Biotic regulation

[naught101]

Anyone know if this biotic pump effect is included in any current
climate models? I guess it wouldn't be, since it's a fairly new
hypothesis, but it seems fairly convincing, and could have some
interesting impacts...

http://www.bioticregulation.ru/pubs/pubs2.php

See especially:
Gorshkov V.G., Makarieva A.M. (2007) Biotic pump of atmospheric
moisture as driver of the hydrological cycle on land. Hydrology and
Earth System Sciences, 11, 1013-1033. Abstract. PDF (1 Mb).

[Raymond Arritt]

From what sense I can make of the abstract they're just talking about
evapotranspiration as mediated by different types of vegetation, which
is included in all models nowadays.

Ray

[James Annan]

I think it's a bit kookier than that, they claim that this effect (via
direct human interference) dominates GHG forcing. At which point I say,
"no, no credible models include *this* effect" :-)

I would also suspect that several of the simpler GCMs (eg, relative
newcomers to global climate modelling) do not include much in the way of
vegetation effects. I don't know in detail though.

Basically, there is a grain of truth in the site, and this truth is well
accepted in mainstream climate science, but I don't believe it is as
dominant an effect as they claim.

James

[naught101]

It's more about how that effects the interior of continents, but yeah,
basically.

On Jun 11, 8:17 am, Raymond Arritt <rwarr...@bruce.agron.iastate.edu>
wrote:

[Michael Tobis]

My understanding is that GCMs can be prodded to show this sort of thing in the Amazon, in experiments where the entire rain forest is digitally removed. It does not really show up anyplace else to a strong extent.  

Not that this argues against other more complex homeostatic mechanism as proposed by Lovelock.

If I could wax philosophical I hold what has to be taken as a bleaker view than Lovelock's: that there is little homeostasis in the biosphere. What we are seeing in this view is the weak anthropic principle: planets that were not extremely lucky never developed a scientific/technical civilization to ask these sorts of questions. 

Hence the appearance of homeostasis is illusory, like evidence of Bill Gates' genius it is simply the consequence of a very large sample space having to contain one individual with ridiculously good luck. It requires no special skill to speak of. On that principle, the likelihood of collapse of the biosphere is high on geologic time scales.

Either way it seems we shouldn't go out of our way to rock the boat.

mt

[Michael Tobis]

Wow. These guys are gloomy.

http://www.bioticregulation.ru/common/pdf/energy08.pdf

mt

"It is commonly assumed that the environmental stability can be preserved if one

manages to switch to ‘‘clean’’, pollution-free energy resources, with
no change in, or

even increasing, the total energy consumption rate of the
civilization. Such an approach

ignores the fact that the environmental stability is regionally and
globally controlled by

the functioning of natural ecosystems on land and in the ocean. This
means that the

climate and environment can only remain stable if the anthropogenic pressure on

natural ecosystems is diminished, which is unachievable without
reducing the global

rate of energy consumption. If the modern rate of anthropogenic pressure on the

ecosystems is sustained, it will be impossible to mitigate the
degradation of climate

and environment even after changing completely to ‘‘clean’’
technologies (e.g., to the

‘‘zero emissions’’ scenario).

"It is shown that under the limitation of preserving environmental stability,

the available renewable energy resources (river hydropower, wind
power, tidal power,

solar power, power of the thermohaline circulation, etc.) can in total
ensure no more

than one tenth of the modern energy consumption rate of the civilization, not to

compromise the delivery of life-important ecosystem services by the
biosphere to the

humanity."

[Michael Tobis]

Don't worry.

"In the absence of thermohaline circulation, oceanic waters would have
uniform temperature at all depths."

Under increasing CO2 scenarios "The cumulative thermal radiation into
space ... will correspond to the same 33C between the surface and
thermal radiation emitted into space."

etc. etc.

A valiant attempt, unfortunately rather marred by being completely
made up and all.

mt

"The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand;
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
"If this were only cleared away,"
They said, "it would be grand!"

"If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year.
Do you suppose," the Walrus said,
"That they could get it clear?"
"I doubt it," said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.

[Tom Adams]

They use this term "anthropogenic pressure" (A), which they never
define. They claim that:

KP = A

where P = power, or "the rate of energy consumption"

They claim that K is a constant regardless of the production method
for P. Or, at least that K cannot be reduced much.

Interesting claim, but I don't see where they provide evidence for the
claim. Am I missing something?