cohenite wrote:

>>She uses nothing except basic physical considerations. Something which was lacking in the models.>>

LOL. You really think scientists who construct climate models leave out "basic physical considerations?"

>>The Lacis paper on behalf of AGW wants us to believe the non-condensing greenhouse gases control the earth’s temperature and disaster will occur because of a 3.7 W/m2 forcing over the next 100 years or so. But never mind that evaporating/condensing water generates energy fluxes from Ldq and PdV [see above link, equations 1 to 3] that well exceeds 1000 W/m2 each and every day.>>

LOL

Oh dear!

I haven't read the Lacis paper but you do realise that your statement as it stands is nonsense? Evaporation and condensation rearranges heat around the Earth. It has nothing to do with the Earth's radiation budget with space.

You seem to be forgetting some "basic physical considerations."

Bugsy, Qanda

This is hilarious :)

Good on you steve; you haven't read what I am talking about but you are sure you are right; you must be Bill Shorten.

Steve chortles:

"LOL. You really think scientists who construct climate models leave out "basic physical considerations?"

Read yourself:

http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/description/node16.html

As Jeff Condon notes:

"The model is a parametrized version of the physics which leaves out the key factor of pressure drop caused when water vapor condenses."

This comment by steve is abysmal:

"Evaporation and condensation rearranges heat around the Earth. It has nothing to do with the Earth's radiation budget with space."

The issue is the alleged consequences of AGW with the models attributing and predicting warmer temps, extreme weather events, positive feedback etc on the basis of leaving out Makarieva's observation of basic science regarding the way energy is involved in atmospheric processes.

The Earth's Energy Balance {ERB] is irrelevant to this; that is, the models says an increase in ERB has these consequences but Makarieva shows they are a product of 'natural' processes.

As for a +ve ERB that is garbage anyway as Lindzen and Choi, Spencer and Braswell and Knox and Douglass show:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14179&page=0

Go back to doodling Steve, or at least try to have an open mind before you open your trap.

I want to get back to the Makarieva, Ghorshkov and Sheil paper because it is important.

For what it's worth I think the authors are correct. I can find no fault with their reasoning and neither can two physicists I consulted. It must however be said that while the three of us are comfortable pushing equations around none of us are experts on atmospheric dynamics.

What if they are correct?

Firstly, it says nothing about the reality of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I have confirmed this by speaking to one of the authors.

However the theory proposed in the paper – and it is still mainly theory – does say a lot about where and how the effects of global warming will be felt in various parts of the world. To the extent that current climate models ignore this effect they will make inaccurate forecasts about the where, how and TIMING of AGW induced climate changes.

Of more immediate importance is that if the authors are correct conservation and even expansion of existing forests becomes a matter of extreme urgency. We should only permit logging if the logging companies plant more acreage than they cut down.

Given the importance of this we should also be funding research to gather the hard data needed to support, or refute, the author's theories.

I think we should also be investigating genetically engineering trees to see whether we can develop strains able to exploit higher atmospheric CO2 levels. Some more short lived plants like poison ivy* are already adapting naturally but trees take a long time.

*http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/30/AR2010083003947.html

Is this point of view from Oct 2009 still relevant?

http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/needs-for-agrometeorological-solutions-to-farming-problems/a-forest-as-biotic-pump201d-hypotesis-discredited-due-to-errors-in-basic-atmospheric-physics

Steve, you don't get it; the energy in the evaporation/condensation phase changes which Makarieva's paper discusses DWARF the energy contribution of AGW, IF such contribution exists.

AGW, IF it exists, is just noise in the background of this natural process.

And why do you keep harping about trees; Makarieva's paper has nothing to do with trees. If you want to look at a paper which discusses the water cycle and plants see Ferguson and Veizer:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008431/abstract

WmTrevor, 20 February 2013 10:18:58 AM asks:

>>Is this point of view from Oct 2009 still relevant?>>

(Referring to a 2009 paper A "Forests as biotic pump” hypothesis discredited due to errors in basic atmospheric physics")

That's the big question.

I don't know. I don't think anyone does for sure. I hope Makarieva, Gorshkhov,Sheil and others interested in this topic get the funding to flesh out their theories with more hard data.

I want to re-iterate that while forests may affect where, how and when the effects of AGW may be experienced in different parts of the globe it does not alter the final outcome. Every joule of energy removed from the surface due to evaporation is released back into the atmosphere when water vapour condenses and falls to earth as rain. There is no net cooling effect due to evaporation.

Above the atmosphere is vacuum. Therefore, with a few insignificant exceptions the only way the Earth can gain or lose energy is through electromagnetic radiation. That's basic physics and that's why it's the Earth's radiation budget that is the key to understanding global warming.

Here is a link to an image that illustrates the Earth radiation (aka energy) budget.

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/earth_rad_budget_kiehl_trenberth_big.gif

The figures are out of date but illustrate the principle. Look especially at the evaporation / latent heat part of the diagram. They balance out exactly.

Bugsy, 19 February 2013 2:15:59 PM writes:

>>What I see is a general whinge by climate skeptics that science that contradicts AGW is not getting published.>>

I'm not aware of any science that contradicts or falsifies AGW. There's a lot of argument about details. It may turn out that some of the forecasts are unduly pessimistic. It may even turn out that climatologists have underestimated the Earth's ability to adapt to higher CO2 levels.

But to a dispassionate scientifically literate observer the overall direction is hardly in doubt. It is underpinned by some quite fundamental physics.

Will it be as catastrophic as some forecasters say? I don’t know and at my age I shan't be around to find out.