Brazil's borders. I think it's tantamount to discussions about putting carbon, cfc, and pollution into our atmosphere.
  - otrahuevada 5y ago
    For about as long as they have the abiity to carpet bomb anyone who tries to take it, yes, it is very much theirs. The portions of it that remain outside their borders will be affected, sure, and this is almost surely going to cause a whole lot of geopolitical issues in the next several decades.

57 points by jgilias 5y ago

This article is based on the biotic pump theory [1], which is not accepted by the mainstream meteorology [2]. Textbook understanding is that winds are created by pressure differences in the atmosphere, which are created by temperature differences. Since 2013, Makarieva et. al. [3] have suggested that all numerical weather and climate models would have overlooked a second pressure difference generating process: The volume loss, when water vapour condenses into liquid aerosols and cloud droplets. I think the posted article fails to communicate, how much of it is based on a theory that mainstream meteorology currently considers to be fringe. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump [2] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/controversial-russian-theory-claims-forests-don-t-just-make-rain-they-make-wind https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/controversial-russia... Some further correspondence: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/75/10/jas-d-17-0293.1.xml https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/75/10/jas-d-... https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/76/7/jas-d-18-0358.1.xml https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/76/7/jas-d-1... [3] https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/1039/2013/ https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/1039/2013/

jgilias 5y ago
You make it sound as if the theory is pure quack, but from the second article: > The other reviewer was Judith Curry, then an atmospheric physicist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who has long had concerns about the atmospheric dynamics at the core of climate models. She felt it was important to publish the paper and says the standoff was “very bad for climate science, which badly needs an infusion from hard-core physicists.” After 3 years of debate, the journal’s editor overruled Held’s recommendation and published the paper, saying it was published “not as an endorsement” but “to promote continuation of the scientific dialogue on the controversial theory [that] may lead to disproof or validation.” > Since then, there has been neither validation nor disproof, but largely a standoff. To me this sounds more like the theory really needs more consideration and research. Because the potential implications are huge. There was a time when the existence of aether was common sense scientific view.
- sampo 5y ago
  > You make it sound as if the theory is pure quack My apologies. I tried to phrase neutrally, and give good references. What can you do, when an idea sounds interesting, but is quite clearly rejected by current mainstream science? Personally, I agree with you. But the topic goes above my level of experience in fluid mechanics and numerical meteorology. Some of the best minds in numerical atmospheric fluid mechanics should thoroughly examine the proposed theory. Like you say, the potential implications could be big. But the current short attention span of science funding does not support or reward such work.
  - jgilias 5y ago
    That's the thing though. The theory is commonly rejected, but not debunked. And after reading the peer review[1] I came away even more convinced that the reasons of why it is opposed are based in confirmation bias and preconceived notions. Frankly, the author seems to have a stronger grasp of the underlying physics and mathematics than the people criticizing the theory. [1] https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039-2013-discussion.html https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039...

PaulHoule 5y ago

In most places the pattern is water evaporates over the oceans and then condenses over land. Not in the Amazon. If you look at it from space https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/sector_band.php?sat=G16&sector=nsa&band=GEOCOLOR&length=240 https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/sector_band.php?sat=G1... you see a very complex pattern of circulation where rain falls then the water evaporates and re-condenses multiple times before some of it goes "down the drain" of the river while some of it goes north or goes south. The clouds don't move consistently to the east or the west like they do in the temperate zone so the area makes water deliveries in directions you wouldn't expect, such as to the snowpack and hydroelectric dams of USA West.

jgilias 5y ago
Yeah, the premise that rain patterns can actually be affected significantly by what is growing on land seems to be further supported by how the local climate has seemingly been affected in the Ernst Gotsch plantation by his activities: https://www.renature.co/articles/ernst-gotsch-planting-water/ https://www.renature.co/articles/ernst-gotsch-planting-water... EDIT: Ok, so the article doesn't actually talk about increased rainfall, only about increased water absorption in soil, which then provides water for local streams.

blastonico 5y ago

> We must save the Amazon... In other words: pressure Brazilian poor people to pay more taxes to "save Amazon", while rich countries will continue to exploit everywhere to keep their standards.

justicezyx 5y ago
+1 Everything comes at a cost, if people cannot profit from it. In this case, looks like protecting Amazon is not making a profit. Then someone must pay the cost.
meiraleal 5y ago
Exactly this. If the Amazon was American or European it would be a desert long time ago.
Jeff_Brown 5y ago
Please correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is that the primary economic interest driving the Amazon's deforestation is (wealthy) cattle ranchers and to a lesser extent loggers. The loggers make money off a tract of land once, the ranchers make money off it for years. Neither of those groups employ a particularly large share of Brazil's poor, nor do they exert a price effect that particularly benefits the poor.
- meiraleal 5y ago
  No, it is not for cattle ranchers but for soy farming which is mostly exported to US and China.
  - Jeff_Brown 5y ago
    Ah, it looks like you're largely right. Brazil export 83 million tons of soy in 2020[1] and produced 137 million tons in the 2020-2021 "marketing year"[2]. Can I assume most of what it didn't export went to feed Brazillian livestock? [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/721215/soybeans-export-volume-brazil/#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20exports%20of%20soybean,billion%20U.S.%20dollars%20that%20year https://www.statista.com/statistics/721215/soybeans-export-v.... [2] https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/cropexplorer/pecad_stories.aspx?regionid=br&ftype=prodbriefs#:~:text=Brazil's%202019%2F20%20soybean%20production,8%20percent)%20from%20last%20year.&text=Soybean%20area%20continues%20to%20increase,the%20world's%20leading%20soybean%20producer https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/cropexplorer/pecad_stories.aspx?re....

otrahuevada 5y ago

Brazilians clearly want it gone though, or they'd have mounted a stronger defense around it. There's no way around that, it's been demonstrated time and time again they just can't possibly care less about their rainforest. I wonder how its disappearance is going to impact neighboring countries though, water patterns are going to be heavily disrupted and plenty turmoil is guaranteed to come from that.

meiraleal 5y ago
> Brazilians clearly want it gone though, or they'd have mounted a stronger defense around it. How come? This is the biggest natural landscape conserved in the world, the country (and its population) could have profit trillions from it but it is still there, working on behalf the whole world, and nobody (besides Brazilians) paid for it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
kortex 5y ago
> just can't possibly care less about their rainforest Is it their rainforest though? It raises some interesting philosophical and geopolitical questions. Paving the Amazon rainforest would almost certainty disrupt many things outside Brazil's borders. I think it's tantamount to discussions about putting carbon, cfc, and pollution into our atmosphere.
- otrahuevada 5y ago
  For about as long as they have the abiity to carpet bomb anyone who tries to take it, yes, it is very much theirs. The portions of it that remain outside their borders will be affected, sure, and this is almost surely going to cause a whole lot of geopolitical issues in the next several decades.