<p>(Edited). Biotic pump theory (2006): <em>Forests cause enhanced transpiration and precipitation and create areas of low pressure that suck in more moisture in a positive feedback loop</em>.</p>

<p>A few years ago an international team found the mechanism for enhanced precipitation.  They found that fungi release potassium salts late at night, as they release spores, and that plants release turpenes and isoprenes in the morning and these sublime onto the salt in the sunlight  to form extremely good condensation nuclei. Source: <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/337/6098/1075.full" rel="nofollow">Biogenic Potassium Salt Particles as Seeds for Secondary Organic Aerosol in the Amazon</a></p>

<p>I made <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwGzAwOyla4" rel="nofollow">a video about this</a>.<br />The second part, from about 7 minutes into the video, clearly shows cumulonimbus clouds forming at approximately 3 to 4 pm over forested areas of Cuba, Florida and Mexico. This is consistent with the biotic pump theory.</p>

<p>The biotic pump theory is that enhanced transpiration and precipitation  over forested areas causes low pressure areas and attracts wind (laden with moisture) from elsewhere.</p>

<p>To create a low pressure area, the clouds have to remove some gas from the area,  and they do so by transporting air up into the next layer of the atmosphere. The "tail" of the hurricane (the stream of wind delivered to the upper atmosphere by the hurricane actually demonstrates that this is happening.</p>

<p>When its tail  passes over those areas,  its moisture condenses on the condensation nuclei that have passed up through the cloud with the dry air into that higher layer of the atmosphere.   The main problem that the biotic pump theory has is that it was proposed by nuclear physicists. They suggest that several of the "assumptions" on which meteorology are based violate the laws of thermodynamics. Coming from mere nuclear physicists,  this should give people pause for thought. But the biggest problem has been a communication problem.  The meteorological community have found the mathematics they use almost incomprehensible.</p>

<p>How do you read the evidence? </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-21T11:09:20.940Z
What is the actual question here?
bon
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-21T11:41:35.303Z
Please 1) Make your text less of a [wall of text](http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Wall_of_Text) 2) Give full disclosure. What video (who) is that? 3) Any relation to the other video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ_UQvnIxSM or to other theories? 4) Can you elaborate on your statement *In 2006 the bulk of the meteorological community rejected the "biotic pump theory" which explains with real physics why the amazon rainforest has so much rain* under the link you give?
Jan Doggen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-21T22:08:55.513Z
Thanks. Full disclosure,  I made the video and I am trying to figure out things without a degree in math or physics. Best link to the problems with current theory of rainfall levels (and why it is problematical in the amazon) is in this video,  at 10 to 14 minutes into the video.  The "cool amazon paradox" and other problems.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBkOos12Xzs  This one comes from Doug Shiel.
Brian White
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-21T22:30:33.300Z
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is not a site for personal theories.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-21T23:29:49.583Z
@DavidHammen, come on -- we're not elitist here, suggesting that only someone with the *formal* qualification of a title or degree is worthy of hearing their theories. As scientists, we should consider ideas *without regard to who brings it forward*. I'm not saying that the theory brought forward here makes any sense at all (it's outside my range of expertise), but that whether Brian White has a degree or not should not make a shred of a difference in our answers.
Wolfgang Bangerth
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-22T00:23:02.853Z
@WolfgangBangerth - Science is elitist. That's just how it works. Someone who has no idea of mathematics and physics has no business making guesses regarding how complex mechanisms such as the weather and climate function. This is not a theory. It is an unsubstantiated, nonscientific wild *** guess. Theory is the epitome of science. You should not be deprecating the word "theory" by using it in the layman context of a wild *** guess.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-22T08:22:57.807Z
I edited the question.  Note that the biotic pump theory was not proposed by laymen.  It was proposed by 2 nuclear physicists. It was proposed about  6 years before the process for condensation nuclei production in rain-forests was known. Please leave the question open,  because arguing it will help people (including elitists) refine their understanding of physical processes.   A little humility never hurt anybody. If a theory explains the physical world better than the old theory,  shouldn't there be a smooth transition to the new theory?
Brian White
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-22T08:40:21.977Z
Brian, you only addressed 2 out of my 4 comments. I have edited white space in, one of your comments, and better links. If you are serious about asking questions (anywhere) you should make sure that your question is clear and easy to read. I think your question needs additional editing, i.e. all your comment answers should be in there too.
Jan Doggen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-22T16:04:04.990Z
@BrianWhite: Could you also maybe link the original paper? The paper you've linked doesn't seem like it's written by nuclear physicists, when looking at the affilitations.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-23T04:01:24.083Z
@DavidHammen Science is what you make it, it doesn't have to be elitist. Besides, there are many crucial autodidacts in the sciences which I am sure you are aware of, including [Darwin, Faraday, Leibniz, etc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts). In fact, I think the most dangerous people are the ones who have the credentials and are able to speak with authority in their field but are instead pushing a particular agenda that is not necessarily scientifically sound (the 3% of climate change deniers come to mind).
Isopycnal Oscillation
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-23T11:28:56.077Z
BTW, the biotic pump paper is [Makarieva and Gorshkov (2007)](http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-1013-2007).  It was a mean state, conceptual model that restated old theories in a different language.  The ideas of moisture recycling and biogenic CCN were well established, it's their quantification that was (and still is) really difficult to pin down.
Deditos
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-24T06:10:23.600Z
I think the biotic pump hypothesis is a pretty neat idea - it was one of my options when I was looking to start my PhD. I don't think it requires this seeding mechanism to work, necessarily. The fact that they are nuclear physicists is irrelevant, and no, it shouldn't give people pause for thought any more than a geologist or economist poo-pooing global warming should. It's kind of weird that they have a [website](http://www.bioticregulation.ru/pump/pump.php) dedicated to a hypothesis too - seems kind of populist, for something that really just needs more evidence.
naught101
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-24T06:14:07.850Z
Also, I think "How do you read the evidence" is probably not a very good way to frame a question for this site. This site tries to not be about opinions. Maybe you could relate the salts/spores evidence to the particular "assumptions" that meteorology is based on (I think you'd do just as well targeting the land surface/hydrology community though - they're kind of more relevant). Which assumptions are they, exactly?
naught101
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-24T09:13:30.053Z
A full list of Makarieva biotic pump papers can be found at http://www.bioticregulation.ru/pump/pump7.php ( framing of the ideas were underway in 2003)  and http://www.bioticregulation.ru/pump/pump9.php is helpful in pointing out "assumptions".   Makarieva  speaks in equations.  For me,  warm air expands left right and up, essentially in all directions. However when cloud droplets are involved, you get 2 phase fluid flow. Cloud droplets make for a  strict upward flow of air. Droplets fall, evaporate, rise as water vapor, condense and fall again, operating like a diode sending air up!
Brian White
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-24T09:36:54.247Z
I think point number 3 for Jan Doggen  is covered by the refusal of meteorologists to peer review one of the biotic pump papers.  (Item 4 in the following link)  That paper did eventually get published. (the editor almost apologized to the meteorological community in his editors note when he published).   15 months in open review!   Not exactly the image that meteorology should be projecting.  "Closed shop, no new ideas,please,  we are are very happy with our :"assumptions"."  http://www.bioticregulation.ru/pump/pump9.php
Brian White
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-24T09:45:15.840Z
Getting back to the NASA video.  I think that it shows 2 things clearly.  Number 1. It shows that cumulonimbus clouds over Cuba and Florida at about 4 pm almost daily send dry air up into the next layer of the atmosphere. And Number 2.  This dry air contains lots of condensation nuclei. Because when the hurricane "tail"  (air sent up to that layer by the hurricane way up on east coast North America but still containing excess moisture and spun away clockwise) hits that air, moisture suddenly condenses around those condensation nuclei. Both items are consistent with the biotic pump theory.
Brian White
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-25T08:34:34.757Z
@naught101
"I think the biotic pump hypothesis is a pretty neat idea - it was one of my options when I was looking to start my PhD. I don't think it requires this seeding mechanism to work, necessarily." I  disagree.  The seeding mechanism is totally necessary for it to work.  No seeds, no clouds, no rain, no cloud pump sending air up to the next level of the atmosphere and no moisture bearing winds coming in from elsewhere. It depends on efficient transmission of air up and out. Without seeding,   intolerably hot days, and freezing nights, black body radiation of heat dominates.
Brian White
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-25T09:23:18.443Z
@BrianWhite Seeding isn't a binary situation, i.e., no forest != no seeding.  There are CCN everywhere, both advected and produced locally, even in semi-arid and arid regions.  The point is that forests are also a source of CCN, so they supplement the background levels and can enhance the frequency/intensity of rainfall.  The net climate effect is that this could help sustain forest further into continental interiors.  Estimating the strength of that enhancement is a perfectly good research topic.
Deditos
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-06T12:08:17.507Z
There seems to be consensus about seeding condensation nuclei, but I have no idea in how far this can be local/regional. [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu9UmHbmFfk) has no references
Jan Doggen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-06T17:02:53.153Z
@JanDoggen   Thanks.  I looked at it.    The link here from the Max Planck Institute goes into more detail about how regional the process can be.  It isn't the spores that do the business as per your link..   A key part is little particles of salt that are released into the air with the spores.  The researchers have identified 3 types of "seeds"  conglomerating around the salt particles.  This "could" mean that trees can switch from mist, to fog, to rain, simply by releasing different portions of isoprenes or turpines into the air!      http://www.mpg.de/6329380/plants_fungi_salt-aerosol
Brian White
<clouds>
Does the Nasa video show proof of the biotic pump theory?
Brian White
# Does the Nasa video show proof of the biotic pump theory?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-02-21)

(Edited). Biotic pump theory (2006): *Forests cause enhanced transpiration and precipitation and create areas of low pressure that suck in more moisture in a positive feedback loop*.

A few years ago an international team found the mechanism for enhanced precipitation. They found that fungi release potassium salts late at night, as they release spores, and that plants release turpenes and isoprenes in the morning and these sublime onto the salt in the sunlight to form extremely good condensation nuclei. Source: [Biogenic Potassium Salt Particles as Seeds for Secondary Organic Aerosol in the Amazon](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/337/6098/1075.full)

I made [a video about this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwGzAwOyla4).  
The second part, from about 7 minutes into the video, clearly shows cumulonimbus clouds forming at approximately 3 to 4 pm over forested areas of Cuba, Florida and Mexico. This is consistent with the biotic pump theory.

The biotic pump theory is that enhanced transpiration and precipitation over forested areas causes low pressure areas and attracts wind (laden with moisture) from elsewhere.

To create a low pressure area, the clouds have to remove some gas from the area, and they do so by transporting air up into the next layer of the atmosphere. The "tail" of the hurricane (the stream of wind delivered to the upper atmosphere by the hurricane actually demonstrates that this is happening.

When its tail passes over those areas, its moisture condenses on the condensation nuclei that have passed up through the cloud with the dry air into that higher layer of the atmosphere. The main problem that the biotic pump theory has is that it was proposed by nuclear physicists. They suggest that several of the "assumptions" on which meteorology are based violate the laws of thermodynamics. Coming from mere nuclear physicists, this should give people pause for thought. But the biggest problem has been a communication problem. The meteorological community have found the mathematics they use almost incomprehensible.

How do you read the evidence?

**Tags:** clouds

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: What is the actual question here?  
> **username_2**: Please 1) Make your text less of a [wall of text](http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Wall_of_Text) 2) Give full disclosure. What video (who) is that? 3) Any relation to the other video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ_UQvnIxSM or to other theories? 4) Can you elaborate on your statement *In 2006 the bulk of the meteorological community rejected the "biotic pump theory" which explains with real physics why the amazon rainforest has so much rain* under the link you give?  
> **username_0**: Thanks. Full disclosure,  I made the video and I am trying to figure out things without a degree in math or physics. Best link to the problems with current theory of rainfall levels (and why it is problematical in the amazon) is in this video,  at 10 to 14 minutes into the video.  The "cool amazon paradox" and other problems.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBkOos12Xzs  This one comes from Doug Shiel.  
> **username_3**: I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is not a site for personal theories.  
> **username_4**: @username_3, come on -- we're not elitist here, suggesting that only someone with the *formal* qualification of a title or degree is worthy of hearing their theories. As scientists, we should consider ideas *without regard to who brings it forward*. I'm not saying that the theory brought forward here makes any sense at all (it's outside my range of expertise), but that whether username_0 username_0 has a degree or not should not make a shred of a difference in our answers.  
> **username_3**: @username_4 - Science is elitist. That's just how it works. Someone who has no idea of mathematics and physics has no business making guesses regarding how complex mechanisms such as the weather and climate function. This is not a theory. It is an unsubstantiated, nonscientific wild *** guess. Theory is the epitome of science. You should not be deprecating the word "theory" by using it in the layman context of a wild *** guess.  
> **username_0**: I edited the question.  Note that the biotic pump theory was not proposed by laymen.  It was proposed by 2 nuclear physicists. It was proposed about  6 years before the process for condensation nuclei production in rain-forests was known. Please leave the question open,  because arguing it will help people (including elitists) refine their understanding of physical processes.   A little humility never hurt anybody. If a theory explains the physical world better than the old theory,  shouldn't there be a smooth transition to the new theory?  
> **username_2**: username_0, you only addressed 2 out of my 4 comments. I have edited username_0 space in, one of your comments, and better links. If you are serious about asking questions (anywhere) you should make sure that your question is clear and easy to read. I think your question needs additional editing, i.e. all your comment answers should be in there too.  
> **username_5**: @username_0: Could you also maybe link the original paper? The paper you've linked doesn't seem like it's written by nuclear physicists, when looking at the affilitations.  
> **username_6**: @username_3 Science is what you make it, it doesn't have to be elitist. Besides, there are many crucial autodidacts in the sciences which I am sure you are aware of, including [Darwin, Faraday, Leibniz, etc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts). In fact, I think the most dangerous people are the ones who have the credentials and are able to speak with authority in their field but are instead pushing a particular agenda that is not necessarily scientifically sound (the 3% of climate change deniers come to mind).  
> **username_7**: BTW, the biotic pump paper is [Makarieva and Gorshkov (2007)](http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-1013-2007).  It was a mean state, conceptual model that restated old theories in a different language.  The ideas of moisture recycling and biogenic CCN were well established, it's their quantification that was (and still is) really difficult to pin down.  
> **username_8**: I think the biotic pump hypothesis is a pretty neat idea - it was one of my options when I was looking to start my PhD. I don't think it requires this seeding mechanism to work, necessarily. The fact that they are nuclear physicists is irrelevant, and no, it shouldn't give people pause for thought any more than a geologist or economist poo-pooing global warming should. It's kind of weird that they have a [website](http://www.bioticregulation.ru/pump/pump.php) dedicated to a hypothesis too - seems kind of populist, for something that really just needs more evidence.  
> **username_8**: Also, I think "How do you read the evidence" is probably not a very good way to frame a question for this site. This site tries to not be about opinions. Maybe you could relate the salts/spores evidence to the particular "assumptions" that meteorology is based on (I think you'd do just as well targeting the land surface/hydrology community though - they're kind of more relevant). Which assumptions are they, exactly?  
> **username_0**: A full list of Makarieva biotic pump papers can be found at http://www.bioticregulation.ru/pump/pump7.php ( framing of the ideas were underway in 2003)  and http://www.bioticregulation.ru/pump/pump9.php is helpful in pointing out "assumptions".   Makarieva  speaks in equations.  For me,  warm air expands left right and up, essentially in all directions. However when cloud droplets are involved, you get 2 phase fluid flow. Cloud droplets make for a  strict upward flow of air. Droplets fall, evaporate, rise as water vapor, condense and fall again, operating like a diode sending air up!  
> **username_0**: I think point number 3 for Jan username_2  is covered by the refusal of meteorologists to peer review one of the biotic pump papers.  (Item 4 in the following link)  That paper did eventually get published. (the editor almost apologized to the meteorological community in his editors note when he published).   15 months in open review!   Not exactly the image that meteorology should be projecting.  "Closed shop, no new ideas,please,  we are are very happy with our :"assumptions"."  http://www.bioticregulation.ru/pump/pump9.php  
> **username_0**: Getting back to the NASA video.  I think that it shows 2 things clearly.  Number 1. It shows that cumulonimbus clouds over Cuba and Florida at about 4 pm almost daily send dry air up into the next layer of the atmosphere. And Number 2.  This dry air contains lots of condensation nuclei. Because when the hurricane "tail"  (air sent up to that layer by the hurricane way up on east coast North America but still containing excess moisture and spun away clockwise) hits that air, moisture suddenly condenses around those condensation nuclei. Both items are consistent with the biotic pump theory.  
> **username_0**: @username_8 "I think the biotic pump hypothesis is a pretty neat idea - it was one of my options when I was looking to start my PhD. I don't think it requires this seeding mechanism to work, necessarily." I  disagree.  The seeding mechanism is totally necessary for it to work.  No seeds, no clouds, no rain, no cloud pump sending air up to the next level of the atmosphere and no moisture bearing winds coming in from elsewhere. It depends on efficient transmission of air up and out. Without seeding,   intolerably hot days, and freezing nights, black body radiation of heat dominates.  
> **username_7**: @username_0 Seeding isn't a binary situation, i.e., no forest != no seeding.  There are CCN everywhere, both advected and produced locally, even in semi-arid and arid regions.  The point is that forests are also a source of CCN, so they supplement the background levels and can enhance the frequency/intensity of rainfall.  The net climate effect is that this could help sustain forest further into continental interiors.  Estimating the strength of that enhancement is a perfectly good research topic.  
> **username_2**: There seems to be consensus about seeding condensation nuclei, but I have no idea in how far this can be local/regional. [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu9UmHbmFfk) has no references  
> **username_0**: @username_2   Thanks.  I looked at it.    The link here from the Max Planck Institute goes into more detail about how regional the process can be.  It isn't the spores that do the business as per your link..   A key part is little particles of salt that are released into the air with the spores.  The researchers have identified 3 types of "seeds"  conglomerating around the salt particles.  This "could" mean that trees can switch from mist, to fog, to rain, simply by releasing different portions of isoprenes or turpines into the air!      http://www.mpg.de/6329380/plants_fungi_salt-aerosol  

---

## 0 answers

