4 ms·

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 b

by 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...

by sampo 5y ago

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...