Smart reforestation must go beyond carbon: expert | CIFOR Forests News Blog

[Andrew Lockley]

http://blog.cifor.org/28542/smart-reforestation-must-go-beyond-carbon-expert#.VWTKEoFwbqC

Smart reforestation must go beyond carbon: expert
18 MAY 2015
BY CATRIONA MOSS
1187011

Bee_bee_tree_(Tetradium)_seeds
A new study from CIFOR warns the reforestation solely for carbon storage can have negative impacts.

Natural regeneration, replanting, native tree plantations, commercial plantations and agro forestry systems have all be used as part of reforestation efforts.
But a new study has found we can do better by ensuring that communities and ecosystems surrounding and within the forests are also more resilient to climate change.

And it’s all in the planning.

MEANINGFUL INTERVENTION

The study by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) warns reforestation that ignores the adaptation benefits of replanted forests, using a variety of different practices and tree species, could make local communities and ecosystems more vulnerable to the future impacts of climate change, thereby undermining their effectiveness.
“We cannot assume that a reforestation project for climate change mitigation will automatically benefit people and biodiversity,” says Bruno Locatelli, a CIFOR-CIRAD scientist and lead author of the study.

Locatelli points to monoculture plantations, which often are established to improve timber production and carbon storage.

We cannot assume that a reforestation project for climate change mitigation will automatically benefit people and biodiversity

Previous CIFOR research has shown that they can also deplete water resources, reduce land availability, restrict the livelihoods of local communities, and have negative impacts on biodiversity.
Monoculture plantations are also at risk from climate-related impacts, such as insect pest outbreaks, invasive species and forest fires, which may result in the carbon being lost – undermining the mitigation potential.

“If you plan to reforest with the sole purpose of carbon storage for mitigation or timber production, you often end up having negative impacts on biodiversity, water sources and livelihoods because you have overlooked these trade-offs”, Locatelli says.

“Reforestation needs to be managed with both adaptation and mitigation objectives in mind to avoid the implementation of one strategy to the detriment of the other”. 

Absorbing over 2.4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, or about one-third of the carbon dioxide released through the burning of fossil fuels, forests play a crucial role in regulating the world’s climate.

However, deforestation and forest degradation also accounts for between 10 and 15 percent of global human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, which contributes to climate change.
Although tree planting for mitigating climate change is still seen as controversial, in many tropical regions it is viewed as one of the most cost-effective ways of replacing the carbon lost through deforestation.

ADAPTATION, MITIGATION: A VITAL PAIRING

In 2014, the ‘Declaration on Forests’ was signed by governments, corporations and indigenous groups, at the New York Climate Summit. It committed to restoring 150 million hectares of forest by 2020 and 350 million hectares by 2030.

The Bonn Challenge sets out a global aspiration to restore 150 million hectares of the world’s degraded and deforested lands by 2020.

Enhancing carbon stocks through reforestation has also been included as part of an international mechanism to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation, known as REDD+.
While these global commitments are a positive step forward, tropical reforestation focused on climate objectives can often overlook the adaptation benefits of replanted forests, as well as the need to make replanted forests more resilient to climate change, says Bruno Locatelli.

If you plan to reforest with the sole purpose of carbon storage for mitigation or timber production, you often end up having negative impacts on biodiversity, water sources and livelihoods because you have overlooked these trade-offs
This is often because mitigation and adaptation strategies in reforestation are usually developed separately in the international climate policy arena. Reforestation and restoration management practices, methods and guidelines  are therefore developed with different objectives in mind.

As such, the opportunities to integrate both adaptation and mitigation into tropical reforestation strategies have yet to be realised.

The study argues that well managed or “climate smart reforestation” could help meet all three objectives: mitigation, adaptation, and ensuring that the direct and indirect impacts of climate change on reforestation are anticipated and reduced.

“By helping practitioners or policymakers analyze reforestation in the context of climate change, it may assist them  better understand the trade-offs, which may influence their decisions when planning reforestation activities”, says Locatelli.

For example, while plantations consisting of trees of different ages and species store the same amount of carbon as monocultures plantations, they are better able to resist strong winds, pests and diseases, but they may be more costly to plant and manage.
In Costa Rica, a reforestation project is testing different mixes of species and silviculture practices to reduce vulnerability to storms and fires while also achieving carbon storage.

CLOSING THE KNOWLEDGE GAP

Locatelli hopes that climate-smart reforestation will become part of broader adaptation, disaster risk reduction and land management strategies.

However, its implementation is still limited by several knowledge gaps, particularly in understanding which reforestation practices offer the most resilience against climate change.
“When planning reforestation activities, we have to understand how forests can help fight climate change and how they can resist or adapt to climate change,” he says.

“We have a fair amount of knowledge on the contribution of reforestation to mitigation and we have methods and tools for carbon assessment.”
“But when it comes to adaptation, we still need to improve the way we assess the role of reforestation in livelihoods, in watershed management, and in regional/local climate regulation in order to better influence policy decisions”.

For more information about this research, please contact

Bruno Locatelli – B.Loc...@cgiar.org

CIFOR’s research on tropical forests and carbon is part of the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry

[Brian Cartwright]

To the geoengineering group,

I'm curious whether group members are familiar with the "biotic pump" model of Gorshkov and Makarieva; this article gives a quick introduction:

http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0130-hance-physics-biotic-pump.html

A big climate benefit of inland forests is that phase change from evapotranspiration -> condensation creates low-pressure areas that pull in moisture and create healthy weather circulation. Seems to me that widespread deforestation is aggravating stalled hot-weather trends by blocking this kind of circulation. The leaf area of a mature forest offers considerably more surface area for evaporation than the same area of open water on ocean or inland lake.

Brian Cartwright

[John Harte]

The work of Makarieva and Gorshkov (note: not Gorshkov and Makarieva; she is first author on their papers on this topic) is challenging atmospheric scientists not because it points to the huge role of forests in the hydrocycle (I have been teaching that for decades) but rather the specific mechanism they propose.  Their argument is that it is the pressure difference created by condensation, not the heat released by condensation, that is the more important driver. Certainly both play a big role; my understanding is that the pressure effect was largely ignored in the past.  

 

John Harte

Professor of Ecosystem Sciences

ERG/ESPM

310 Barrows Hall

University of California

Berkeley, CA 94720  USA

jha...@berkeley.edu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Mike MacCracken]

How are they not both important—the condensation releases the heat that carries the air upward, creating a pressure gradient that pulls the air ashore?

Mike

On 5/31/15, 10:09 AM, "John Harte" <jha...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

[Oliver Tickell]

See also this article on The Ecologist by Peter Bunyard:
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2776099/without_its_rainforest_the_amazon_will_turn_to_desert.html

Without its rainforest, the Amazon will turn to desert

Peter Bunyard

2nd March 2015

Tweet

Mainstream climatologists predict a 15% fall in rainfall over the Amazon if it is stripped of its rainforest. But the 'biotic pump' theory, rooted in conventional physics and recently confirmed by experiment, shows that the interior of a forest-free Amazon will be as dry as the Negev desert. We must save the Amazon before it enters a permanent and irreversible dessication.

--

[Andrew Lockley]

Researchers including Vizy by contrast suggest that the Amazon will dry to a open grassland / scrubland ecosystem, called Caatinga

http://utexas.influuent.utsystem.edu/en/publications/effects-of-twentyfirstcentury-climate-change-on-the-amazon-rain-forest%28d2e9490e-1577-4493-a35d-5e0d93873801%29.html

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

Below is a map from Ben Parkes PhD thesis which tested the idea for coded-modulation of the CCN concentrations in a climate model.

Marine cloud brightening in a pink sea area will increase precipitation in the black target area.  The blue bits will dry it.  These blue bits are in reasonable agreement with the Jones Haywood Boucher paper which said bad things would happen if we did MCB off Namibia.

It seems that there are plenty of pink places which can rescue the Amazon but not many climate modeller who are interested in replicating the Parkes work.  If anyone asks I can send them maps for  the world-wide effects of 89 spray regions and an explanation of the coded modulation idea.  Understanding why spray south of the Aleutians will help the Amazon ought to be worth a prize or two.


The next bit would be to test marine cloud brightening according to the phase of el Nino and Monsoons.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, Scotland S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

[Brian Cartwright]

Thanks, Stephen, but isn't it true that most CCN over the Amazon are of biological origin? 

To put it in very plain language, the typical assumption about where rain comes from is that it blows in from the ocean. I'm interested to what extent it is pulled in by forests. Do you think deforestation and degradation of vegetation on drylands create weather dead zones, by losing the biological capacity to transpire moisture?

Thanks to all for your input!

Brian

[Stephen Salter]

Brian

I wish I knew more biology.  My guess would be that lots of what evaporates in the morning comes back in the afternoon so that a conventional rain gauge with evaporation carefully prevented gives a false impression.  

But we would only be changing the CCN concentration over the sea.  The concentration values over land are so much higher that we cannot have much effect. What happens after we spray depends on what the winds are doing. My engineer's simplified model is that the first effect is we cool the sea surface.  This will reduce the evaporation rate but also increase the temperature difference between sea and land to give a stronger monsoon.  More CCN will also reduce the size of cloud drops which inhibits rain over the sea to leave more to fall over land.  Then cooler air over land will reduce evaporation rates there.  The may also be other effects to do with breaking waves and air bubbles but I think that the first four are the main ones having a private 3 to 1 tug of war. 

We may be able to influence the outcome by choosing the times and places we do the spraying.  We want to be able to adjust these in the light of day-to-day observations.  It is like have a steering wheel and brakes on a road vehicle, much better than using fixed wheel angles or commands downloaded from a read-only memory.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, Scotland S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

--

[Ronal W. Larson]

List,  especially Mike and John,  cc Brian (who started this)

1.  This is to explore further how this biotic pump topic would influence any part of geoengineering.   I have concluded, like Brian, that this paper is important in promoting regrowth of forests.  John certainly agrees and probably (?) Mike.   Anyone disagree?

2.  Inadvertently (I thought this was a 2015 paper for a while), I read not only the final paper, but the many difficulties in getting it published (> 1000 days).  From the 24 subsequent papers found through Google Scholar, I conclude that it is not now a continuing controversy - but I have found no evidence that the paper has changed any existing models (as I’m sure the authors intended and hoped).  Anyone know?   

3.  Others may find it interesting to see how the controversy was handled.  Although it took a long time,  I think the Journal basically did a good job and made a correct (but controversial) decision to publish.  I was surprised how all (?) the editorial review correspondence is still available (nothing anonymous) - at a site given by the main editor in the paper’s last paragraph.

 The main author, Dr.  Makarieva, was indefatigable - many dozens of pages defending everything in the paper.  Here is the summary (with forest-oriented emphases added) from her invited post-publication comment at: 

     http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/31/condensation-driven-winds-an-update-new-version/#comment-291429

Summary and outlook

The Editor’s comment on our paper ends with a call to further evaluate our proposals. We second this call. The reason we wrote this paper was to ensure it entered the main-stream and gained recognition. For us the key implication of our theory is the major importance of vegetation cover in sustaining regional climates. If condensation drives atmospheric circulation as we claim, then forests determine much of the Earth’s hydrological cycle (see here for details). Forest cover is crucial for the terrestrial biosphere and the well-being of many millions of people. If you acknowledge, as the editors of ACP have, any chance – however large or small – that our proposals are correct, then we hope you concede that there is some urgency that these ideas gain clear objective assessment from those best placed to assess them.

4.   A slightly later paper entitled “Revisiting forest impact on atmospheric water vapor transport and precipitation”, by many of the same authors is also NOT behind a paywall - and carries this forest theme further:  http://www.bioticregulation.ru/common/pdf/taac-en.pdf.  There are numerous other climate related papers from this Russian group - that almost certainly have relevance also on the SRM side of “Geo”.  

Ron

[Mike MacCracken]

Hi Ronal, Brian, John, et al.—As a modeler, I would imagine the question is just what is it that one would want added to the models. Quite a number of skeptics want the models to add in long cycles evident in the observations—that would be fine in empirical models, but the whole idea of physical models (i.e., models based on the physics, chemistry, etc.--but process based on physical principles, etc.) is not to put in arbitrary items for which there is not a physical process.

So, for this forest case, what might this be? Well, having finer resolution would likely help and as one goes down to relatively fine resolution the hydrostatic assumption enforced by the formulation of the equations in these models needs to be adjusted so that non-hydrostatic influences can be included (i.e., so that the models can treat the vertical acceleration of the winds). Whether that would help in the simulations I have no real idea or experience.

Another reason for going to finer resolution is to better represent orographic features, and this might be a contributing factor. There is also an aspect of doing this that I have been suggesting needs to be included. For those who remember flying into Los Angeles and seeing thin, elevated levels of pollution during the descent, it took a while to understand what was causing these (it was not formation and reformation of the inversion, for example). What a UCLA meteorology professor named James Eddinger, as I recall, found was that in the afternoon when the Sun was shining on hillsides facing to the southwest thin layers of air could rise along the heated slope, and the heating of the air would compensate the adiabatic cooling, so the air parcel would keep rising into the inversion. This continued until the air reached the top of the mountain and so ran out of the surface heating. At this point, the polluted air, having started in the marine boundary layer, could neither rise further through the inversion nor sink due to its warmth, so it spread out at its density in the inversion, forming widely spread thin layer at the altitude of the mountain.

I have been suggesting there are at least two other examples of this happening (i.e., of low level air being carried up the sun-heated slopes of mountain sides that faced the afternoon sun position). One likely place would seem to be India and the Himalayas—in the region, the polluted air is of order 9K meters high or so—how could moist polluted air get to that altitude; I‘d suggest only by hot mountainsides in the Himalayas carrying such air upward, keeping it warm so that it does not cool and precipitate out the particulate matter. The second is the late afternoon mountain top precipitation that occurs along Mexico’s Pacific coast mountain ridge; the whole area is under an intense anticyclone, so very dry air and a strong inversion, and yet there is precipitation at the top of the mountains in the late afternoon—so, I’d suggest that most marine air is rises along the heated, southwestward facing mountain slopes in the afternoon until it reaches the mountaintop, where it can cool and so condensation occurs, leading to the misty precipitation in what would otherwise be a very dry air mass.

The global models really don’t represent this—their resolution is too coarse and their vertical layering is generally more box-shaped than sloped (use of the sigma vertical coordinate system could technically handle this if resolution fine enough). I had encouraged a modeler experienced with finite element models to do some schematic tests of the idea, but, being retired, no way to really push for that to get done on someone’s extra time (if you know someone who could do it, student or prof, I’d be happy to go into a bit more detail). Whether this might have anything to do with the Amazon situation I don’t know.

Another general problem with the climate models has been not having fine enough resolution to really do the boundary layer very well—having to retain strong vertical layering an be pretty difficult to do. So, again, resolution may be an issue.

And then there is the issue of the CCN loadings and sources and types, etc.

So, indeed, there could be model problems, but to fix them in such models one needs to  focus on getting the physics right, not introduce arbitrary empirical observations—those are what we need to evaluate the representations of the physics.

Best, Mike

On 6/1/15, 7:05 PM, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongre...@comcast.net> wrote:

List,  especially Mike and John,  cc Brian (who started this)

1.  This is to explore further how this biotic pump topic would influence any part of geoengineering.   I have concluded, like Brian, that this paper is important in promoting regrowth of forests.  John certainly agrees and probably (?) Mike.   Anyone disagree?

2.  Inadvertently (I thought this was a 2015 paper for a while), I read not only the final paper, but the many difficulties in getting it published (> 1000 days).  From the 24 subsequent papers found through Google Scholar, I conclude that it is not now a continuing controversy - but I have found no evidence that the paper has changed any existing models (as I’m sure the authors intended and hoped).  Anyone know?   

3.  Others may find it interesting to see how the controversy was handled.  Although it took a long time,  I think the Journal basically did a good job and made a correct (but controversial) decision to publish.  I was surprised how all (?) the editorial review correspondence is still available (nothing anonymous) - at a site given by the main editor in the paper’s last paragraph.
 The main author, Dr.  Makarieva, was indefatigable - many dozens of pages defending everything in the paper.  Here is the summary (with forest-oriented emphases added) from her invited post-publication comment at:
     http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/31/condensation-driven-winds-an-update-new-version/#comment-291429
Summary and outlook

The Editor’s comment on our paper ends with a call to further evaluate our proposals. We second this call. The reason we wrote this paper was to ensure it entered the main-stream and gained recognition. For us the key implication of our theory is the major importance of vegetation cover in sustaining regional climates. If condensation drives atmospheric circulation as we claim, then forests determine much of the Earth’s hydrological cycle (see here <http://www.bioticregulation.ru/pump> for details). Forest cover is crucial for the terrestrial biosphere and the well-being of many millions of people. If you acknowledge, as the editors of ACP have, any chance – however large or small – that our proposals are correct, then we hope you concede that there is some urgency that these ideas gain clear objective assessment from those best placed to assess them.

4.   A slightly later paper entitled “Revisiting forest impact on atmospheric water vapor transport and precipitation”, by many of the same authors is also NOT behind a paywall - and carries this forest theme further:  http://www.bioticregulation.ru/common/pdf/taac-en.pdf.  There are numerous other climate related papers from this Russian group - that almost certainly have relevance also on the SRM side of “Geo”.  

Ron


On May 31, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net> wrote:

Re: [geo] Re: Smart reforestation must go beyond carbon: expert | CIFOR Forests News Blog

How are they not both important—the condensation releases the heat that carries the air upward, creating a pressure gradient that pulls the air ashore?

Mike


On 5/31/15, 10:09 AM, "John Harte" <jha...@berkeley.edu <x-msg://153/jha...@berkeley.edu> > wrote:

The work of Makarieva and Gorshkov (note: not Gorshkov and Makarieva; she is first author on their papers on this topic) is challenging atmospheric scientists not because it points to the huge role of forests in the hydrocycle (I have been teaching that for decades) but rather the specific mechanism they propose.  Their argument is that it is the pressure difference created by condensation, not the heat released by condensation, that is the more important driver. Certainly both play a big role; my understanding is that the pressure effect was largely ignored in the past.  
 
John Harte
Professor of Ecosystem Sciences
ERG/ESPM
310 Barrows Hall
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720  USA

jha...@berkeley.edu <x-msg://153/jha...@berkeley.edu>

On May 30, 2015, at 2:49 PM, Brian Cartwright <briancar...@gmail.com <x-msg://153/briancar...@gmail.com> > wrote:

[John Harte]

I'm not a climate modeler and my understanding of what goes in to conventional physics process-based atmospheric models is very limited, so correct me if I am wrong mike, but I was under the impression that it was the horizontal not the vertical pressure gradients that M & G think is inadequately treated in conventional models.  Isn't it those horizontal pressure forces that power their biotic pump.

At least in the context of the Amazon, I would like to see a back of the envelope comparison of the pressure forces driven by condensation and the larger-scale forces that power the trade winds.

 

John Harte

Professor of Ecosystem Sciences

ERG/ESPM

310 Barrows Hall

University of California

Berkeley, CA 94720  USA

jha...@berkeley.edu

[Mike MacCracken]

Hi John—I am not sure one can separate then. For example, where one has a thin boundary layer and then the free atmosphere above, it is like having two different fluids that don’t mix all that well, so if far inland one gets convection pulling the lower layer in with a horizontal gradient, so resolution can matter in the vertical to maintain the distinction of the two layers, allow wave, etc. AS I said before I am not sure one can really separate the two aspects.

Best, Mike

On 6/1/15, 8:16 PM, "John Harte" <jha...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

I'm not a climate modeler and my understanding of what goes in to conventional physics process-based atmospheric models is very limited, so correct me if I am wrong mike, but I was under the impression that it was the horizontal not the vertical pressure gradients that M & G think is inadequately treated in conventional models.  Isn't it those horizontal pressure forces that power their biotic pump.

At least in the context of the Amazon, I would like to see a back of the envelope comparison of the pressure forces driven by condensation and the larger-scale forces that power the trade winds.

 


John Harte
Professor of Ecosystem Sciences
ERG/ESPM
310 Barrows Hall
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720  USA
jha...@berkeley.edu



On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:56 PM, Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net> wrote:

Re: [geo] Smart reforestation must go beyond carbon: expert | CIFOR Forests News Blog

jha...@berkeley.edu <x-msg://1239/jha...@berkeley.edu>  <x-msg://153/jha...@berkeley.edu <x-msg://153/jha...@berkeley.edu> >

On May 30, 2015, at 2:49 PM, Brian Cartwright <briancar...@gmail.com <x-msg://1239/briancar...@gmail.com>  <x-msg://153/briancar...@gmail.com <x-msg://153/briancar...@gmail.com> > > wrote:

[Ronal W. Larson]

List and ccs

Thanks to both Mike and John.

I think John is closer to my question (in talking about horizontal flows and forestry) on how this whole topic might impact different aspects of geoengineering.  Especially because so much of this list’s dialog has revolved around precipitation - and because of this paper’s claim that present modeling is missing an important physical principle.  True or not?

As I read this and several other papers by these authors, I found little use of the word “clouds” - which clearly is still an important topic for modelers.  Is there a cloud message somewhere in here?

I have included Drs. Makarieva and Shiel this time to see if they have given thought to geoengineering impacts of this paper (or any other of their many related to climate topics).  Dr.  Shiel is important as an English speaking co-author and a forestry expert.  

My two questions here are what is the impact of this paper/topic for geoengineering and why there has been so much (welcome) emphasis on forests.  Should we be paying more attention to water availability and drought mitigation on this list?

Ron

[Brian White]

 What evaporates does tend to come back,  but this is only because the forest seeds the air every morning.  Fungi release salts as part of the mechanism for expelling spores. (Late at night high in the trees). These particles of salt rise in the morning air and mix with turpenes and isoprenes released from the trees,  sunlight causes them to sublime onto the salt particles to produce good condensation nuclei.  Now, when it rains,  late in the afternoon,  all those condensation nuclei get rained out of the air.   So, without the fungi, and isoprenes,  there will be no rain the following day, no matter how much water vapor there is in the air.  We need to work on a proof that cumulus clouds  actually pump air up into the next layer of the atmosphere. I do have a video (from Nasa) where I show from Nasa"s video that this is probably happening. 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwGzAwOyla4
Here is a link for the potassium salts. There are others too.     
http://scitechdaily.com/how-aerosol-particles-form-in-the-amazon/   Thanks Brian White

[Brian White]

I have not seen mention of how the condensation nuclei are created over the rainforests.  It is a neat process!  Fungi pop out their spores late at night. Their mechanism to do this involves little particles of potassium salts that are also released in that process.  Remember that some of these fungi are 30 meters up in the trees (as opposed to 30 cm high in grassland).  In the morning trees release turpenes and isoprenes into the air.   These rise up and mix with the salts.   Under the influence of the sun, these sublime onto the salt kernel. So you have a photo chemical smog process creating condensation nuclei!    I think this is a key part of the biotic pump. Over the sea, life forms are creating a different type of condensation nuclei. They "want" finer clouds to filter out damaging rays or maybe just to make it a tiny bit darker so predators cannot easily find them.  An land it is all about rain,  and lots of it.  So between them, the fungi and forest leaves are making perfect condensation nuclei in the right amounts to produce lots and lots of evening showers nearly every day.   I think nearly everyone is missing the nature of cloud.   Clouds are areas of 2 phase fluid flow.  Energy is released by the  condensing of water onto condensation nuclei  in the clouds.  So this releases lots of energy. Imagine a  condensation nuclius.  WOOMPH! a droplet of water condenses on it.  Energy is released,  (but also the air around the droplet just got thinner (or at least lost some molecules) because the droplet "sucked water vapor out of that local air.  So now it is a droplet, and because it owes a debt to gravity, it begins to fall.   But as it falls, it ABSORBS energy and shrinks as it releases water vapor into that air.    So end result is that the droplet has shunted some water vapor down a bit lowered in the atmosphere  as it evaporates.  AND it has soaked up some of that energy released by condensation nearby and released it  that little bit lower in the atmosphere.   So,  my take is that the biotic pump /cloud pump  is a very efficient vertical  air pump.  It is efficiently using the heat of condensation to pump air (dried air)  often into the next atmospheric layer.   That is where the low pressure is coming from. The air has been lifted and something has to take its place.   The cloud itself is doing the pumping.  (until the energy no longer runs condensation.

jha...@berkeley.edu <x-msg://1239/jharte@berkeley.edu>  <x-msg://153/jharte@berkeley.edu <x-msg://153/jharte@berkeley.edu> >

On May 30, 2015, at 2:49 PM, Brian Cartwright <briancar...@gmail.com <x-msg://1239/briancar...@gmail.com>  <x-msg://153/briancar...@gmail.com <x-msg://153/briancartwright2@gmail.com> > > wrote:

[Michael Hayes]

Brian et al.,

One path to "how the condensation nuclei are created over the rainforests." is through the bacteria Pseudomonas syringae:

(Wikipedia) P. syringae also produces Ina proteins which cause water to freeze at fairly high temperatures (-4 °C to -2 °C), resulting in injury to plants.^[5] Since the 1970s, P. syringae has been implicated as an atmospheric "biological ice nucleator", with airborne bacteria serving as cloud condensation nuclei. Recent evidence has suggested the species plays a larger role than previously thought in producing rain and snow. They have also been found in the cores of hailstones, aiding in bioprecipitation.^[6] These Ina proteins are also used in making artificial snow.^[7]

Along with paying attention to the fungal path to forest based CCN, the bacterial path also needs to be factored into the forest 'Biotic Pump' picture. In brief, forests of any kind are complex ecosystems that evolved...all...their parts parts for a reason. Eliminating any aspect or part of the forest web of relationships leads to a weak forest. Tree plantations using the mono-crop method are rather short sighted from the biologically aspect. Factor that biological short sightedness by a few hundred million acres of replanted forests and the global effect can be viewed as being of geoengineeing significance...albeit unintentional.  

Michael (a private forester and forest owner)