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.
This theory may be indirectly attacking one of the planks of global warming.
For instance, it is always presented that
– a) temperatures increase
– b) Because temperatures increase, there will be more extreme events.
Yet we know heat will be expelled from the surface by either radiation resulting from an increased temperature, or an increase in convection. All wind is either directly or indirectly caused by convection. It is an “or” situation, not an “and” situation. That heat which is carried away by enhanced convection will not increase temperature to be radiated away.
So if extra long-wave radiation merely makes it one percent windier, as is likely to occur if this phenomena is modeled, that will take away all the GHG threat, with strong implications for research funding.
The proponents need to understand. Only theories that will enhance the anthropomorphic threat will be considered.
Anna, have you looked at Erl Happ’s work that looks at winds relating to sea level pressure differentials? I found it very thought-provoking, in particular I’d like to know why there is an extraordinary permanent latitudinal dip in pressure at 60 degrees South. Now is this evidence for your hypothesis? At the physical level, 60 degrees S +- 5 degrees is the ONLY place on the globe where winds can blow East-West continually over the oceans without interruption from land.
ge0050 and Fred Harwood are on the right track.
It’s amazing how many comments above keep bringing in hot air as the driver, not moist air.
I had the opportunity years ago to experience sailplanes for a few years. When you get up in the atmosphere and that is your only ‘engine’ you get a totally different view of this discussion. This paper needs some deep, deep consideration. With that experience I view it always from the moisture side, not whether it is warm or cool. The moisture is the real driver, the others are secondary effects. You will never get a really, really good day just because it is hot, it has to be moist and hot. On those days you can fly for hundreds of miles.
Read closely what ge0050 and Fred Harwood brought into the discussion above. The expansion and contraction due to the moisture differential is where it’s all at. It has always amazed me how meteorologists tend to speak in pressure fronts and temperature differences without bringing into their daily presentation the moisture (latent heat) aspect for it’s that which creates the former, not totally, but a greater degree.
This paper does need to be reviewed!
peter_ga says:
January 21, 2011 at 3:08 pm
This theory may be indirectly attacking one of the planks of global warming.
——-
You hit it on the nose there!
Anastassia Makarieva
on behalf of the authors:
A.M. Makarieva, V.G. Gorshkov, D. Sheil, A.D. Nobre, B.-L. Li
I think this is a brilliant article and I congratulate you. In time it will result in a new paradigm of how the great ITCZ thunderstorm belt sets a big piece of the atmosphere in motion (temperature differentials and coriolis effects be damned). This may be the meteorological equivalent of “plate tectonics”.
Willis, here is the thermodynamical basis for your great “heat engine/temperature regulator” theory. The Makarieva paper could use some graphical figures illustrating how what they describe actually works in the real world. The graphs 1a-1c mean little to 99% of the world.
Thank God for water, truly “manna from heaven”.
Here’s our lovely author…
http://thd.pnpi.spb.ru/~makariev/
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.
As an HVAC engineer we well acquainted with evaporative cooling in cooling towers. I find that scientists trip themselves up making the assumption that processes are uniform in nature. They aren’t. Just as in a cooling tower only some (5%) of the water is evaporated carrying away heat to drop the remaining liquid water (95%) to 15 degrees F below ambient. I would bet on a molecular level there are low (cold) and high (hot) pressure air pockets which would account for the expansion and rise of warm moist air irregardless of the condensation. This is a matter of proportion between hot moist air versus cold water, that’s if you accept water expands a 1000 times in volume when heated to steam.
@sky says:
January 21, 2011 at 12:22 pm
“…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 think you should go read the paper. Their thesis is that moist convection systems in fact produce a global horizontal pressure differential, sort of, you know, like that observed in nature.
Actually, each thunderstorm is a micro or meso (I don’t know your scale) affair. But the ITCZ is a global/macro thing operating 24/7. In the same vein, volcanoes are micro affairs, forming here and there above a subducting plate that stretches in some cases for thousands of miles. But they mean a heck of a lot to us people.
On page 24030 her paper gets into the suction aspect I mentioned locally for sailplane pilots though this same affect happens over large areas at the regional scale. I didn’t mean to imply that meteorologists are unaware of these factors just that you do not ever see such graphics on the nightly news even though that is really what is going on and that leaves the genear public with the wrong intuition of the atmosphere.
“”””” stephen richards says:
January 21, 2011 at 11:40 am
Remember the JJ Thompson oil drop experiment
We talk about Millikan’s oil drop experiment in the UK. “””””
Well I’ve never heard of JJ Thompson’s OD experiment; which doesn’t mean he never did one; just that nobody told me or asked me to come and watch. Adn Milliken used an oil droplet, because earlier attempts with water, failed, becasue the droplet evaporated too rapidly, so he changed to a low vapor pressure oil instead. Of course that experiment was to measure the electron charge; and that is why in my question to Dr Makariev specifically called for zero charge conditions so my water droplet, would be influenced only by gravitation, kinetic collisions with anything else in the enighborhood.
Even a single neutral atom can fall freely under gravity, in a good enough vaccuum; and of course can be caught in an “Optical Trap” and suspended, as was done by Steven Chu to win his Nobel Physics Prize. Those who made optical traps years before him, and taught him how to make them, did not receive any Nobel Prize; nor did any of Chu’s co-workers. But of course the Nobel Prizes are NOT Political; unlike the Peace Prize; which IS totally political.
All one needs to do is put some warm tap water in the bottom of a plastic jug or soda bottle, cap it tightly and watch. How the warm=mongers could discount the effects of condensation on winds speaks volumes about their understanding of the basics.
JimF says:
January 21, 2011 at 4:42 pm
“I think you should go read the paper. ”
I read the paper some time ago and am repeating here my comments (on tAV) on the “danger of over-reaching” on the spatial scale of the applicability of their thesis. Condensation, after all, is nowhere near as ubiqutous as the winds are.
Well. As the point of this was to find reviewers. Has Ferenc Miskolczi been considered?
He has the requisite qualifications.
DaveE.
“”””” Ed_B says:
January 21, 2011 at 10:00 am
“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. “””””
Well Ed; well if you read my response to our lead author, you should come to look at thw water droplet from the point of view od some kind of Maxwell’s demon riding along on our droplet. I specifically excluded a charged droplet, so w could consider the droplet to be under the influence only of gravity, and whatever influence it’s environment has. Gravity and the EM force both have infinite range; and the strong and weak forces are both too short range to affect our droplet.
So you talk about “air friction moving up”; Dr Makarieva talked about an air mass flow upwards. But HOW do those manifest themselves to our Maxwellian pilot and his chariot ? Well I’ve excluded all the “action at a distance” forces other than gravity, which will cause the droplet to fall to earth; so that leaves actual mechanical contact with other material objects, as the only means of counterracting gravity. And assuming clean air, that can only be collisions with air moelcules; well we’ll excuse the occasional Cosmic ray coillision shall we.
Both you and the good Dr. are correct, that the neighboring air mass, must have a net upward flow (z-axis), because the net result of all the collisions is to not move the droplet, relative to the centre of mass of the local air; except as dictated by gravity.
I’m simply saying that in the centre-of-mass space of the local environment (which is also subject to gravity) the average effect of all the molecular collisions must be zero, but they must impart a net upward rate of change of momentum in Laboratory space to keep the droplet moving upward with them, and that means the weight of the droplet results in a reaction on those neighboring molecules which is equivalent to a net downward pressure on those local air molecules, so the droplet’s weight does result in an increase in the local pressure as seen by the molecules; the same thing would happen if they were colliding in their upward journey; with an immovable object.
So I’m arguing that the weight of the liquid droplet(s) DOES contribute a non-zero increase in the local air pressure; and I’m simply curious as to whether Anastassia, and her colleagues has compared that pressure to the corresponding vapor pressure (as a partial pressure constituent) in the case, where that same mass of water is actually in the vapor phase.
We all understand the concept that if a mass of water vapor condenses to droplets, that the occupied voume (by those H2O molecules) drops precipitously, and given that that previously occupied space is now available for the non-condensing species; the gas law equation of State pressure should drop; but even here you have to be careful, because those equations of state also contain the number of gas molecules; which will also change with the condensation of the water.
Without actually reading the complete paper thoroughly, I am not going to speculate further; I just wanted to raise that little idea of who’s supporting the water droplets.
I don’t know why Dr Curry chose to put out an open public review; frankly I don’t care much either; I’ll assume she had her reasons, and it is bettwer to start with at least one review whether confidential or open, and frankly I don’t know whay referees would be so hesitant to give these authors a fair reading. If you are that shaky about your ability to read this paper and give it a proper critique; lest you be found to be approving another cold fusion paper; then maybe your knowledge is not sufficient that you should be reviewing any papers on this subject.
If the paper was total BS, or a cold fusion look-alike; well surely a competent reviewer would be able to declare it so, without fear.
Folks who like to hide behind pseudo-nyms (as distinct from “handles) know what their stuff is really worth; or they would be proud to put their own name to it.
Dr Makarieva is apaprently not shy to put her own name on her paper; too bad that “the experts” are too chicken to even have their name near it even in a confidential review.
So we amateurs should fill in while the experts circle their wagons; or gather some cajones. I’m certainly a neophyte when it comes to cloud chemistry; well any kind of chemistry; but I’m not too shabby when it comes to Physics, and Mathematics; which I see is Dr Makarieva’s forte; but I’m well short of her level.
An interestingg day Anthony; you too Chasmod.
And I see from the short bio that we are mispelling Anastasia’s name; so you have a headline error there Anthony; I thought the double ss was a little unusual.
@Mike Mangan says:
January 21, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Thanks for that. She is pretty (and scary smart)!
G.E. Smith, again thanx for your participation here. Reading your posts reminds me of my favourite wrassler, Gentleman Gene Kiniski, who’s interviews I always looked forward to. Such as I look forward to your contributions here.
Mike Mangan, WOW! 16 years old when she went to the Polytechnical, and just 26 when she recieved her PhD. No wonder there are few takers to referee her groups’ paper, they are probably afraid that they won’t understand half of it!
Fred Harwood says:
January 21, 2011 at 9:23 am
In a vapor steam heating plant, which functions at near atmospheric pressure, water expands 1,700 times into steam, which large expansion delivers the latent heat to radiators, where the saturated steam returns to the original vastly smaller volume of water.
wayne says:
January 21, 2011 at 3:47 pm
ge0050 and Fred Harwood are on the right track.
It’s amazing how many comments above keep bringing in hot air as the driver, not moist air.
I had the opportunity years ago to experience sailplanes for a few years. When you get up in the atmosphere and that is your only ‘engine’ you get a totally different view
dscott says:
January 21, 2011 at 4:34 pm As an HVAC engineer we well acquainted with
evaporative cooling in cooling towers.
to; Anastassia Makarieva
on behalf of the authors:
A.M. Makarieva, V.G. Gorshkov, D. Sheil, A.D. Nobre, B.-L. Li;
It would appear to me that the people above are as well qualified to review your paper as any in “climate science”. I have had a foot in each of these fields and can attest that success in these fields require a very good grasp of the fundamentals of atmospherics. Following BS (bad science) can get you dead. pg
Chris Reeve says
——–
In other words, the liquid state of matter is an electromagnetic resonance of molecules.
——–
No it’s not.
Note that she references a piece of work in her paper authored jointly by K. Trenberth and J. Christy: Trenberth, K. E., Christy, J. R., and Olson, J. G.: Global atmospheric mass, surface pressure,
and water vapor variations, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 14815–14826, 1987. 24018
Surely between the disparate crowds these fellows run with there ought to be nine willing reviewers. Where is Diogenes when you need him?
A couple of suggestions for reviewers: Lubos Motl of motls.blogspot.com and Nir Shaviv of Hebrew University.
While Engineers deal with HVAC concerns (which go a long way to understanding the heat transfer), there are others in the free atmosphere which are outside the bulk of Engineering experience.
The total energy of a given parcel (mass) of moist air is the sum of heat “stored” in the molecules, kinetic energy due to the velocity and the potential energy due to the mass under gravity at altitude. Upon condensation, the heat of evaporation must be dispersed which can be by radiation or thermo-kinetic heat transfer to other molecules resulting in an expansion of the volume occupied by the mass of dry air in the parcel. The volume occupied previously occupied by the condensed water becomes available with condensation but the nett change is small (<5%). There will only be a few 10's of grams of water vapour per kg of air parcel. The density of water vapour is about a third lower than that of dry air, so per gram, it occupies a larger volume.
Where else can the heat go? Well, there's the liquid water droplet itself. Liquid water is an excellent radiator but the droplet surface is small.
Now, all the things that we (Engineers) like to hold as constant, such as pressure and the latent heat of evaporation, aren't for a parcel of buoyant air rising, unconstrained under free convection. Usually, in e.g. HVAC, that isn't important; but for combustion Engineers, it is very significant because the ranges of temperature and pressure are significant. And so it may well be for that parcel of air as it rises thousands of metres; with a steadily-reducing temperature and pressure.
Changes in those little variable “constants” add up. The energy equations are no longer straight-forward but become intractible; especially when considering the lack of necessary knowledge about how the droplets form; and where the heat released really goes.
I would like to nominate two possible reviewers. How about G. G. Anagnostopoulosa or D. Koutsoyiannisa? They are hydrologists with an interest in climate and might have an interest in this new theory.
George E. Smith
January 21, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Thank you for your comments. The atmosphere is brought to motion by non-equilibrium gradients of air pressure. Droplets that are falling at terminal velocity exert a drag force on the moving air that is equal to the weight of the droplet. Likewise, the ascending air exerts a force on the droplets that could support them at a stationary height in the atmospheric column. So the primary question is where the pressure gradients come from that make the air ascend.
An essential point is that the vertical distribution of water vapor is compressed severalfold compared to that of other air gases. In Fig. 1A of our paper one can see that the scale height hv (the height where partial pressure of the gas would decrease e-fold) is about 4 km for saturated water vapor at 20 C compared to over h = 8 km for other gases. The global mean scale height of water vapor at 15 C is around 2 km.
This difference is due to the Clausius-Clapeyron law: the colder the air becomes with increasing height, the less saturated water vapor it can bear.
The difference f = pv(1/hv – 1/h), where pv is saturated vapor pressure, describes the maximum magnitude of the upward-directed force (acting per unit air volume) that is theoretically available to accelerate air and/or sustain hanging droplets. If there are no droplets (no friction), the vertical acceleration and velocity are higher than in the presence of droplets. But this does not affect the air pressure gradient that is formed upon condensation.
One can calculate the maximum amount of liquid that could be sustained by this condensational pressure gradient force in the atmospheric column of height h: f*h/g, where g is acceleration of gravity. It turns out to be of the order of several hundred kilogram liquid H2O per square meter (taking pv = 2×10^3 Pa, hv = 2 km, h = 8 km). Meanwhile the observed mean liquid water content in the tropical atmosphere is of the order of 50 gram (!) per square meter. This indicates that the condensational pressure gradient force is apparently doing something else in the atmosphere rather than just supporting the droplets. In our paper we argue that it is driving winds.
Note: it is not about latent heat.