Steven the thing you are forgetting in all this is that AGW is nothing to get excited about. It is not enough to even notice, without positive feedback.

Without that feedback it is no more important than my dog.

The feedback has never had any proof, just wishful thinking by the model designers.

This takes away any hope that positive feedback is possible.

Hilarious Steven?

Yep.

As far as the recently published Makarieva et al paper (on topic I would have thought) – it would have made perfect sense if Bugsy was referring to that, but you would not have known it from the lawyer’s response. Indeed, the lawyer’s comeback seemed to completely ignore the fact that Makarieva’s latest publication hasn’t had the time to be researched, tested and validated/disproved (hence the editor’s comments) - and yes, very theoretical.

This is the point I think Bugsy was trying to make (I may be wrong). However, when the lawyer chips back a few times with Kath&Kim ‘look at me look, at me’ responses – yes, that’s hilarious!

As I’ve said – I’m looking forward to further research and testing (and presentation of some/any data) stemming from the ‘delayed’ publication of Makarieva et al.

Regarding adaptation and mitigation? Easier said than done going by some of the naysayers here – not amusing.

Bugsy,

Neither of knows what passed through the author' minds when they tried to get publication, and everything about that is therefore conjecture. I simply reported what was in the NYT article. If it is fantasy, it is not mine.

Cheers,

Don

Steve says:

“I'm not aware of any science that contradicts or falsifies AGW”

To paraphrase Makarieva you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. Qanda on the other hand has imbibed deeply from the well of hubris.

Plants are not discussed in Makarieva except in section 4.5 which deals with the “inherent spatial non-uniformity” of different regions, in this case the Amazon and nearby Atlantic ocean; this regional “non-uniformity” would occur between any 2 surfaces. To this extent other papers by Makarieva, which deal specifically with the biotic pump, are essentially about where the evaporation, condensation and precipitation occurs.

The key point about Makarieva is that the process of evaporation/condensation/precipitation is the primary energy factor in the atmosphere. This energy is so great that even if AGW were real and a product of an ERB, which isn’t happening, the extra energy in the ERB due to AGW would be by comparison so miniscule as to be dwarfed by the process Makarieva describes.

This is just a matter of numbers; if you believe in Makarieva then AGW in any meaningful way is defeated. The irony is, if Makarieva is correct, then AGW has been sustained by ignoring the principle she describes.

In short steve and his ilk are caught between a rock and hard place.

The dispute between Makarieva and Stigter and Meesters is the latter’s contention that pressure does not drop with condensation; they say:

“Since condensation implies disappearance of water molecules from the vapor phase, there remain indeed less molecules which exert pressure. But on the other hand, condensation heats the air parcel and hence causes faster molecular motion and a rise in pressure, which is neglected in the calculations of M&G.”

I don’t think that is right; condensation involves latent heat; rising evaporated gas uses the latent energy to rise; condensation uses whatever latent energy which is left to phase change the vapor to liquid which then precipitates; no heating is involved and no pressure rise occurs.

However that is a key point and I would like to hear any other opinions.

"I would like to hear any other opinions."

Now that is hilarious - have fun :)

Can't see the forest for the trees, eh cohenite?
That paper discusses forests several times, but not 'trees' or 'plants'.

The model may use data in their parameters, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no confirming supporting data, independent of the model. It remains a hypothesis, a hypothesis with a model that looks solid, but nothing yet validating it.

The irony I see, is that there's you talking excitedly about a new model that you don't understand, as if it's the next big thing that will validate your stance against what you see as unsupported models!

Hilarious, skeptical to the core, LOL.
I'll let co-author Douglas Sheil have his say on this topic:
"Technically this theory has no direct bearing on global warming physics. The mechanism is distinct and independent," says Sheil. "However, if the physical mechanisms operate as we propose, current models that have been developed to simulate global climate and predict changes are missing a major piece and are thus of uncertain value. The pump mechanism and land-cover change trends would need to be better reflected in any forecasts."

Compare and contrast with cohenite:"if you believe in Makarieva then AGW in any meaningful way is defeated."

Really?

Don,

The newspaper reported Dr Davis suggesting reviewers that he thought would be suitable and "who he thought would give the work a fair hearing". Yes, that part is true.

The fantasy that this story is somehow a 'failure of peer review', is all yours.