Can you keep an open mind on the cause of winds? Climate science needs your help!
by Anastassia Makarieva
Many of us who have become researchers have been attracted by the dynamic and constructive debate that lies at the heart of scientific progress. Every theory is provisional waiting to be improved or replaced by a more thorough understanding. In this perspective new ideas are the life-blood of progress and are welcomed and examined eagerly by all concerned. That’s what we believed and were inspired by. Is climate science a dynamic field of research that welcomes new ideas? We hope so – though our faith is currently being tested.
Five months have not been enough to find two representatives of the climate science community who would be willing to act as referees and publicly evaluate a new theory of winds. Of the ten experts requested to act as referees only one accepted. This slow and uncertain progress has caused the Editors to become concerned: recently they “indefinitely extended” the public discussion of the submitted manuscript. The review process is perhaps becoming the story.
Here the authors share their views and request help.
Background
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. ACPD ensures transparency during the review procedure: the submitted manuscripts and subsequent reviews are published online and available for public discussion. Authors can follow their submission through the process: they see when the Editor invites referees and whether they accept or decline.
Here are the standings as of 20 January 2011:
The Editor handling our paper has invited ten referees so far. Only one, Dr. Judith Curry, accepted. After 10 November 2010, in the record there have been no further attempts to find referees.
Normally ACPD’s discussion should take eight weeks. But in early January 2011, after twelve weeks in process, the status of the discussion of our manuscript was changed to “indefinitely extended”. In a recent letter to the authors, the Editor-in-Chief admitted that handling ‘a controversial paper’ is not easy, but assured us that the Journal is doing their best.
Discussion of our propositions secured over a thousand comments in the blogosphere within four weeks of publication indicating wide interest. Among the ACPD discussion participants two are active bloggers. Does blog culture outcompete formal peer review in evaluating novel concepts? It’s an open question. But let’s take a moment to focus on science.
Why condensation-induced dynamics is important
It would be generally useful to understand why the winds blow. It is sufficient to note that understanding the physical bases of atmospheric circulation is key for determining the climate sensitivity to changes in the amounts of atmospheric greenhouse substances, which is currently a highly controversial topic. The lack of current understanding may not be widely recognized outside the climate and meteorological community. But within the community moist processes in the atmosphere are admitted to be among the least understood and associated with greatest challenges. Not only theorists, but also modelers recognize their existence. For example, in a paper titled “The real holes in climate science” Schiermeier (2010) identified the inability to adequately explain precipitation patterns as one of such holes. In particular,
“a main weakness of the[ir] models is their limited ability to simulate vertical air movement, such as convection in the tropics that lifts humid air into the atmosphere.”
Any meteorological textbook will provide a discussion of buoyancy-based convection: how a warm air parcel ascends being lighter than the surrounding air. The convective instability of moist saturated air, so far neglected by the meteorological theory, is different. Any upward displacement of a saturated air volume, even a random fluctuation, leads to cooling. This causes the water vapour to condense. Condensation diminishes the total amount of gas and thus disrupts the hydrostatic distribution of moist air (if a hydrostatic equilibrium exists it is unstable to any such minor movements). The conclusion: moist saturated atmosphere in the gravitational field cannot be static.
Our analyses show that the current understanding of air movements being dominated by temperature and buoyancy is incomplete and flawed. Rather we find that the phase changes of water (condensation and evaporation) can play a much larger role than has previously been recognized. You can find out more if you see our paper. We would hope that a dynamic and advancing science would welcome new ideas.
Can the blogosphere help?
Perhaps we can help the Journal review our paper with your help. Are you an open minded climate scientist who would be ready and competent to discuss our ideas?
The ACP Chief-Executive Editor Dr. Ulrich Pöschl is aware that we are inviting your helps and asked that the following issues be noted (we quote):
1) ACPD is not a blog but a scientific discussion forum for the exchange of substantial scientific comments by scientific experts.
2) The open call for scientific experts who would be ready to act as potential referees would be a private initiative of the manuscript authors.
3) The list of potential referees compiled by the authors will be treated like the suggestions for potential referees regularly requested. The responsibility and authority for selecting and appointing referees rests exclusively with the editor.
If you have no conflict of interests and are willing to review our paper please contact the corresponding author (A. Makarieva) and we will forward your details to the Editor as a potential referee. For those who would like to remain anonymous please approach the ACP Chief-Executive Editor directly. We would be very grateful for your help – we have faith in you.
Anastassia Makarieva
on behalf of the authors:
A.M. Makarieva, V.G. Gorshkov, D. Sheil, A.D. Nobre, B.-L. Li
P.S. Thanks to Jeff for hosting our appeal on this blog. For a list of publications relevant to condensation-induced dynamics, please, see here.
“How does the pressure created by molecular collisions required to keep water droplets buoyant, compare with the actual vapor pressure of the same amount of water before it condensed ?”
Strange, I would have thought that water droplets migrate downwards,(as allowed to by air friction moving up) until they reach less than saturated air, then volatize, thus creating an illusion of staying buoyant.
Just read the abstract… Uhm, Are you telling me that evaporation/condensation has really been overlooked by the atmospheric physics research? Seems rather obvious and hard to miss that a phase change from gas-to-liquid represents a net loss of pressure. How can it be that our understanding of high/low pressure dynamics on Earth overlooked this?
As I understand the paper (read not too carefully) and most comments, the main question is the relative importance of latent heat contributions as compared to a mass defect contribution. The latter is basis for the claim of something like a “new theory of wind”, while the mass defect in the view of most commentators is a relatively small correction to latent heat produced buoyancy (in my opinion, too). The latent heat is very large (of order 0.4 eV per H2O molecule) and unique among gases, as it is produced mainly by the hydrogen bond and not by, e.g.; van der Waals forces, as Chris Reeves claims.
If the paper is revised along the line “first time analytical treatment (if true) of the mass defect correction to latent heat buoyancy” I would see a chance for acceptance. I guess that is about the line which Judy Curry advocates.
Would not a fully generalized account of atmospheric circulation find application in characterizing extra-terrestrial atmospheres? The authors’ approach seems to me to offer a (better?) way forward to explaining the main features of circulation on the gas-giant planets, though it would probably require more data on the atmospheric columns of those planets than we have at present.
I will join with others in wishing Jeff a pleasant well deserved break! I would leave him with this quote; “Any activity becomes creative when the doer cares about doing it right, or better.”
Rest well.
I thought reviewers were to remain anonymous? I like the idea of having Dr Curry review it, but it really should be kept confidential (until after the review at the very least).
I’m surprised that the paper’s subject is something that is not heavily studied. This subject would be easy to observe and model, as long as the scale is kept very small (to start). I would love to work on this research!
Why isn’t this paper submitted to the Journal of Atmospheric Science or another journal with a long-established legacy of editors and reviewers that have sufficient experience and skill to understand the arguments?
Suggesting dr. Browning who used to visit ClimateAudit.
retired I’m sure. That works in his favor
We are very grateful to Mr. Anthony Watts for carrying our appeal at WUWT. We hope very much it will evoke a constructive reaction.
George E. Smith
January 21, 2011 at 9:47 am
The strong winds over the Antarctica are due to the peculiar relief of the continent, rapid radiational cooling of air due to a very low vapor and clouds (greenhouse substances) amounts and concentration of mechanical energy in a narrow area. The continent occupies less than 3% of total Earth’s area. Atmospheric dynamics in the Antarctic versus atmospheric dynamics in the tropics, where most kinetic energy is generated, have different mechanisms.
Water droplets are not maintained in the atmosphere by pressure exerted by molecular collisions (see here, Sections 2 and 3, p. C12009, for a more detailed discussion of this inconsistency as implemented in numerical models). Water droplets can only be maintained if there is an ascending air flow (i.e., a macroscopic air movement).
Michael D Smith
January 21, 2011 at 10:31 am
Please, note that Dr. Judith Curry publicly revealed her identity having posted an open review.
Ryan N. Maue
January 21, 2011 at 10:39 am
This is an interesting point. It is presumed that the Editors and Reviewers of ACP (a peer-reviewed journal with impact factor of4.88) , with the Advisory Board chaired by Noble Prize winner Dr. Paul J. Crutzen, do not have sufficient experience and skills to understand the arguments. Personally, I do not think so.
Another logical possibility is that the climate community is — on average — unprepared to an open debate of science. In this case, the extraordinary low proportion, <1/10, of which the referee table testifies, would mean that people are scary of publicly expressing their views, even anonymously. In the ACPD the authors are entitled to reply to any review and may expose errors, if any, in a referee's assessment of their work. In contrast, in the dominating closed peer-review system the exchange between authors and negative referees is not encouraged.
I find strange the idea that somewhere there is a secret and localized group of climate scientists who "understand the arguments". Nobody knows them, and even if somebody gets to know and approach them with a review request, they decline the invitation. Only the right Editors "with skills" may approach them and hope for a favorable outcome of their invitation.
Really, shouldn't an average community member be competent and responsible?
Remember the JJ Thompson oil drop experiment
We talk about Millikan’s oil drop experiment in the UK.
Just let me get this one thing straight . . . Scientist do say that part of the cause of wind “is caused by the fact that Earth hurls around the sun as a part of our solar system.” . . . . plus the fact that it spins once around on it’s axis in a 24 hour period of time . . . RIGHT????? I mean to ask . . . this is assumed and acounted for right?
I mean Bill Nye the Science Guy can speak in plain english . . .
“”””” Anastassia Makarieva says:
January 21, 2011 at 10:47 am
We are very grateful to Mr. Anthony Watts for carrying our appeal at WUWT. We hope very much it will evoke a constructive reaction.
George E. Smith
January 21, 2011 at 9:47 am
>…………………………………………….<
#2 How does the pressure created by molecular collisions required to keep water droplets buoyant, compare with the actual vapor pressure of the same amount of water before it condensed ?
Water droplets are not maintained in the atmosphere by pressure exerted by molecular collisions (see here, Sections 2 and 3, p. C12009, for a more detailed discussion of this inconsistency as implemented in numerical models). Water droplets can only be maintained if there is an ascending air flow (i.e., a macroscopic air movement). """""
Thanks for commenting so quickly Dr Makarieva. Those were serious questions by the way; but I suspected that the Antarctic winds involved a much greater expanse than just the Antarctic highlands.
But as to question #2.
So I'm a drop of water in the atmosphere, let's assume I'm uncharged; so we don't have to get into a Millikan suspension situation. but I am fully subject to the gravitational force, which IS pulling me down towards the ground.
BUT; I am not being held up by collisions from air molecules ; so just what Physical force is it that I am being subjected to that overcomes gravity ?? The weak force, and the strong force don't have enough range to affect me; and I elected to not be subject to the electromagnetic force; by staying electrically neutral.
If the air was stationary (statistically), then yes I would expect the molecular collisions to balance out; well leaving a micro "Brownian" motion or random walk effect if you will, so that gravity should win, and I should sink.
If as you say, the air is ascending (mass flow); then the mean molecular momentum around me is no longer zero but has (at least) a positive z axis value . But those rising air molecules can only communicate with me via collisions; and thereby deliver the required rate of change of momentum to counterract the gravity force. So I maintain, that I am indeed being held aloft (and driven aloft) by just those molecular collisions; albeit from a set of molecules that do not have a net zero z-axis momentum.
And Newton's Laws would require that those colliding molecules, are required to be made aware of my weight, via the reaction on their own momentum; so my weight must in fact result in a pressure change in the form of an increased downward force on those air molecules caused by my gravitational weight (well me and my buddies together).
Note I am not disagreeing with your statement that the droplet buoyancy can only be maintained by mass air flow (upwards); I'm just ponting out that providing that buoyancy, must result in a net pressure increase due to the weight of those water droplets; and I'm curious as to how that pressure compares directly to the H2O vapor pressure that would exist sans the condensation.
And yes we are civilised here and happy to engage; sometimes we are norty; but we try not to get mean.
And yes I am going to read your paper; but I am a working stiff; whose computer does all my thinking for me; which gives me moments to dash in here, and learn from folks like you.
George
And for the legal disclaimer; since you may be a recent visitor; NO I am not now, and never have been, the 2009 Nobel Physics Prize Winner.
At last a true crusader in the cause of blog science. Denial Depot has been fighting for just this much maligned cause for…well…some time:
“We are not afraid to be called climate “deniers”. In fact we embrace it as medal of honor bestowed on us by our alarmist foes. Galileo was a Denier. It is not an insult. I call this blog “Denier Depot” for that reason.
Welcome to my climate science blog.
I believe that one day all science will be done on blogs because we bloggers are natural skeptics, disbelieving the mainstream and accepting the possibility of any alternative idea.
We stand unimpressed by “textbooks”, “peer review journals” and so-called “facts”. There are no facts, just dissenting opinion. We are infinitely small compared to nature and can’t grasp anything as certain as a fact.
Nothing is settled and we should question everything. The debate is NOT over Gore! When so-called “experts” in their “peer reviewed journals” say one thing, we dare the impossible and find imaginative ways to believe something else entirely.”
http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/
Here, fellow deniers, you can read ground breaking stories every bit as imaginative as the “Where do winds come from?” yarn!! Such as this online comments reviewed piece proving that Arctic ice cover is, as us hard core deniers have known all along, actually INCREASING!!
http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2010/09/arctic-news-and-global-cooling-update.html
Yes, blogosphere scientists “we have faith in you”
#
Chris Reeve says:
I would caution that so long as researchers barricade themselves into their own disciplines, and fail to consider outside theories for weather, that we will settle into long-term confusion and fail to make accurate predictions. The most complex questions out there — like weather and the Sun — require an interdisciplinary approach where theorists are eager to hear out all of the theories available to them. If you see evidence that the lines of communication have been broken, then don’t imagine that the underlying mechanisms for weather must be complex. The very act of silo’ing the disciplines, and then creating barriers to communications, creates the complexity which we struggle with.
And this gets to the very problem which you guys are facing: How can we force people like particle physicists, quantum physicists, cosmologists and climate scientists to listen to the objections and research of outsiders? Currently, there exists no check-and-balances to the current top-down approach. Our scientific institutions have become authoritarian. The research exists to protect the ideology, instead of serving mankind. We’ve made a real good mess of things!
But these are no accidents. These are all natural ramifications of what it means to be human. This is just human psychology. Left unrestrained by philosophy of science, science starts to take on the imprint of our personal preferences and prejudices — and our scientists come to imagine that their purpose is to prove that which they were taught in college.
#
Chris, well said and worth acknowledging!
I apologize profusely for not yet being in a position to provide assistance.
Alas, my conflict of interest is not yet resolved.
My old economics lecturer, when dealing with the reality that some people confuse cause and effect used to quote Damon Runyan who amusingly quipped that “wind is caused by trees waving their branches!”
Temperature increases and CO2 increases seem to cause a similar misunderstanding in Al Gore et al.
Sailing in the tropics you might expect you are safe when a thunderstorm is downwind of you. However, they have a nasty habit of acting like a giant vacuum cleaner, sucking up the wind ahead of them as they travel up wind to clobber you with torrential rain and hurricane force winds. After they pass you get a tremendous downwash of very cold, dry air – a wind from directly above.
I always thought it was a given that the energy that drives these storms comes from the condensation of water vapor, not simply the rising of warm air. As the vertical windflow increases, they suck in more and more moisture laden air, and the storm increases in intensity.
Approaching the ICZ in a small boat on the open ocean can be quite something. It is awe inspiring and more than a little intimidating.
A.M. wrote:
“This is an interesting point. It is presumed that the Editors and Reviewers of ACP (a peer-reviewed journal with impact factor of4.88) , with the Advisory Board chaired by Noble Prize winner Dr. Paul J. Crutzen, do not have sufficient experience and skills to understand the arguments. Personally, I do not think so. ”
You reflexively responded. I have no opinion on the open-review process nor ACP. I just wondered why JAS isn’t an appropriate venue. The climate community is a separate matter altogether.
That so many nominated reviewers declined comes as no surprise. The thesis that Maharieva et al propose goes to the very absics of physics at a microscopic level with conclusions drawn at the macroscopic. For starters, few, if any, in climate climate science have mastered the intricacies of rigorous physics well enough to negotiate that leap. And the majority of them feel threatened by a thesis that stands to upset the whole apple cart of funding based on pseudo-thermodynamic arguments that do not survive rigorous physical scrutiny. My suggestion would have been to submit a theoretical paper first to a pure physics journal, and only then–armed with conclusive experimental data from field measurements–undertake the daunting task of revealing the implications to climate scientists. After all, the Soviet Union was not toppled overnight and the collapse would not have occurred with Stalin’s hand on the helm.
Condensation aloft is indeed not a simple process, despite what many texts imply. Water vapor needs condensation nuclei as well sub-dewpoint temperatures. Instead of being “released” diectly to the air, the latent heat is actually recaptured as ssensible heat in the condensate, which has a greatly higher thermal capacity as well as greatly smaller volume than the vapor. That is how enthalpy balance is maintained.
Publication of Makarieva et al would make a vital addition to meteorological understanding. In factors that affect climate, however, the thesis is more a scientific footnote than a chronicle of a revolution, because the winds and currents that circulate heat poleward from the tropics are the product of macro-scale horizontal pressure gradients and planetary rotation, rather than the intricacies of meso-scale moist convection and condensation.
I notice the main stream still has no knowledge of ionic charges or static charge suspension of droplets against gravity, that keeps the droplets from falling or condensing with each other (being force separated by mutual static repulsion).
Nor of the lunar declinational tides in the atmosphere that drives the meridional flows that maintain the positions of the jet streams, nor their interactions with the phase related tides that drive the Trade winds.
Totally unknowing of the charge and discharge of the homopolar generator effects that drive tornado production in the spring, Hail outbreaks in mid summer and hurricanes post mid summer till fall.
Mainstream progress is like tree root growth through solid rock, root hairs dissolving the mineral base ahead of itself. Electromagnetic and static charge gradients when considered produce rapid growth like corn and Pumpkins in compost.
Tidal interactions work like an irrigation system keyed to the plants needs, and drives the global circulation patterns by a combination of static, tidal, and moisture with latent heat transfers, into the soil and out of the atmosphere, to balance the ebb and flow of the changes in the background charge levels. While stabilizing the pole to equator heat energy and ionic charge budgets.
They’re getting rather confrontational over at the Nation (having lost the science debate, basically):
http://www.thenation.com/article/157903/confronting-climate-cranks
The Roman Gods of the winds, the Venti, in their baroque splendour.
http://iactaaleaest.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/tower-of-the-winds-imr.gif
If only in real life it was as easy to predict which of the Roman Gods would next exhale their breath onto us mere mortals, as the animation suggests…
Wow Richard Holle, that was some poetry.
I’ve recently found out about winds on Venus: near the surface they are apparently reasonably quiet, but higher up they are hyperventilating: blowing faster than the planetary rotation. Some 200 kph – with the net effect that high up Venus’ temperatures are pretty well mixed despite its extraordinarily long night. But hey, how come winds can blow that fast?
Right now I’m soaking up clues regarding electrical and magnetic influences which I think scientists have barely started to work on properly. It seems to me that the higher up one goes in the atmosphere, the more we see effects dominated by the plasma state of matter, rather than the gas state of matter. And it seems to me that electrical charges can sure have huge influences, far more than are generally realized.
Richard Holle reminds us about electrostatic forces in effect enabling clouds to exist at all, if I’ve understood correct. That sets off a huge flash of light for me. The hypothesis here is, with the formation of clouds, do we essentially have a plasma formation really low down in the atmosphere? and are we looking to ionized plasma laws for some (not all) of the clues as to behaviour?