LOL Bugsy,

That's what makes it so hilarious. It is obvious from cohenite's posts that he is clueless about some pretty basic physical facts. And yet, as you say, there he is babbling "excitedly about a new model that [he doesn't] understand, as if it's the next big thing that will validate [his] stance..."

I mean you can't make this stuff up.

Oh well I think this thread has reached its use by date. See you on another thread.

It was good fun though. I'm in the middle of a boring task and this, especially cohenite, provided a welcome distraction.

Bugsy:

Sheil says their theory which is based on known, tried and tested physical processes, "has no direct bearing on global warming physics."

He also says about the models which are the basis of AGW; "current models that have been developed to simulate global climate and predict changes are missing a major piece and are thus of uncertain value."

Makarieva says: "We can now compare our theory with observations...[it] is in close agreement with the best observational estimates."

I've never come across so many smart guys who are dopes.

Come on cohenite, you're a lawyer, I'm sure you have.

cohenite writes "...that is a key point and I would like to hear any other opinions".

I agree, so here's another opinion. The following in particular:

"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 assume that this quote from Stigter and Meesters, as it appears written, has been taken in context. If I'm reading it correctly, and assuming there's no more to their statement which may explain more in depth and may change the context, then these guys are completely off the money. This is alarming because it's basic school textbook stuff on meteorology.

Let's look at it:

1. "But on the other hand, condensation heats the air parcel and hence causes faster molecular motion..." Correct.

2. "...and a rise in pressure..." Yes BUT, only in a closed system such as in the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.

The atmosphere is NOT a closed system - it's an open system. It is free to expand and contract as much as it likes and does so with great observable and measurable regularity. The statement, with respect to atmosphere should read like this:

Condensation heats the air parcel and hence causes faster molecular motion, expansion of the air parcel, decreased density and a decrease in pressure.

That's how convective clouds work. The air inside the cloud is hotter, hence less dense, hence has less pressure than the air at the same altitude immediately outside the cloud where condensation is not taking place. This causes the simple mechanics of atmospheric convection. So-called hot air rises.

Stigter and Meesters seem to have got it wrong. So who peer reviews the peer reviewers?

Folks like us I guess, but it seems the boffins don't like it much.

Cheers all.

Thanks for your input VoxUnius; this is the critique of Kees Stigter and Antoon Meesters:

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

Here is Makarieva's response:

http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/needs-for-agrometeorological-solutions-to-farming-problems/the-biotic-pump-physics-is-maturing-to-a-novel-theory-of-atmospheric-circulation-everybody2019s-invited

And a further reply by Antoon Meesters:

http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/needs-for-agrometeorological-solutions-to-farming-problems/reply-to-m-gs-reaction

The Meesters reply concedes the point that precipitation will decrease pressure but still distinguishes the effect between dry and moist air. he says:

"As vapor condensates in ascending air, latent heat is released which mitigates the temperature drop, so that the wet parcels become in general warmer than dry parcels at the same height. The heat causes the wet parcels first to have a pressure surplus (this is what we mean) and then to expand, pushing away the dry air at the same height."

This, to my understanding, is merely a description of enthalpy and misunderstands the point of Makarieva's thesis, but again I would welcome input.

When peer review fails, sign up to a workshop on Online Opinion. Yep, hilarious.