Controversial Theory Claims Forests Don't Just Make Rain -- They Make Wind (sciencemag.org) 92
sciencehabit writes from a report via Science Magazine: With their ability to soak up carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen, the world's great forests are often referred to as the planet's lungs. But Anastassia Makarieva, a theorist at the Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute in Russia, says they are its beating heart, too. They recycle vast amounts of moisture into the air and, in the process, also whip up winds that pump that water around the world. The first part of that idea -- forests as rainmakers -- originated with other scientists and is increasingly appreciated by water resource managers in a world of rampant deforestation. But the second part, a theory Makarieva calls the biotic pump, is far more controversial.
Actual title (Score:4, Interesting)
The actual title of the article "A controversial Russian theory claims forests don’t just make rain—they make wind"
So it's a theory.... And when checking the actual article..
After 3 years of debate, the journal’s editor overruled Held’s recommendation and published the paper, saying it was published “not as an endorsement” but “to promote continuation of the scientific dialogue on the controversial theory [that] may lead to disproof or validation.”
Since then, there has been neither validation nor disproof, but largely a standoff. Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at Columbia University, says, “It’s simply nonsense.” The authors’ responses to criticisms were “really just mathematics that gave no one any confidence that there was any point in continuing the dialogue.” Jose Marengo, a meteorologist in Brazil and head of the National Centre for Monitoring and Warning of Natural Disasters, says: “I think the pump exists, but it’s very theoretical right now. The climate model community hasn’t embraced it, but the Russians are the best theoreticians in the world, so we need proper field experiments to test it.” Yet no one, including Makarieva, has yet proposed clearly what such a test might look like.
This theory has major flaws that are still unresolved.
Re:Actual title (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Just theoretical (Score:1)
The Higgs Boson was 'just theoretical' until...
and many more.
Well done to the author for putting their head above the parapet with this idea. Even if it is wrong isn't it better to have considered all posibilities before coming up with the right answer?
Re: Just theoretical (Score:1)
... putting their head above the parapet
Yeah, not a saying.
Re: (Score:1)
So it is more "hypothesis" than "theory" in science terms.
Re: Actual title (Score:3)
No, it has a mathematical model behind it and solid story to go along. It's a theory alright.
Re: (Score:1)
You have just described the makings of a hypothesis.
A theory needs to be supported by actual confirmation in the way of specific experimental results.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
Definition of theory
1: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena the wave theory of light
2a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theor
Re: (Score:3)
Quoting any layman's dictionary to tell a scientist what words mean isn't going to move a conversation forward.
Conjecture
Interpretation
Hypothesis
Axiom
Theory
Law
etc.
all have meanings in the field beyond common usage.
"Trees Sneezing" is by no measure on the same level as the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Relativity. Come on.
And - of course forest transpiration is going to create currents. It would be silly to think it's a greater effect than solar heating and silly to think that it has no effect.
If thi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is what the "in science terms" part of my first comment meant.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but a hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around, usually as a way of testing the theory.
Re: (Score:3)
More like hack scientist talking about shit they don't understand, because they think their expertise in one field carries over to other fields.
The nuclear physicist...
So, no background in atmospheric science.
The theoretical foundation of the work has been published, albeit in lesser known journals....
Which isn't even correct, because the American Meteorological Society journal IS one of the top tier atmospheric science journals! And in that journal there was an excellent back and forth with another researcher just last year, who explained to this nuclear physicist and her colleague what it was that they didn't understan
Re:Actual title (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and please note that this article does not reference my linked journal article at all. It is specifically written to support this hack theory, and is careful not too dwell to long on the very detailed and valid criticism of this theory.
That is straight up dishonest.
When you have experts in a field explaining in major journals why a theory is wrong, and you pointedly ignore that, you're choosing fantasy over science. But hey, as long as you're not writing for something called Science Magazine, that's fine, right?
Re: (Score:1)
The theory must be correct (Score:2)
The "tell" is when critics start using words on the Old Angle Saxon, take the Lord's name in vain, and use the expression "Full stop" to clinch an argument.
Re: (Score:2)
More like hack scientist talking about shit they don't understand, because they think their expertise in one field carries over to other fields.
The leading climate scientist in the US for 30 years was a physicist (James Hansen).
Re: (Score:2)
So the authors just break wind?
It is a Hypothesis! (Score:3)
This is my biggest grip on Science Reporting.
A Hypothesis is an educated guess.
Then we come up with models and expectations to test that Hypothesis. If the results don't match up, either you reject the Hypothesis (which isn't a bad thing, or saying anything bad about the person who made they Hypothesis) or you revise the Hypothesis to account for the findings, Then continue testing.
If after all the tests Show that the Hypothesis show that it is working than we call it a Theory.
A Theory is a well backed expl
Re: (Score:2)
A Hypothesis is an educated guess.
The person who came up with this "theory" was not properly educated on the relevant things in the right field. It does not even qualify to be a hypothesis.
Re: (Score:2)
No, a hypothesis is an outcome a theory predicts that is tested to see if the theory's predictions are good.
Re: (Score:1)
Water Memory (Score:3)
They do allow more controversial science in Russia than they do in the West apparently. So are there theories going around how water has memory and this gets researched now, too.
I suppose as long as there is no real harm in such research other than a bit of extra cost to keep the scientists fed can one allow it. They might find some useful science after all, even when it sounds more spiritual than real.
I'd still like to know what happens to the memory of water after I boiled it ...
Re:Water Memory (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd still like to know what happens to the memory of water after I boiled it ...
It's called homeopathy. Take a substance and dilute it in water until there's only a few molecules detectable in the water. At that point, according to the charlatans, your "medicine" is now very strong because the water "remembers" what was put in it.
Considering water on this planet has been recycled countless times for a few billion years, does it also remember all the dead animals, piss and shit which has gone through it?
Re: (Score:2)
Often it's not even a few molecules left. The guy who came up with homeopathy preferred a "30C" dilution for most purposes, which corresponds to 60 orders of magnitude. On average, that's much less than one molecule in all the oceans on our planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering water on this planet has been recycled countless times for a few billion years, does it also remember all the dead animals, piss and shit which has gone through it?
Sure does. Gives it character.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to make lots of jokes about homeopaths, but I don't do it as often anymore, because I figure that if I heavily dilute my homeopathic material, it'll make it even stronger.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Allow? So you are saying there is science not allowed in the west because it is controversial?
Yes and no. Of course unethical research should stay forbidden, but I mean the funding of science. There is only so much money to go around and in Capitalism does this quite quickly translate into you not being allowed to do your research. You can certainly do it at home as a hobby, but why should anyone give you money when there is so much more pressing research to be done?
Re: (Score:2)
I recall even a nobel prize winner (virologist Montagnier)who believes(d) in the theory of memory of water.
Still bollocks though.
Re: (Score:3)
The obvious problem with the theory of the memory of water is the question of why it would remember the specific things that a homeopathic practitioner wants it to remember and not all of the other stuff that's been in the water. I mean, we know that water has structure. Surface tension is definitely a thing. It even turns out that water forms substructures, sort of crystal-like magnetic domains. It's still an enormous leap from that to the idea that putting a little bit of poison or something symbolically
Re: (Score:2)
Even if water did remember, there's no logical reason this would induce a cure for anything, much less a cure for a disease similar to what the drug, in quantity, somewhat resembles.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. It's a "god of the gaps" sort of thing. People fall victim to the flawed reasoning that, because there's a gap in knowledge or understanding, they can fill it in with whatever fantasy appeals to them. Even worse, often the gap in knowledge or understanding actually exists for a subset of people. You see all sorts of people say things like "science can't say why the clouds stay up, so therefore gravity isn't real, and therefore... flat earth!". Anyone who actually understands why clouds stay up k
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that extreme dilution creates a memory of the original substance means that an ordinary glass of water becomes extremely potent and totally erratic because it is full of stuff which has been diluted to the extent it is no longer there. On top of that it there is the addiitional folk hypothesis that this dilution acts like a cure. It's just rubbish.So what does this radical dismissal mean?
the point that you can never be sure is true. There can always be something you overlooked. There are always thi
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to confuse Russia with Germany. Homeopathy is a valid medical treatment there, reimbursed from medical insurance.
Russian science circles speciality is that they have a greater scientific disconnect from the business community and the government. Comes from the times of post-Lyshenkoist Communist academia graduating into modern Russia, where the sum of idelogical purges from Soviet government followed by extremely corrupt business community in Russian Federation made Russian scientists straight up a
Re: (Score:2)
Homeopathy is an invalid medical treatment there, reimbursed from medical insurance.
Ftfy
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not arguing for merits of homeopathy. I'm arguing for what German system defines it as. As far as German medical insurance system is concerned, homeopathy is a valid medical treatment.
Glad to see it on Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The theory might be controversial and I don't know enough yet to make up my own mind if it's plausible.
Nevertheless I'm really glad to see it on Slashdot. It is much closer to "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters" than 'news' about what president Trump posted on twitter.
But that would get a lot more page views and comments. Which is why they do it.
Re: (Score:1)
But that would get a lot more page views and comments. Which is why they do it.
I understand it. Still I find it sad, that is more profitable to be one of thousands websites providing the same, general, easy to consume news, than to be a unique place serving a community of faithful users. It may be a reflection of a general, although equally sad rule, that it's better to be a small fish in a mass market than a king of a niche market.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more than that. Look at the "This Day on Slashdot" box.
2005: "Desktop Linux on x86 - Adapt or Die" - 924 comments.
2003: "Honda Crash Detection System" - 868 comments.
A non-political post from a few days ago: "Google Partners With Parallels To Bring Windows Apps To Chrome OS" - 13 comments.
Nobody cares about tech anymore. They just want to squabble over who'e political party is the most corrupt. Slashdot is just catering to the users desires.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Glad to see it on Slashdot (Score:1)
It is not a theory! (Score:2, Insightful)
It is a hypothesis, and if they can test this to confirm or reject it, then it might become a theory.
Otherwise it is just words that don't have meaning.
Re: It is not a theory! (Score:2)
No. A hypothesis is more or less an idea. This has a solid model to go with it. It's a theory, just an unproven one.
(A theory doesn't need experimental proof to be a theory. It's called "big bang *theory*", not *hypothesis* despite not having been proven yet.)
Re: (Score:2)
What? No, a random guess is a conjecture. A hypothesis is a deliberate, falsifiable supposition; given P, thus Q. A theory is a hypothesis which has been subjected to rigorous experiment, by many independent parties and no falsifying evidence has been found.
Generally, the yes/no on the given unfalsified state of a theory is done on a statistical basis (because it needs to remain falsifiable).
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Sheldon, please allow more than one definition of the word "theory", because it has more than one definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot isn't a scientific news outlet and you know it. So stop slinging insults around or are you working on a theory of how throwing tantrums can change Slashdot readers?
Re: (Score:2)
This is a scientific discussion, so domain-specific meanings of words are important so that everyone can understand each other. There is a reason why you need to reject vernacular definitions when talking about precise things.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a scientific discussion ...
No, it isn't. It's a hypothesis you have, which you want to sell as a fact. Before you can have a scientific discussion do you first need to think like a scientist.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were trying to make a point, you first need to be understood. By the way, I couldn't understand a word of that.
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't understand a word of that.
q.e.d.
Re: (Score:2)
agreed.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that in traditional evidence driven science, "theory" is the highest possible standard for any claim. It means that claim has been proven to the point where evidence supporting it is overwhelming, and evidence to contrary is either very weak or nonexistent.
This is indeed a hypothesis backed by a model. Unfortunately, "data driven science" of mathematical modelling is a very messed up field in science. It's inherently unsuitable for what it's actually supposed to do, "model the large entity that ca
Re: (Score:2)
You're thinking of a conjecture maybe. A hypothesis is something a theory predicts that can hopefully be tested to see if the theory is sound.
O. Henry (Score:1)
Thermals? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Thermals? (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe late in the afternoon, the German glider pilots have a word , Abendthermic that describes lift from forested areas. It takes the surrounding air to start to cool a bit for the air contained in the trees to reach a point it can break away. This generally occurs as the sun starts to get lower. Once the hot air reservoir is depleted, no more lift today. :)
It produces nice big smooth thermals. Slopes always have anabatic flow (Up slope) when heated, (in fact more so on bare slopes than wooded ones)followed By katabatic winds when cooling commences.
In glider pilot terms, you fly the ridges on the way out, and the center of the valley coming home.
Re: (Score:3)
in fact more so on bare slopes than wooded ones
This.
In fact, if you want to find some great thermals, look for open fields and parking lots. So I guess the Russians will have to do a new study: Pavement makes wind.
Re: (Score:2)
We find that the red paddocks and dark coloured ones are the best for producing lift, as with any with With rocky outcrops. Differential heating is the key.
Re:Thermals? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you perfectly summarized the point of this controversy. Everyone agrees that trees cause air movement. Now Makarieva and proponents of her theory claim this air movement has significant impact on moisture distribution, and show some math to back up their claim. Opponents say air movement caused by trees is "obviously negligible". I would say it's at least worth to study it further.
Re: (Score:2)
That warm air being formed near the ground
From decomposition, right? The shade helps keep that going, but it's not the trees doing the heating.
Welll then ... (Score:2)
Meanwhile in Brazil (Score:2)
Too bad Brazil's leader will deny everything and continue allowing people to clear cut the rainforest. PBS aired a great documentary, "H2O: The Molecule That Made Us," earlier this year that addressed how forests effect wind and water vapor. Clear cutting the rainforest is linked to mega-droughts in Brazil.
Calvin's Dad (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed!!
Calvin & Hobbes - June 15, 1993 [gocomics.com]
The Happening (Score:2)
So you're telling me The Happening was based on actual science instead of being an outlandish bad movie?!
Re: (Score:2)
Those two things don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Already shown by Watterson 1993 (Score:5, Funny)
"Trees sneezing."
Tree Farts (Score:2)
Too late (Score:2)
Oceans (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Coasts, yep.
B..b..but muh ocean view!
-- Past left wing environmentalist who realizes that this is going to affect my lifestyle.
I'm sure the controversy is in the degree (Score:2)
I just received this important weather bulletin from one Captain Obvious:
Difference in air temperature create wind, even on a small scale.
Trees absorb and radiate heat differently than the ground. Heck, different parts of the same tree absorb and radiate heat differently. Never mind that a ground that is in shadow from a tree absorbs and radiates different than an adjacent patch in the sunlight.
So, the question is not "Do trees contribute to air flow?" but rather "How much?" and "Is it enough to be called
"Controversial" (Score:2)
You mean wannabe scientists, whose models don't even obey the laws of thermodynamics, being overwhelmed by a proper physiscist using proper math, and rejecting it due to not conforming to the usual wishy-washy style. :)
That's quite a high-level version of anything too advanced seeming too dumb again. (Compare another specific case of the same pattern: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguisable from magic.")
Also, I'd check which one of those who reject it, got fed a large meal of Koch Brothers
Literally make rain. (Score:2)
I grew up in the desert, in West Texas.
I then move to Phoenix, where many times over I witnessed a phenomenon I did not see in West Texas. Raining trees.
Many types of trees in Phoenix would "rain" out of the leaves on the hottest of days. I suppose they were trees that got sufficient water to do so, but you could walk under a broad-leafed tree of many varieties during the hottest part of a summer day and water would sprinkle down on you in very fine droplets. I never saw this in West Texas, but there wer
Re: (Score:2)
I then move to Phoenix, where many times over I witnessed a phenomenon I did not see in West Texas. Raining trees.
Damn. You'd need a pretty heavy-duty umbrella to deal with that.
Re: (Score:2)
My trees always make it rain.
Let me talk to him
Let me talk to him
Let it rain
Okay, my Juneteenth skills could still use refinement. Obscured point still stands. [youtube.com]
Of course it does... (Score:2)
Forests promote air circulation, that's obvious.
Sea breezes at the shore arise from the unequal heating. Obvious. And yes, the sea breezes not at the shore are not really sea breezes. The 'land breeze' isn't interesting or pleasant enough to merit further consideration...(:
This is of great interest to the recreational sailor.
Ask any private pilot, and they can assure you that different land uses create different updrafts and downdrafts, which often become 'wind', for those of you following along at home.
And
Small nitpick (Score:2)
the world's great forests are often referred to as the planet's lungs. But Anastassia Makarieva, a theorist at the Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute in Russia, says they are its beating heart, too. ... in the process, also whip up winds
I'm not going to say the theory is wrong or right.
However, given the description of how the forests are whipping up air movements... how are they not still the lungs instead of the heart?
Forests make rain, so... (Score:2)
Rain causes change in temperature and/or air pressure...
Changes in temperature and/or air pressure cause wind.
Seems bloody well self-evident.
Does that include... (Score:1)