|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 22, 2011 10:52:15 GMT 1
Remember her, nay, the lovely Anastasia Makarieva, whose work I brought to your attention a few years ago? Along with co-authors, she has come up with a hypothesis about evaporation and the genesis of winds that has implications for the physics of purported CO2-induced global warming. Unfortunately the authors cannot find referees to peer review their work, apart from Dr Judith Curry of Georgia Tech who has already stuck her neck out in welcoming contrarians to her blog. The research is too cutting edge and too threatening to most of the "science is settled" AGW hacks, I dare say. Read more about her work here. wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/21/an-appeal-to-the-climate-science-blogosphere/#more-32135An appeal to the climate science blogospherePosted on January 21, 2011 by Anthony Watts Can you keep an open mind on the cause of winds? Climate science needs your help!by Anastassia Makarieva On August 06 2010 our paper “Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics” was submitted to the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions (ACPD) journal of the European Geosciences Union. There we proposed a new mechanism for wind generation based on pressure gradients produced by the condensation of water vapor.......
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 1, 2011 3:40:48 GMT 1
I just came across another reference to the Makarieva work on the genesis of winds by co-author Douglss Shiell who is encountering similar indifference to and incomprehension of a "new idea". He says, Is it possible that a key phenomenon concerning how the World’s climate works has been widely overlooked? Climate scientists acknowledge many areas of uncertainty but the suggestion that a principle cause of global atmospheric motion has been neglected is, understandably, hard to swallow. But being hard to swallow does not make it wrong. For science purists all new ideas should be welcomed and assessed on their merits. Are the new ideas logically consistent with what we know already, can they make predictions that we might use to distinguish them from alternatives? This is not simply an academic point – let me recount an ongoing story from my vantage point.
I live in a forest in central Africa: lush and green with regular rain. We are thousands of kilometres from the Atlantic Ocean to the West and the Indian Ocean to the East. How does so much rain get to be here in the middle of a continent (a similar pattern is seen in the Amazon)? You might think that climate scientists have this all clear and agreed long ago … but I am not certain that this is the case. One theory, developed and promoted primarily by Anastassia Makarieva and Victor Gorshkov implies that forests are the reason we get rain in the centre of Africa and other continents is the forests. They attract rain.......More here on Judith Curry's Climate Etc "Water Vapour Mischief: Part II" judithcurry.com/2011/03/30/water-vapor-mischief-part-ii/#more-2774
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Apr 1, 2011 9:02:43 GMT 1
As someone interested in the history of engineering, it seems obvious to me that the huge forces invoked when water condenses out of the atmosphere, must have a profound effect in nature. And harnessing this power to create a vaccuum, by Newcomen, and later Watt, started the industrial revolution.
And so I am surprised that Makarieva and her work is being sidelined by the Climatologists. Maybe if she published in a proper scientific arena she might get somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 1, 2011 12:02:14 GMT 1
David Hagen asks re the genesis of Winds and rainfall in the interior of continents - What expanded the Sahara Desert? Could it have been deforestation?... “From 9500 – 4500 years ago the Wadi Howar flowed through an environment characterized by numerous groundwater outlets and freshwater lakes” – today rainfall is only 25 mm/year. Could forests be reestablished in the Sahara by planting forests progressively eastward from the ocean to leverage coriolis driven winds? This "Water Vapour MIschief" is a very interesting thread judithcurry.com/2011/03/30/water-vapor-mischief-part-ii/#more-2774
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 2, 2013 17:13:30 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Feb 3, 2013 2:29:45 GMT 1
It isn't as though the theory is even unconventional.
Ask any meteorologist (not the same as "climate scientist"- I'm talking about proper professionals on whom lives depend), aviator, or tropical sailor what happens when damp air rises.
Or just fly through a cloud in any aeroplane.
The specific heat capacity of dry air is about 1 J/g.K Water-saturated air at 20 deg C has about twice the specific heat capacity of dry air, and at the condensation altitude, delivers a further 200 J/g of kinetic energy to the atmosphere.
Water is what governs the exchange of energy in the atmosphere, and the texture of the ground beneath it determines how solar energy gets into the atmosphere. Everybody (except the IPCC) knows that.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 3, 2013 13:13:50 GMT 1
|
|