In anticipation of the Convergence, I was delighted to be interviewed together with John D. Liu — one of the world’s most eloquent voices for restoring degraded landscapes and rethinking human civilization around ecological function — by Emmanuelle Chiche and Megan Lindow from StoryMoss. Below is a slightly abridged transcript of the interview, which can also be watched on YouTube.

Restoration and preservation of nature form a philosophical Möbius strip, weaving into deeper questions about our existence — and, as I see it, not without controversy.

Opening: Different Paths Converging Around Nature

Emmanuelle:
Hello, StoryMoss viewers. Hello, John, Anastassia, and Megan. We are really, really happy and honored to be with you today as we invite more of the world to join the Global Earth Repair Convergence, founded by Michael “Skeeter” Pilarski, happening in early May in Cascadia and online.

We thought of inviting both of you for what may perhaps be the first one-on-one conversation with us in the background about your amazing work.

Anastassia Makarieva is a Russian atmospheric physicist and one of the originators of the biotic pump concept and the biotic regulation framework, which offer essential insights into healing our degrading world. John D. Liu is a filmmaker, activist, land restorer, and so many other things. Thank you both very much.

Megan is joining us from Cape Town, while John is in Los Angeles, Anastassia is in Russia, and I am in New York. We are here together today. Megan?

Megan:
Yes. Hello, everyone, and welcome. We are going to have a story-weave today.

I wanted to ask both John and Anastassia, first, what draws you specifically to the Global Earth Repair Convergence. Beyond that, as we were just noting in our discussion, so much of your work, Anastassia, points to the need to preserve ecosystems — these complex forests that remain around the world even as we are seeing such rapid rates of destruction and deforestation.

And John, as a filmmaker with a long background of discovery — from traveling as a journalist to really learning about natural processes and ecosystems, and then weaving that knowledge into large-scale efforts at landscape restoration — you come to this restorative work across landscapes that have already been disturbed, and from a background of covering politics and geopolitics.

So, as each of you tells us a little more about your work, I would also love to hear what fascinates you most about each other’s work, and what you are hoping to explore and discover in this conversation.

Maybe we can start with you, Anastassia.

Anastassia:
Thank you, Megan. It is my great pleasure to be here.

I have been working all my life as a physicist, investigating the role of natural systems in sustaining a habitable climate on Earth. In this habitability, water is a key ingredient. Much of my recent work has therefore been devoted to investigating the role of terrestrial ecosystems in facilitating the water cycle on land, particularly its atmospheric component: moisture transport from ocean to land.

The biotic pump concept, which Emmanuelle mentioned, describes the active role of natural vegetation in driving the water cycle — particularly in ensuring that moisture evaporated over the ocean comes to land, precipitates over land, and feeds the water cycle and all life on land.

This is largely theoretical, fundamental research. What fascinates me in John’s work, as you said, is that these are real efforts to which our knowledge could contribute. This knowledge can be spread and converted into real actions that engage people all over the world in a network where they stop destroying and begin doing something more positive, coming into greater harmony with nature, which I believe is our future.

Megan:
Thank you, Anastassia. John?

John:
Thank you very much. It is a great pleasure to have this opportunity to speak with you all.

I certainly came from a different beginning point. I was really a professional observer for my entire life. I tried to tell the truth and to understand what I was seeing at any given time.

It was very exciting and interesting to watch major political events, economic developments, cultural changes, and so on over the course of my life. But when I found that the Earth systems were massively degraded in all the cradles of civilization, and I had the opportunity to go to many of these places, I began to look at them and consider what I understood of the history — or what I could find out from the history, from sediment layers, from fossil remains, and from what was already known.

I began to realize that I had very little information about this. I thought I was fairly experienced and educated, but there I was, looking at the basis of living systems, and I did not really know enough.

Then I was very fortunate. I was asked by the World Bank to film the baseline study of the rehabilitation of the Loess Plateau in the upper and middle reaches of the Yellow River. In doing that, I realized that it could not always have been the way it was. I had to do a kind of forensics: to look at the crime scene and say, “Well, I see the body, I see the blood, and now I’m looking for whatever instrument was used to murder this thing.”

Ultimately, what I found was that I was studying dysfunction. It was necessary to understand the dysfunction fully if I wanted to see it another way. From my position as an observer, I was in some ways representing humanity, because humanity was not aware of what was going on. For thousands of years, human beings had been destroying the life-support systems of the planet.

I was given many fellowships to study, so I became an accidental student. I started to realize that this could be defined if we used these forensic methods to look at what had happened.

I found that all fully functional places have massive biodiversity. They have higher and higher canopies. Perennial polycultures replace annual plants, and there are no exposed soils whatsoever. In a functional terrestrial system, unless you have plate tectonics, earthquakes, volcanic activity, meteor strikes, or something like that, you generally have total vegetative cover.

There are some interesting differences in some deserts, but my conclusion is that most deserts are not natural deserts.

The Chinese experience in restoration shows very quickly that restoration can go faster than we thought. Maybe we really need to go to the worst places — the most degraded places, where early civilizations began and destroyed their environments. That also links with some permaculture understanding: you have to work at the edges. The edge is where there is a lot of variation.

One of the biggest realizations for me was that the percentages and total amounts of what I would call necromass — decaying dead biomass — are critically important. Almost nobody knew anything about this. This dead biomass is also the habitat for the microbial and fungal communities that make mineral nutrients bioavailable to plant life.

Another important point, which I think is very close to what Anastassia is working on, is that once you have degraded the system, you find that biology had self-organized over prodigious time to alter the physics.

Then all the criteria become larger and larger: the temperature differentials, for example. I have seen temperature differences of 45°C between exposed soils in deserts and areas beneath artificially induced vegetative cover. That cover was grown through extreme methods: saline irrigation and the use of halophytes. But it was functional, and it worked.

If we can do that, we can hold moisture in the lower hydrological cycle and recycle it near the Earth. Looking at this, it struck me that this is exactly what needs to be done. Every human being needs to understand that we are in a symbiotic relationship with all other life forms. It is ridiculous for us to imagine that our abiotic infrastructure is the basis of life. It is not.

I am talking too much. Sorry.

Complexity and Simplicity

Megan:
No, it is fascinating. I am really appreciating this aspect that I have heard from both of you, in different ways, about the human relationship to the natural world, and how we need to grow our understanding and heal our hearts at the same time in order to achieve what we are all gathering for — both in place and online — in this Global Earth Repair Convergence.

There is so much knowledge emerging. But I want to turn the conversation a little poetic for a moment, if I may. I was inspired by hearing both of you speak in various recordings about your work.

I wanted to ask whether you could each talk about an experience you have had in the natural world — an experience of very deep connection — and what insight that brings you about repair and going forward. I know you must both have innumerable such experiences, but perhaps, Anastassia, you could begin. How does it feel when you stand in one of these vast forests in Siberia, or at the river, and see what your work has uncovered — the flying rivers, the biotic pump, the physics actually happening in this place?

Anastassia:
Thank you, Megan.

John mentioned that he traveled a lot, saw many ecosystems, and learned from them. Personally, I have spent a lot of time in boreal forests — many years, if I count all the months together. So I also have this first-hand experience of how nature works.

Unfortunately, not many people have this. What I would say is important is that when you are there, in what John refers to as a functional ecosystem, you understand that it is very complex. It is basically the most complex thing or process that one can imagine.

When you see this, it sets a standard for understanding complexity: what complexity is, and what complexity is required for function.

The challenge is how to communicate this idea of complexity to people who have not seen it first-hand, and who may believe that we can simply put a green thing in a pot, bring it to the desert, water it, and then something will start going there.

This complexity — I do not know how to express it in poetic terms — is a very profound feeling. It is overwhelming. This is what I am trying to bring into my scientific research: to formulate it in scientific language so it can be understood and shared by all people.

So this is my response: complexity. The unmatched complexity of the living world.

Emmanuelle:
That is beautiful. Thank you so much.

As we were preparing to meet with you and watching many more recordings, we were going slowly, trying to get the depth of your inquiry. For StoryMoss, going back to Joanna Macy’s work on deep ecology — opening our hearts, paying more attention, and listening — I think that is what Megan was trying to bring in with the poetic question.

I have been reading a lot of both of your work. There is a lot of eco-philosophy, critical wisdom, mindfulness, and the stage where many more of us, when we reach that moment, begin to pay more attention and engage. We begin to feel that we can do something.

I think the problem is that too many of us think we cannot do anything, that we are doomed. But both of your work brings hope — active hope. That is what we are also trying to bring through the complexity.

John, did you want to respond?

John:
Yes. I would like to say that I agree: the complexity is infinitely complex. But there is also a very elegant simplicity in nature, which is quite beautiful when you find it.

Nature follows a logic. Ecology and logic are closely related, and that is really important. What we see now with our economic and political systems is that they are extremely illogical. They are about power, dominance, or greed. These are not very wise perspectives.

I would also like to say that many people consider that we are physical beings struggling or striving to have spiritual experiences. But it seems more likely that we are spiritual beings experiencing physicality for a short while.

In doing this, it shows us a bit of a purpose in life: we are meant to bring life, to bring consciousness to life. We are just not very good at it yet. We have been expressing ourselves more like parasites, as if we are going to destroy our host and then die with the host. That is ridiculous.

Likewise, the idea that we should acquire more and more material possessions or power for ourselves is a mistake. As a journalist, in all my observations, I noticed that we are all going to pass away. We will return to where we came from. The person who dies with the most stuff does not win anything.

There is a mistake here. I think it is also about joy and beauty. What we see in nature has such elegance and beauty. What I see now, even here in Los Angeles, in many films for example, rarely shows tremendous beauty or profound thought. They are mostly violent, or about greed, or about more things, grasping, and low-energy behavior.

I think we can do better. We should do better. We are supposed to do better. We have all the information we need now. We have the ability to feed everyone on the planet. I do not think that is a problem if we share and work to do this.

But if we think that the basis of wealth is material things, then we are bound to fail. It will be very difficult to take care of eight, nine, or ten billion people. But if we understand that nature is expressing perennial polycultures and consistent, self-replicating life — that it is breathing, and because it is breathing, we are breathing — then we realize we are part of it. We are a bivalve. We could act as any other organism that breathes, or filters the water, or takes in food.

And it has to be organic — without poisons, without pollution. It is insanity not to do that.

So I think we have enough information. We have our marching orders. We have work to do, and this needs to be the central intention of human civilization.

Doing and Non-Doing

Megan:
When you mention breathing, I want to pick up on that. When I was discovering your work, Anastassia, I had the impression of the forest — the biotic pump — as the forest breathing in a way, generating its own self-sustaining water cycles.

To return to the really complex nature that you both speak about, and the challenge of how humans learn this complexity when not everybody has the opportunity to experience it: at the same time, there is so much that we know now. Some of it is perhaps ancient knowledge that has been lost through modernity, colonization, and other processes of destruction.

That brings me back to the inspiration and active hope that need to come with this challenge: stepping up, doing things differently, and integrating this understanding that we are developing as humanity.

If either of you has a response?

Anastassia:
If I pick up from breathing: actually, the biotic pump has also been compared to the beating heart of the forest, because it pumps like a heart. It pumps moisture.

But I would also like to bring in the idea of balance. John mentioned complexity, simplicity, elegance, and logic in nature, and I totally agree. Another perspective I would like to emphasize is doing and not doing.

People are doers. We can easily be energized for a good cause — to do something, to plan things, to restore. But another important thing is not doing what should not be done.

Once we energize ourselves to restore something that we have destroyed as doers, we must at the same time put limits on further destruction of this water pump — this still-beating heart of the world’s great forests: the Amazon, the Congo, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Canada, Russia. These forests are alive. They have been exploited and are being exploited, but they are still alive. They can regenerate, and they can teach us this complexity, simplicity, and elegance.

We will not invent it. We should not be too self-confident. We cannot invent nature. But we can learn, and we can let nature guide us through self-restoration.

We must stop the destruction. Doing and non-doing: that is what I think.

John:
What she said.

Megan:
Beautiful.

Emmanuelle:
Yes. John, do you want to take this on?

The Ability to Understand

John:
One thing crossed my mind because Anastassia said many people might not have this experience. I am not sure that is true.

I remember having a fellowship at Rothamsted Research in the UK, an agricultural field station. They created the RothC carbon model, which is part of the basis for understanding disruptions to the carbon cycle.

The director invited me to come. He did a lot for me. He sent me to Africa, and I was able to really see the Congo Basin and work closely with a number of countries there for a while.

What was very interesting was that I had to give a lecture. They had all these quite famous scientists, and I was wondering what I would do if I gave this lecture and they just looked at me. I did not really know what it would be like.

When I gave the lecture, at the end a rather well-known scientist came up to me and said, “Hello.”

I said, “Hello.”

He said, “You seem to know what you are talking about.”

I said, “Well, thank you.”

Then he said, “If you can understand it, anyone can understand it.”

And I thought: yes, that is true. If I can understand it, anyone can understand it.

That is where we need to be. This needs to be common knowledge throughout humanity: we are drinking water, we are breathing air, and soils are the basis of the food we eat. These systems need to be fully intact. Biodiversity is normal. Reducing things to monocultures is unknown in nature. Nature is outrageously biodiverse.

Because of the symbiosis between systems, we are killing ourselves if we destroy them. Once we understand this, we must see that wealth in the world does not come from buying and selling things. It comes from the natural functioning of Earth systems.

Every living being has the right to life. It is outrageous to imagine that we should decide, with prejudice, what lives and what dies. If you understand how extinction events work, you find that the top of the food chain is most at risk. That should give us some thought, because we are at the top of the food chain. It is outrageous that we could even be in a situation where this is possibly happening.

The anger and painful sorrow that are around all the time — this is not natural. You do not find that when a baby is born and looks at the world, fascinated by everything. This is taught behavior. We should be really careful to teach joy and the harmony that exists among all life. That is where we need to focus.

One thing we have been working on recently — over the last nine years — is ecosystem restoration communities. What we are seeing is that people can come together and work together. When they do, they can do more than they can as individuals. They can study together and understand together. Physically, mentally, imaginatively, and intelligently, together we are stronger.

By ourselves, how are we going to restore the Earth? The problems are huge. But if you think about them the way the Chinese think about them, you say: “Okay, we are a swarm. We are a hive of bees. We are ants. An ant can only carry a tiny thing, but when all the ants come together, they can pick up everything.”

Then you realize that change can happen rapidly. How long did it take China to raise hundreds of millions of people out of poverty once they recognized that soils, water systems, and biodiversity were important? It changes rapidly because they make it the central intention of civilization.

We have to realize that we are not different. We are one species. This is a planetary issue. It is not up to China, the United States, Russia, Europe, or any one place. It is up to humanity as a species to act on a planetary scale. That is the only way we can change this.

Now we look at our economics, and we have billionaires and billions of poor people. This is ridiculous. Everyone has an equal right to life. Who among us can say, “No, I deserve everything. Give it all to me”? That is gross. That is disgusting.

If we learn to work together, these ecosystem restoration communities can come together — 250, 300, 500 people — and make community land trusts. They can say, “Everyone in our community is going to eat. Nobody will go hungry. Nobody will be without housing.”

Then we can come together and do our best to ensure that everyone has a house, everyone has food, and everyone has meaningful work. Right now, we are forcing billions of people to behave like indentured servants, running around doing things that are often destructive, when we need everyone to do the right thing.

We should all be grateful for the opportunity to do the right thing. We should all be happy to do the right thing. Then we will all be well fed and healthy, and we will watch as the next generations inherit a fully functional Earth. That is where we need to be.

Restoring and Preserving

Emmanuelle:
Thank you, John. It feels so good to listen to both of you.

For the last few minutes of our time together, Anastassia, if you would like to close, I also want to express our gratitude for the friendship, for the Convergence, and for Michael Pilarski’s work. I think you have come more than once, and I know Michael loves that.

The movement he has been building for about fifty years, together with his team and the think tank, is exciting: 120 speakers online and in person, and then ongoing work after the Convergence. There is so much that will be shared. It will take a while to watch it all.

And there is also the call for one billion actors to repair the Earth in three years. The shift your work is helping make is so important: yes, carbon emissions are very important, and stopping them matters, but we also have to look at forests, oceans, and grasslands as having solutions. We have to let nature guide us through healing.

That brings so much hope, because then we do not only think about carbon emissions and feel bad. We can see that nature is still doing it. How can we honor and respect that, and continue to engage with and enjoy the gift of life?

So thank you so much, Anastassia. Would you like to close us with a few words?

Anastassia:
Yes. I think this is a very important endeavor that Michael and his team are championing.

Spreading knowledge and explaining things to people is essential. As John said, everybody can understand — and I totally agree. It is difficult to communicate feelings, because we have diverse backgrounds. But we can encode those feelings in a universally understandable language, because we are the same species.

The question is how to make this knowledge engaging, how to make it spread, and how to create an ignition — when people begin to burn with these noble feelings from within and energize each other.

I think this event is very important in that respect, and I wish it every success. Unfortunately, I cannot go in person, but I will participate online.

Emmanuelle:
Anastassia, you are mainly in St. Petersburg?

Anastassia:
Right now I am in St. Petersburg. But soon we will travel to Siberia, to the taiga forest.

Emmanuelle:
Wow.

Anastassia:
It is not possible to study something that you have not seen and felt. That is very important, because formulas do not communicate the full truth. But when you have seen the truth, you can write down the right formula — one that will have meaning, hopefully. That is at least how we think about our work: trying to make it meaningful.

Megan:
Beautiful. Do you have internet there in Siberia?

Anastassia:
No, no, no. No way. We do not even have electricity. You are totally immersed in nature.

We let ourselves be in nature. It is also a very particular emotional and spiritual experience, because you detach from the digital world and tune entirely to the green revival of nature.

In Siberia, spring comes and winter becomes summer very quickly. You see this burst of life coming from almost nowhere, and it carries you away with its wave. You feel that you are reviving.

And there are lots of mosquitoes. You go through all of this like any animal, and you feel that you are becoming part of it. That is very important.

Megan:
So you actually experience a different way of being human.

Anastassia:
Yes. We become part of the ecosystem.

Emmanuelle:
John, have you been to Siberia, to the taiga?

John:
I have been throughout the Soviet Union. Probably the most interesting is that I have been to Mongolia 30 or 35 times, up to where Lake Baikal is. I have also been several times on the Trans-Siberian Railway, so I got to see it.

But I would love to spend more time there. I also went closer to Moscow, looking at peatlands surrounding the city. They had been drained, as in many other places, but some of the most beautiful remaining places are there. Beavers have been coming back and restoring them. They were quite lovely. We need to do that all over the world as well: restore these wetland systems.

In some places of Europe, wetlands are being restored. Belarus is a conspicuous example

Los Angeles is absolutely the worst. I will have to share some of the work of a very interesting and lovely Chinese colleague who unfortunately passed away, Professor Yu Kongjian. He worked on the sponge city and sponge planet movement. They have done a thousand projects, mainly in estuaries where rivers meet the sea. They are just beautiful.

Then you come to Los Angeles and see this stupidity: concrete in the bottom of the Los Angeles River. It does not flow. It is all about rushing runoff out to the sea as fast as possible, when in fact they need all that water here. And of course they had the terrible fires burning down houses. It was ridiculous.

Outlook

Megan:
John, I know we are coming to the end of our conversation, but this is an aspect of your work that I find really interesting and have a lot of questions about: the diversity of places and ecosystems you have traveled to around the world.

On the one hand, there must be universal principles or ideas behind restoration. But at the same time, each ecosystem and each place has its own unique lifeways, cultures, and history. I would be fascinated to hear more about your learning process and how you think about engaging restoration in different contexts.

John:
Well, we would need quite a lot of time for that.

Emmanuelle:
Next episode.

John:
I would say that there are principles, and that this is one Earth. It is a single planet. As a planet, it is the interaction among all of the systems together that makes it functional.

We have nearby examples, such as Mars and Venus. If we look at those and start to think about what happened there, we have to look at the atmosphere, the water cycle, and the relatively benign temperatures that we have experienced here.

This is also a question about humanity: the rise of humanity, as opposed to other types of organisms. This interglacial period that we have emerged into is not normal, but it is here. Yesterday we were talking about coincidence or serendipity. It is like a miracle. It is a miracle that we have a planet like this, and that we live on this planet. It is wonderful.

We should be aware of that, and not live in selfish materialism. The Chinese concept of ecological civilization is very important, but it should be defined by consensus among people around the world — not by one culture alone.

China had to face the danger of starvation with a huge population of 1.4 billion people. Through rapid industrialization, moving from organic gardening to becoming the world’s manufacturing center, they also had to face pollution. They could not be terrified of the pollution; they had to deal with it.

The West has spoken a lot about electrification and reducing emissions. That matters, but it is not where true wealth lies. True wealth lies in restoring ecological function to everything.

That is what is going to happen. I used to get frustrated because I thought nobody was really listening to me. But the fact is that this is the truth, and there is no way that it will not be. It will happen either with human beings or without human beings. So we had better get on the right side immediately, so that we can enjoy this beautiful planet — and so can our children.

Emmanuelle:
It is very exciting. The world harmony, the world joy — when we speak with all of you, there is so much happiness and joy in the way your hearts are working and pulling your lives toward solutions. That is what nature wants us to do. I think nature wants us to do it together.

We are finally realizing that we can be part of the miracle on this miracle planet. The joy of coming together in that realization is what we all hope for.

Thank you so much for your big hearts, for all your insights, and for your great healing energy.

Megan:
Thank you. It has been so lovely, illuminating, and fascinating to be with you both. I really appreciate your sharing your insights with us, and I hope this is the first of many conversations.

Anastassia:
Thank you.

John:
Thank you.

https://www.globalearthrepairconvergence.com/

Related reading:

Disclaimer: Water availability (WA), water yield (Y) and runoff (R) are used interchangeably in this mini-series, with their very subtle differences discussed in Part I: Basic Notions. Evapotranspiration is denoted as either ET or E.

Increasing Precipitation and Water Availability, Decreasing Transpiration?

Figure 5a from An et al. (2025), showing ERA5 reanalysis trends in precipitation P, evapotranspiration ET, and water availability WA = P - ET during the two decades of re-greening.

We can see that water availability increased, while evapotranspiration decreased, during the studied period. This is the opposite of what a reader might take from the abstract of An et al. (2025), where land use and land cover changes (LUCC) are said to have increased evapotranspiration and decreased water availability:

Readers who do not examine how these results were obtained, and media reports that repeat the headline conclusion, may therefore miss the central point.

The direct ERA5 pattern is different: over the last two decades, water availability in China has been slightly increasing. Precipitation has been increasing as well, while evapotranspiration has been decreasing. How should we interpret this? And how can evapotranspiration decline over a re-greening area?

There are two possibilities.

The first is that the evapotranspiration trend itself is uncertain. As discussed in Parts I and II, evapotranspiration is not measured directly over large areas. It has to be inferred from flux-tower data, satellite information, land-surface models, and multiple parameterizations.

The most robust estimates usually come from watershed-scale mass balance: we measure precipitation, we measure streamflow, and we estimate evapotranspiration as the difference between them. But this method is not local. It depends on river-basin measurements, which remain uncertain in many regions. In China, consistent national-scale streamflow data have only recently become available (Wang et al., 2025).

This means that an evapotranspiration trend estimated as the difference between precipitation and runoff trends accumulates the uncertainties of both. It cannot be more robust than the underlying precipitation and runoff data.

It may therefore be that actual evapotranspiration in China has been increasing, together with rainfall and runoff. This would be similar to the wet-season pattern inferred for the Loess Plateau by Tian et al. (2022), using a different reanalysis product, MERRA-2.

A summary of discussed trends, Table 1 from https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09510

The second possibility, which we discuss below, is related to ecosystem processes.

Ecosystem Recovery, Atmospheric Dynamics, and the Water Cycle

When an ecosystem begins to recover from a major disturbance, plant biomass increases. Transpiration increases as well, adding moisture to the atmosphere. If plants have enough water to sustain transpiration, then as vegetation recovers, the atmosphere above and around it can become moister. This is indeed what has been reported for China: re-greening has been associated with an increase in atmospheric moisture content (Jiang et al. 2013).

At the initial stage of recovery, we can therefore expect a positive correlation between transpiration and atmospheric moisture. Atmospheric moisture, in turn, affects the probability of precipitation, but in a non-linear way. When moisture content is low, and the atmosphere is still dry and far from the dew point, adding more moisture may have little effect on precipitation. This is the dry regime: atmospheric moisture and transpiration increase markedly, while precipitation changes more slowly, if at all.

In this regime, shown in the picture below to the left of the red dot, water availability, or runoff, indeed decreases as transpiration increases:

ΔY = ΔP − ΔE < 0, because ΔP < ΔE.

Conceptual relationship among atmospheric moisture content, stage of ecological succession and changes in hydrological variables—precipitation P, evapotranspiration E and water yield Y=P-E —relative to their initial values. The red dot marks the transitional point at which the water-yield trend becomes positive. Fig. 2 from https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09510

If the ecosystem is allowed to recover further, the atmosphere may eventually become moist enough for atmospheric dynamics to change, condensation to intensify, and precipitation to increase rapidly. At the same time, transpiration does not increase as readily in an already moist atmosphere. This is the wet regime: water availability begins to rise as evapotranspiration grows slowly and precipitation grows rapidly:

ΔY = ΔP − ΔE > 0, because now ΔP > ΔE.

If we recall the three-stage scheme discussed in Part II, in the section “Re-Greening and Moisture Convergence,” then early succession in the figure above corresponds to panels (a, d), intermediate succession to panels (b, e), and mature ecosystem to panels (c, f).

If a region alternates between dry and wet regimes during the year, recovering vegetation could affect the water budget in different ways in different seasons. During the dry season, better soil cover could reduce direct evaporation from previously bare soil, thus increasing water availability. During the wet season, vegetation could increase transpiration, when additional moisture input to the atmosphere is more likely to enhance moisture convergence and precipitation, thus raising water yield, as in the Loess Plateau example shown in the table above.

Depending on the relative magnitudes of these seasonal effects, annual mean water availability could increase even if annual mean evapotranspiration declines. This could happen, for example, if reduced dry-season evaporation from bare soil outweighs a smaller wet-season increase in transpiration.

This is the second possible explanation for declining evapotranspiration in a re-greening region. The downward trend may reflect a reduction of uncontrolled evaporation during the dry season, due to better soil cover, combined with a smaller increase in transpiration during the wet season, when most moisture convergence and precipitation occur.

This is the essence of ecological succession as a water-cycle process: reducing unnecessary moisture losses while making more effective moisture “investments” through transpiration, at the time when these investments are most likely to support atmospheric moisture import and precipitation.

This dual hydrological behavior during ecological restoration parallels the ecological concept of a landscape trap (Lindenmayer et al. 2022). Mature, relatively undisturbed forest ecosystems tend to be hydrologically stable and resistant to droughts and fires (Xiao et al. 2023; Wolf et al. 2023). Logging or other disturbances can shift such systems toward early successional states that are less hydrologically competent. If disturbance exceeds a threshold, the system may enter a trajectory of drying and burning from which recovery becomes increasingly difficult. The inability of early successional systems to stabilize a moist regime is consistent with the characteristics of the dry hydrological stage shown in the above figure.

In China, contrasting assessments of the relationship between water yield and ecological restoration may reflect the complexity of these ecological processes. After two to three decades of re-greening, large areas remain in relatively early successional stages, often dominated by naturally recovering grasslands rather than planted tree stands (Yu et al. 2023).

In such conditions, analyses confined to moisture recycling alone may suggest that further ecological restoration threatens local streamflow. However, if restoration is viewed as a dynamic progression between hydrological regimes, short-term reductions in water availability may be followed by a trend reversal, with water availability beginning to grow.

Conversely, ecosystem destruction should lead to a decline of the water cycle. Recent global forest-change assessments indicate that the dominant hotspots of forest loss and disturbance during 2000–2020 were tropical forests in the Amazon Basin, the Congo Basin, and Southeast Asia, together with extensive tree-cover loss and disturbance in boreal regions of Canada and Russia. In contrast, several temperate and subtropical regions, notably parts of Asia, have exhibited net forest and vegetation gain over the same period, driven in particular by large-scale re-greening in China and India.

Consistent with this pattern, global maps of water-yield trends for 2000–2020 highlight tropical regions, Canada, and Siberia as areas with a tendency toward declining water yield, while India and China stand out as among the few large regions where water yield has increased, at least at regional scales.

Fig. 1B from Zhang et al. 2023. Global trends in water availability in 2001-2020.

Summary

In this mini-series, I wanted to describe some caveats that a general reader may miss in the scientific literature on the vegetation-water nexus. But I also wanted to present an ecosystem perspective on water-cycle recovery, and to highlight the complexity of these processes.

The caveats. If you are a water-cycle practitioner, ecosystem restorer, or forest protector looking to the scientific literature for guidance, it is useful to pause whenever you encounter a statement such as: “[deforestation, afforestation, replanting] caused [runoff, precipitation, cloudiness, evapotranspiration] to increase or decrease.” The first question is simple: did the variable itself actually increase or decrease in the studied region over the studied period?

If the observed trend has the opposite sign, or no clear trend at all, then the reported “vegetation impact” is not a directly observed change. It is a reconstructed effect, obtained by separating vegetation change from the broader climatic background using a particular set of assumptions.

This does not automatically make the result wrong. But it means that the conclusion depends on the method. The assumptions used to isolate the vegetation effect may be appropriate for the region studied, or they may not. They may also miss important processes, such as vegetation effects on atmospheric circulation. If the reported vegetation impact is reconstructed rather than directly observed, the next step is to examine the method: how was vegetation change separated from climate variability, and which effects of vegetation were included or excluded?

Ecosystem perspective. Water is cycled on land through complex and interrelated processes. We still know relatively little about many of them, especially over long timescales and at large spatial scales. This is why the best strategy is to make nature our ally and follow the natural process of ecological succession as closely as possible, allowing the water cycle to recover through ecosystem self-restoration. Where recovery is active and human-assisted, the same principle applies: mimicking natural processes is often reported to be the most productive way forward (Andrade et al., 2020; Pasini et al., 2021).

The high hydrological competence of minimally disturbed ecosystems, together with the slow nature of ecological succession, provides a strong rationale for preserving natural vegetation wherever it remains. Within China, there is increasing recognition that tree cover constitutes a foundation of environmental stability. A consistent extension of this principle is to support the protection of natural forests beyond national boundaries, particularly in Eurasia and the tropics, where deforestation exerts a disproportionate influence on atmospheric circulation and climate stability. In this context, the concept of Ecological Civilization advanced by China can be understood not only as a national development framework, but as a basis for coordinated global action to preserve one of the Earth’s most effective climate-regulating systems: natural forests.

Photo by Alexei Aleinikov

Related reading:

In Part I, we discussed why it is so difficult to measure the invisible part of that cycle, especially evaporation and transpiration.

With plants in pots, this would be easy. They evaporate and transpire exactly as much water as we pour in.

But it is different for plants growing in soil. Unlike in a pot, not all water that enters the soil returns to the atmosphere. Some of it leaks downward and ultimately returns to the ocean. We cannot see how much water escapes from beneath a particular plant. We can only say that, in a steady state, when the plant is not depleting soil moisture, it transpires less water than the atmosphere delivers as rain.

Now suppose we did our best. We covered the territory in question with multiple rain gauges to measure precipitation P, which, as Bruce Danckwerts reminds us from Zambia, can be very far from spatially uniform. We measured the streamflow of the river draining this territory to estimate runoff R. And we continued these measurements long enough for soil moisture to equilibrate, so that dS/dt = 0.

In this case, we can estimate the average evapotranspiration over the territory from mass conservation, the simple fact that water does not disappear into nowhere:

E = P − R.

Both P and R come with their own uncertainties. For E, which is deduced from P and R, these uncertainties accumulate, making evapotranspiration the least certain of the three estimates.

Some additional constraints, however, come from atmospheric data. This brings us to a peculiar data-model hybrid called reanalysis. Reanalyses play an enormous role in modern environmental research. To judge how robust a given conclusion or prediction is, we need to understand what they are, and what they are not.

The Reanalyses Miracle

As we discussed in Part I, the water budgets of the atmosphere and the ground are tightly linked, but not symmetrically. The atmosphere is a net supplier of moisture to land: it draws water evaporated from the ocean inland and delivers it to the ground as rainfall. The ground is a net loser of moisture: part of the received water runs off under gravity and ultimately returns to the ocean.

Over our territory, we can measure the winds that bring moisture in and the winds that carry moisture away. The difference between the two is the net moisture import into the region, called atmospheric moisture convergence C. In a steady state, this surplus must equal what the ground loses as runoff:

C = R.

One useful feature of wind fields is that they can be constrained by satellite observations, giving us a global picture, including regions where direct runoff measurements are sparse or unavailable. So, when we talk about a region as large and varied as China, we cannot be too choosy. We need to consider the water cycle from both sides and use all available data: from the atmosphere above and from the rivers below.

To combine these many imperfect pieces of evidence, scientists use reanalysis products. A reanalysis gathers diverse observations, combines them with a weather model, adjusts the result toward physical consistency, and places the estimates on a regular grid, usually about one degree latitude and longitude in resolution. It is not a pure observation, and not a free-running model either. It is a data-model hybrid that gives us the best available estimate of many atmospheric variables at each location and time.

Because the optimization criteria for combining observations with the model can vary, different reanalysis products can give different estimates of the same variable. Each product reflects a particular way of blending imperfect observations with physical constraints. Once this blending is done, the end user receives something almost miraculous: a detailed global picture in which wind, temperature, humidity, pressure, rainfall, evaporation, and many other variables are available for almost every place and time.

The underlying uncertainties and mismatches do not disappear, but they are hidden from view. One can download various variables and use them directly in further analysis. This is enormously convenient, but it also means that the assumptions built into the product can quietly travel into later conclusions.

In this sense, using a reanalysis is a little like placing money in a managed fund. You may receive a tidy number at the end, but the choices that produced it, and whether you are comfortable with those choices, are not always clear unless you look carefully.

(For a more specific discussion of different reanalysis products in the context of the soil moisture budget, see “We Are Losing Soil Moisture, Why?)

Assumptions about Re-Greening Impacts

But even if we decide to take reanalysis data at face value, this is not the end of our problems. Suppose our territory has been re-greening for decades, while rainfall, evaporation, runoff, winds, and moisture convergence have all been changing too. Which changes are caused by re-greening itself, and which come from the larger climate system moving in the background?

This is a fundamental question.

A common approach, adopted also by An et al. (2025), whose work we began to discuss in Part I, is to assume that the effect of added vegetation consists of returning more moisture to the atmosphere through enhanced transpiration. We can call this the moisture-recycling approach.

Since transpiring more is precisely what extra vegetation is expected to do, the limitation of this assumption is not immediately obvious. However, this assumption unambiguously predicts reduced runoff when transpiration increases. To see why, let us follow the research scheme of An et al. (2025).

Their analysis starts by defining added evapotranspiration. Each vegetation type is assigned characteristic evapotranspiration values at each time step. So, if grassland is converted to forest, the re-greening effect is calculated as the difference between two estimates: the actual evapotranspiration of the forest and the hypothetical evapotranspiration that the original grassland would have had under the same local conditions.

Thus, the actual evapotranspiration can come from the reanalysis, but the re-greening effect is not simply the observed trend. It is the difference between the new vegetation and a reference version of the old vegetation. Therefore, trends in actual evapotranspiration and in added evapotranspiration need not coincide.

Once this added evapotranspiration is defined, the corresponding change in precipitation is estimated with a moisture-tracking model. In plain language: the model marks the extra moisture released by the new vegetation and follows where it rains out within China.

Now comes the crucial point: some of the extra moisture released by the new vegetation can leave China without raining out there. Therefore, in this framework, the re-greening-related increase in precipitation, ΔPᵣ, cannot exceed the corresponding increase in evapotranspiration, ΔEᵣ:

ΔPᵣ ≤ ΔEᵣ.

Here we recall our water budget equation:

R = P − E.

If re-greening changes precipitation by ΔPᵣ and evapotranspiration by ΔEᵣ, and the latter is larger than, or equal to, the former, then runoff R changes by:

ΔRᵣ = ΔPᵣ − ΔEᵣ ≤ 0.

In other words, in this setting, runoff can never increase.

The added vegetation is assumed to return more water from the ground to the atmosphere. Some of this water may rain out again inside China, but some may leave the country as atmospheric moisture. What is not allowed in this scheme is the opposite effect: re-greening being associated with additional moisture drawn from outside. With that possibility excluded, the water available for runoff can only stay the same or decline.

This result follows from the way the problem has been framed. It is not, by itself, evidence that runoff actually declined in the real world.

This distinction is important. The work of An et al. (2025) was widely understood as referring to actual changes in precipitation ΔP, evapotranspiration ΔE, and water availability or runoff ΔR observed in China during the decades of re-greening. In fact, however, these statements refer to hypothetical changes in these variables, ΔPᵣ, ΔEᵣ, and ΔRᵣ, calculated under the moisture-recycling assumptions described above.

What actually happened in China during these years is a separate question. We will turn to it in the next post.

Re-Greening and Moisture Convergence

Let me now summarize what we have discussed so far with a picture.

The left and right panels show the same air circulation and water cycle, but the landscape is omitted from the right panels for clarity. Fig. 1 from https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09510

We first consider desert land bordering the ocean and receiving occasional rain (panels a,d). There is no vegetation and no evapotranspiration. All precipitated water drains back to the ocean. Light-blue arrows show the inflow of moist air that rises and generates precipitation. White arrows show dry air, depleted of moisture, leaving the area. The same number of air arrows enters and leaves. Precipitation P is shown by the vertical dark-blue arrow, while runoff (water yield Y) is shown by the slanted dark-blue arrow.

Now we add some vegetation to the landscape, while keeping air circulation unchanged (panels b, e). Transpiration by plants (E) returns some of the precipitated moisture back to the atmosphere, where it can re-precipitate. Thus, precipitation has increased compared to the desert state: the same amount of air rises per unit time, but it is now wetter, so more rain is generated.

However, because the air has become wetter, some moisture now leaves the area with the outgoing low-level air instead of contributing to runoff. Hence, runoff has decreased relative to the desert state, although it can become more stable, as we will discuss below.

Finally, we consider a state in which added vegetation has moistened the atmosphere enough to change its dynamics: more moisture now flows in with the air and rises over the region (panels c, f). There is also more moisture outflow, just as the Amazon forest moistens agricultural regions downwind. But the net moisture transport has increased, and so has runoff.

Compared with both the desert state and the intermediate state, in this biotic-pump regime both precipitation and runoff have increased.

Outlook

I would like to conclude by discussing a few responses to the above arguments, especially those raised in an open-access discussion in the Eco-Restoration Alliance (with insightful comments from Hart Hagan, Judy Schwartz and Neal Spackman, among others). In particular, Didi Pershouse listed several important water-related effects of vegetation (a related point was raised by Rob Lewis in his comment):

Let us discuss these points using the same mass-conservation framework with which we have been following the hydrological cycle in China.

• There is a positive relationship between soil moisture and subsurface runoff. For a given porous structure and landscape slope, the more moisture the soil contains, the more water can leak downward and drain under gravity.

  Dry soils drain little. Wet soils drain more, but they cannot drain more water than the atmosphere delivers. This places an atmospheric limit on how wet the soil can become.

  In the extreme case, imagine a devegetated landscape with dry soil, no infiltration, and 100% surface runoff. Without changes in atmospheric circulation, the maximum possible increase in soil moisture storage is limited by the flow of water that can be shifted from surface to subsurface runoff.

• Both evaporation and transpiration cool the surface from which they occur. Physically, they are essentially the same process: liquid water becomes vapor by consuming energy.

  While reduced evaporation diminishes uncontrolled soil moisture losses from the soil surface, cooling of the surface as a whole means that transpiration and evaporation together (evapotranspiration) have increased compared to the unvegetated state. The cooler and wetter soil sends more moisture to the atmosphere than in the unvegetated state.

• If evapotranspiration has increased, but atmospheric moisture transport has not, runoff must decline. Even in the extreme case where the unvegetated landscape had 100% surface runoff, the restored landscape cannot drain the same amount of water if it now sends more water to the atmosphere. Its total runoff (surface and subsurface) must be lower by the amount of increased evapotranspiration.

In summary:

Long-term mass conservation says nothing about how runoff is partitioned in space and time: whether it comes as irregular, mostly surface runoff following irregular rains, or as steadier drainage from wet soil throughout the year.

One could argue that much of the flashy runoff is lost in any case, while steadier drainage is more useful, even if it is smaller in total. In many cases, this is a valid and important argument. Moreover, from the plants’ perspective, runoff is water that was not used for transpiration. It is an indispensable loss, the price of keeping soil moist. Thus, a reduction in runoff does not necessarily interfere with ecosystem restoration itself. It can be a normal initial stage of recovery.

In other human contexts, however, total runoff matters. For example, a hydropower plant may collect streamflow in a dam and use the stored water to generate electricity. Or a dam may collect water for later irrigation. In such cases, the irregularity of flow may matter less than the total volume of water that arrives. This becomes especially relevant when restoration efforts scale up and their hydrological impact can be felt at the regional level.

The same logic applies to beavers. They slow water down and moisten the soil locally, which can increase vegetation and transpiration, shifting part of the water route from streamflow to the atmosphere. If atmospheric circulation does not change, this will reduce the streamflow that reaches people downstream. There is little point in arguing whether beavers and the associated vegetation “contribute water” to the watershed without explicitly defining what “contributing” means.

There is much confusion around the terms “water availability,” “water yield,” and “runoff,” which I tried to clarify in Part I. How much moisture the soil contains is one variable. How much water an area drains is another. In some cases, they are positively related. In others, they can change in opposite directions. Increased rain is not equivalent to increased runoff. Removing trees that “steal water” at early stages of ecosystem recovery may permanently lock the ecosystem in a desert state. More about that in the next post.

The bottom line is that we cannot understand the water cycle, or its changes, by focusing only on the soil, only on the atmosphere and winds, or only on streamflow. Nor can we communicate this complex subject clearly to our peers without being explicit about these different components. We need to see how they relate to one another, and how vegetation interacts with all of them. This can help avoid unnecessary controversies when navigating the complex landscape of different stakeholder interests and advocating vegetation-mediated water-cycle restoration. It is also essential for my primary concern: the preservation of extant water-competent ecosystems. Simply understanding what the other side means can make our own narrative more accurate and constructive.

If ecological restoration produces a cooler and wetter area that drains more water than it did when devegetated, this means that more moisture has been brought in by the atmosphere. The biotic pump has been activated.

Related reading:

China, which has added vegetation to its land on a massive scale in recent decades, provides a unique setting in which to study these questions.

Image source: NASA

In October 2025, a very interesting study was published in Earth’s Future, a journal of the American Geophysical Union: An et al. (2025) “Land Cover Changes Redistribute China’s Water Resources Through Atmospheric Moisture Recycling”.

This study concluded that the vegetation added in China increased rainfall and evapotranspiration, but reduced the country’s overall water availability. To quote the abstract:

The study was, unsurprisingly, picked up by many news outlets, including Popular Mechanics, Live Science and Earth.com, and seems to have resonated widely. In late 2025 and early 2026, several colleagues from around the world asked me to comment on it. Since the study is directly relevant to the biotic pump concept — which predicts an increase, not a reduction, in water availability on land — we decided to look into the issue more closely.

An unexpected conclusion, which I would like to share in this mini-series of posts, is that the study’s finding of reduced water availability due to added vegetation was effectively predefined by its methodology. In other words, the assessment was framed in such a way that reduced water availability emerged independently of the data, as a built-in consequence of the underlying assumptions.

This unusual situation is a good illustration of just how complex vegetation–hydrology feedbacks really are and, I hope, offers readers an engaging way into the subject, even if it is somewhat dense. To me, there is no better entry into a complex field than through a controversy. While the textbook route can leave one with passive knowledge and the illusion of understanding, analyzing a live controversy keeps the mind alert and prepares it for the task of creating new knowledge.

So let us follow the path of water in China.

The Water Cycle Components and Terminology

We begin with the fundamentals. To understand the water cycle, it helps to look at it from two complementary perspectives: from the ground, where water is received and stored, and from the atmosphere, which delivers it and takes it away.

From the ground perspective, water arrives as precipitation, P. Once it reaches the land, it can follow three paths. It can return to the atmosphere through evaporation and plant transpiration, together called evapotranspiration, E. Second, it can run off under gravity as either surface flow or subsurface runoff or streamflow, R, eventually making its way to the ocean.

Or it can remain on land, accumulating below ground as soil moisture and groundwater. This third pathway is different from the first two. Evapotranspiration and runoff are flows: they move water from one reservoir to another. Storage change is not a flow. It describes what happens when water stays in place and the local moisture store grows or shrinks.

To make this distinction explicit, we denote the storage term in the water budget as dS/dt, where S is the local moisture store. This notation means the rate at which storage changes with time: a small change in storage, dS, over a small interval of time, dt.

These quantities are tied together by the most basic physical law: conservation of matter. Water does not appear from nowhere, and it does not vanish into nowhere. Whatever falls on land as precipitation must do one of three things: return to the atmosphere, leave as runoff, or remain on land by changing storage. This gives the basic water-budget equation:

P = E + R + dS/dt.

Every drop of precipitation must follow one of these paths. It can rise into the air, flow to the sea, or stay and build the hidden reserves of moisture underground.

Water Yield and Water Availability

Let us now clear up a potential source of confusion. In hydrology, runoff R is sometimes referred to as water yield, as in this old hydrological dictionary:

Screenshot from “General Introduction and Hydrologic Definitions” by W. B. Langbein and K. T. Iseri (1960), Manual of Hydrology: Part 1. General Surface-Water Techniques.

The point of this term is to capture all forms of runoff together: surface runoff, subsurface runoff, and streamflow. The dictionary states that water yield is equal to precipitation minus evapotranspiration, R = P - E. But from the water-budget equation above, we can see that this is true only in a steady state, when local water storage does not change and dS/dt = 0.

Here the difference between flows and storage change becomes especially clear. A steady state means that, over the period considered, the local moisture store remains unchanged. Reservoirs may already be full, with no capacity to hold additional incoming moisture. Or rainfall may fail to infiltrate the soil and instead leave entirely as surface runoff, while the soil itself remains persistently dry. In such cases, storage does not change: dS/dt = 0.

A similar simplification often applies over sufficiently long timescales. Since local storage is finite, it cannot continue to influence the water budget indefinitely. Over long enough periods, storage changes usually become small relative to the fluxes, and one can approximately set dS/dt = 0.

So, in a steady state, the transient storage term drops out, while the flows remain. The budget equation becomes simply

P = E + R.

Only in this case is runoff, or water yield, equal to precipitation minus evapotranspiration.

In the general case, however, not all precipitation that is not returned to the atmosphere becomes runoff. Some of it may remain on land, replenishing soil moisture and groundwater, or offsetting an ongoing depletion of these reserves.

Outside steady state, P - E is therefore better understood not as runoff alone, but as water availability in a broader sense. It is the water left on land after evapotranspiration, to be divided between runoff and storage change. This is the definition adopted by An et al. (2025):

Atmospheric Perspective

Let us now look at the same water budget from the atmosphere. Precipitation, which delivers moisture to the ground, removes it from the air. Evapotranspiration does the reverse: it draws water from the ground and returns it to the atmosphere. There is also a third pathway by which the atmosphere gains moisture locally: transport by the winds.

The winds carry only a small amount of moisture, typically less than 1% of air mass. If air simply passes through horizontally, the net import of moisture, also known as atmospheric moisture convergence, is zero. But if that moist air rises and cools, its water vapor condenses and precipitates. The air leaving the region is then drier than the air entering it, and the atmosphere has delivered moisture to the surface.

In this scheme, we view the water cycle from the perspective of the atmosphere. Moist air enters and leaves the region (light blue arrows), while drier air flows out (white arrows): whatever air enters must, in the end, also leave. Evapotranspiration (curved light-green arrows) adds moisture to the atmosphere, while precipitation (the downward blue arrow) removes it.

The local budget of atmospheric moisture M can be written as

dM/dt = E + Fᵢₙ − Fₒᵤₜ − P.

Here Fᵢₙ is the incoming moisture flux and Fₒᵤₜ is the outgoing moisture flux. Their difference,

C = Fᵢₙ − Fₒᵤₜ,

is called atmospheric moisture convergence.

A key point is that the atmosphere can hold only a limited amount of water. At terrestrial temperatures, water vapor condenses readily, so atmospheric moisture storage is necessarily small. Even over tropical oceans, the total atmospheric moisture content — consisting mostly of water vapor, with only minor contributions from cloud water and precipitation water — is only about 40 mm. That is the depth of water that would form if all atmospheric moisture above a given surface area were condensed and brought to the ground.

This is very little. With typical tropical precipitation of about 4–5 mm/day, the entire atmospheric moisture store turns over in just a few days. So when we average over periods longer than about a week, the storage term dM/dt becomes negligible compared with the fluxes themselves.

In that case, the atmospheric water budget simplifies to

P = E + C,

which means that, from the atmospheric point of view, evapotranspiration and moisture convergence are the sources of moisture, while precipitation is the sink.

From the ground perspective, conversely, precipitation supplies moisture to the ground, while evapotranspiration and runoff remove it:

P = E + R.

Here the link between land and atmosphere becomes clear: whatever moisture the atmosphere brings to a location ultimately leaves it as runoff:

C = P - E = R.

Outside steady state, the balance acquires an additional term. Atmospheric moisture convergence then equals water availability:

The Big Measurement Problem: The Visible and the Invisible

By now we have assembled quite a list of key variables, all linked to one another and all potentially altered when vegetation is added to the landscape: precipitation, runoff in its various forms, atmospheric moisture convergence, evaporation and transpiration, and local water storage in soil moisture and groundwater. Atmospheric moisture itself is tiny by comparison and, on timescales of several days or more, remains close to steady state.

What is crucial to keep in mind is that all of these quantities are measured in very different ways. The visible parts of the water cycle, such as precipitation and streamflow, are the easiest to measure. In China, one of the earliest references to precipitation measurement appears in Qin Jiushao’s Mathematical Treatise in Nine Sections, published in 1247. According to Strangeways (2010),

Below is a modern precipitation gauge in Yakutia. Like its older counterparts, it measures precipitation at a single location.

In contrast, runoff is conventionally measured as the streamflow draining a given area. It therefore represents an integrated, rather than local, property of the drainage basin. For example, the Óbidos gauge station on the Amazon River measures streamflow from a drainage area of nearly five million square kilometers. This is done in a relatively straightforward way, by measuring water level and flow velocity. However, such measurements do not account for groundwater outflow from the basin. That component must be treated separately and can only be included through additional assumptions.

To compare such a runoff estimate with precipitation, we would need multiple rain gauges spread across the basin and capable of capturing the rainfall variability that matters for the area average. In modern times, we can also rely on satellite estimates of precipitation, but these, too, are ultimately calibrated against ground-based measurements.

Soil moisture and deeper groundwater present measurement problems of their own. To mention just one, measuring soil moisture along a deep profile corresponding to the rooting zone of large trees may require drilling or boring holes and installing sensors in the soil. But this very act disturbs the local soil and biota, and may itself alter soil moisture.

A sensor for assessing soil moisture. An electromagnetic pulse is sent along metal rods, and its propagation time depends on the water content of the surrounding soil.

The Invisible

But the real difficulties begin when we turn to the invisible parts of the cycle: atmospheric moisture convergence and evapotranspiration.

To estimate atmospheric moisture convergence, we would need to track, with very high accuracy, the velocity and water vapor content of all air masses entering and leaving a given area. This is already a demanding task. Water vapor is only a minor constituent of the atmosphere, and its distribution is highly uneven in space and time. As a result, even when air motion itself is represented reasonably well, the transport of water vapor may still be estimated poorly.

A natural check is to compare atmospheric estimates of moisture convergence with runoff measured independently at the ground (remember, C = R). This check is not always passed. For example, global climate models may describe large-scale circulation reasonably well, yet when their atmospheric moisture convergence is compared with observed runoff in major river basins, substantial discrepancies remain. For the Amazon, the mismatch can reach about 50%.

Data from Hagemann et al. 2011 showing discrepancies between atmospheric moisture convergence and river runoff in some river basins

And yet atmospheric moisture convergence is not the hardest quantity to estimate. After all, it still depends on variables we know, in principle, how to measure: air motion and water vapor concentration.

Evaporation and transpiration are even more elusive.

The reason is simple. They add water vapor to the atmosphere very slowly compared with how quickly winds mix that vapor over space. Consider a small vegetable garden of 100 square meters. Let cumulative evaporation and transpiration be E = 2 mm/day. This means that the garden contributes 200 kg of water vapor to the atmosphere per day, because a water layer 1 mm deep spread over 1 square meter weighs 1 kg.

Now let the mean wind speed be u = 2 m/s, and let the column water vapor content be M = 30 mm, that is, 30 kg/m². For a square garden of area 100 m², the side length is L = 10 m. Under these conditions, the gross atmospheric moisture flow across one side of the garden in one day is M u L = about 52 million kilograms, or 52 thousand tons of water.

The garden contributes 200 kg of water vapor per day, while the moving atmosphere carries 52 thousand tons across it. The local evaporative signal is thus submerged in a vastly larger moving background.

And this mixing interferes in important ways. Suppose, for example, that we want to infer transpiration intensity from the temperature contrast between a transpiring patch, such as the small fir tree in the picture below, and a nearby dry surface. Under clear and windless conditions, such a contrast can become very large, reaching several tens of degrees Celsius. But in cloudy or windy weather, it is smoothed by atmospheric mixing. How strongly it is smoothed depends not only on wind speed, but also on season, surface roughness, and other factors that are rarely known with sufficient precision.

Local cooling from plant transpiration. With incoming solar radiation of about 1 kW m⁻², dry area on the deforested plot (left) has temperature of 55.3°C. Young transpiring trees (right) lower the surface temperature by almost 30°C. Distance between the two spots is 1 m. Measurements and photo credit Jan Pokorný.

For this reason, local estimates of evaporation and transpiration can be highly uncertain and heavily dependent on parameterization. I often cite the study by Teuling (2018), who pointed out a striking example. When transpiration is estimated from flux towers, that is, from local measurements of water vapor concentrations and turbulent transport (the atmospheric perspective), one may conclude that grasslands transpire more than forests. But when transpiration is estimated at larger scales from the ground-based water budget, as precipitation minus runoff, the conclusion is reversed: forests transpire more than grasslands.

This gives some sense of the conceptual and practical difficulty of measuring this invisible, yet fundamentally important, part of the water cycle.

What We Have Discussed in Part I

• On the ground, precipitation is partitioned between evapotranspiration, runoff, and local moisture storage:

  P = E + R + dS/dt.

• In the atmosphere, precipitation is partitioned between evapotranspiration and atmospheric moisture convergence:
  P = E + C.

• In a steady-state,
  R = C.

• All of these variables can, with varying difficulty, be measured independently. But when we combine them as mass conservation requires, gross mismatches often appear.

• Evaporation and, especially, transpiration are the hardest to measure, because their signal must be extracted against strong atmospheric mixing. In practice, the most reliable estimate comes from the ground-based water budget: from known precipitation and runoff.

In the next part, we will look at how plant impacts on the water cycle can be studied under these conditions — and how built-in assumptions can drastically alter the outcome of the analysis. Please stay tuned. In the meantime, your comments are very welcome.

Also, please note that tomorrow, Saturday, 18 April 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon ET, I will take part in the online mini-conference “Protect and Restore Ecosystems to Cool the Climate” , organized by our great friends at Biodiversity for a Livable Climate. The event is free and will include a discussion. You are very welcome to register and join.

The Australian Monsoon Enigma

The first insightful commentary comes from Jane Morton, as communicated by David Maher from Rehydrate Earth, Australia, who also did the literature compilation:

I would like to say how highly I value your work. It seems to me that the concept of the biotic pump is one of the most important scientific insights for explaining climate and the functioning of ecosystems, and I try, whenever possible, to introduce Australian scientists and members of the climate movement to it. I also follow closely the research on the possible direct cooling effect of forests.

I would like to note one small point that may be more about the way it is presented than about the substance itself. In several of your talks you refer to the Johnson et al. (1999) study on emu eggshells as evidence of a dramatic change in vegetation in Australia. For example, this appears at about the 44-minute mark in this talk.

The difficulty I encounter when discussing your work here is that this particular study is debated within palaeoecology, and in Australia it can also be politically sensitive, since it is sometimes interpreted as claiming that traditional Aboriginal land-management practices led to ecological collapse.

As a result, critics sometimes focus specifically on this reference rather than discussing the much stronger aspects of your argument concerning the connections between vegetation and precipitation and the associated atmospheric dynamics. In practice this often becomes an unnecessary distraction.

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that the central point you are making does not actually depend on this particular study, since there is now a substantial body of evidence showing that vegetation has a strong influence on precipitation and atmospheric circulation.

Here is a short note reviewing part of the relevant literature — it may possibly be useful:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IczPzeg8Ptc67GjygftaIYGXy7RT7iFB/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=114682885048490279765&rtpof=true&sd=true

If you have the time, I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this, because I try to represent your work as accurately as possible when discussing it with people here.

In any case, thank you again for the outstanding work you have done on this topic. I consider these ideas extremely important and try to help ensure that they are taken seriously here in Australia.

Thank you very much for your kind words and interest in our work!

I want to explain first why possible human links to Australian drying matter. The biotic pump concept proposes that natural vegetation can strengthen the terrestrial water cycle by drawing atmospheric moisture inland from the ocean. If so, the disappearance or recovery of natural vegetation, together with the associated changes in rainfall and runoff, can serve as a real-world test of the theory. But such a test is only clean when these changes are not entangled with a larger geophysical shift in climate. Otherwise, it becomes hard to tell what is biotic and what is geophysical.

Evidence in support of the biotic pump comes from three main cases where these influences can, to a substantial degree, be told apart. The first is the Amazon rainforest. The Amazon appears to set up its own rainy season well before favorable geophysical conditions arrive, that is, before the Intertropical Convergence Zone reaches the region. Because the ocean covers most of Earth and supplies most evaporation, the near-equatorial rainfall belt normally follows the Sun from one hemisphere to the other. But the Amazon moves earlier. By producing new leaves, intensifying transpiration, and moistening the air, it starts drawing moisture inland ahead of the expected seasonal schedule. You can read more about these processes and their study in The Amazon's Seasonal Secret from NASA.

Meridional distribution of zonal winds, vertical air motion in the major circulation cells (Hadley, Ferrel, and Polar), sea level pressure, and precipitation. The seasonally shifting geophysical precipitation peak associated with the Intertropical Convergence Zone is highlighted in yellow. Source: Makarieva and Gorshkov 2015.

The second line of evidence comes from the Eurasian boreal forest, a remarkable forest belt about seven thousand kilometers long. Its strong seasonality allows us to compare moisture transport when the forest is active with moisture transport when it is dormant, again helping separate biotic effects from geophysical ones. When the forest is dormant, precipitation and runoff fall off sharply from west to east. When it is active, strong inland moisture transport feeds the great Siberian rivers.

The Australian example is another important case in this sequence. Much of the Australian continent lies within the geophysical downwelling zone of the Hadley and Ferrel circulation cells (see the scheme above). Descending air warms and suppresses rainfall. For rain to form, air must rise, allowing the water vapor it contains to cool and condense. These geophysical conditions place important limits on what vegetation can achieve in facilitating the water cycle.

In other words, Australia is a geophysically difficult continent. Ecosystems there must work especially hard to sustain, so to speak, the biotic pump. Conversely, the threshold of stability is lower than in more favorable regions, so the system is more easily disrupted.

It is therefore unsurprising that Australia has experienced repeated periods of wetting and drying in response to large-scale climatic shifts, as shown, for example, by studies of changing water abundance in Lake Eyre. What is remarkable, however, is that after the arrival of the first humans around 50 thousand years ago, drying set in, and the monsoon that had delivered moisture inland never recovered, despite subsequently more favorable geophysical conditions.

Let us take a look at these data from Magee et al. 2004 “Continuous 150 k.y. monsoon record from Lake Eyre, Australia: Insolation-forcing implications and unexpected Holocene failure”:

Figure 3 of Magee et al. 2004. Lake Eyre record of lake level (from Fig. 2), lake area, and lake volume (DeVogel et al., 2004) as proxy for Australian monsoon compared with sea level (Lambeck and Chappell, 2001) and variations in January insolation for 50°N and 20°S (Berger and Loutre, 1991) over past 150 k.y. Playa-floor deflation events, indicative of significant aridity and therefore reduced Australian monsoon, are included only where there is stratigraphic or sedimentologic evidence for deflation. AHD—Australian height datum (mean sea level).

The researchers consider whether the wetter and drier periods can be linked to changes in insolation, but ultimately conclude as follows (with my emphasis):

Regardless of which hemisphere’s insolation exerts the strongest control, the early Holocene phase I lake level was strikingly lower than the levels achieved early in the last interglacial, when sea level and insolation forcing were similar. This contrast is further enhanced by comparison with the last significant lacustrine event, which was related to more effective penetration of monsoon moisture into the continental interior at 65–60 ka (phase III, at 23.5 m relative to AHD), when sea level was much lower and astronomic forcing less favorable than in the Holocene in both hemispheres (Fig. 3). …

There is abundant evidence of substantial reinvigoration of the planetary monsoon in the early Holocene from outside Australia (Carmouze and Lemoalle, 1983; Hoelzmann et al., 2000; Liu and Ding, 1998; Rousseau et al., 2000; Wasson, 1995; Williams et al., 2000) and coeval reactivation of the monsoon along the northern Australian fringe (Nanson et al., 1991; Nott and Price, 1994). We attribute the failure of the Holocene monsoon to penetrate into the Australian interior, as it had done as recently as 65–60 ka, to be related to a change in boundary conditions over the Australian landmass. Decreasing the transfer of moisture from the biosphere to the atmosphere during the monsoon season would inhibit the penetration of monsoon rainfall into the Lake Eyre catchment. A plausible boundary-condition change that could affect the efficiency of landward transfer of monsoon moisture is the large-scale alteration of the biota—by human burning—across the northern half of the continent, as suggested by Johnson et al. (1999) from vegetation changes recorded in the carbon isotopic signature of emu eggshells. However, Kershaw et al. (2003) argued that MIS 3 continent-wide vegetation changes, seen in marine core pollen records, occurred slightly later than reported by Johnson et al. (1999) [we discussed this paper in “What’s Happening with Global Precipitation?” — AM], and may have a more complex cause.

In summary,

Regardless of the hemispheric forcing, the low intensity of the early Holocene Australian monsoon—by comparison with the last interglacial and particularly the last high-level lacustrine event at 65–60 ka when all forcing elements were modest—is an enigma that can be explained by a change in boundary conditions within Australia.

The biotic pump concept can explain this and similar enigmas by showing that, under the same large-scale climatic forcing, drastically different continental water cycles can arise depending on the state of the terrestrial biota.

The Human Controversy

The biotic pump concept can also help address some of the main arguments against the idea that the first humans disrupted native vegetation in Australia and thereby triggered a tipping point that shifted the continent into a much drier state, perhaps irreversibly.

Mooney et al. 2011 in “Late Quaternary fire regimes of Australasia” provide a summary of such arguments as follows (with my emphasis):

The influence of humans in modifying natural fire regimes has been a major feature of the interpretation of charcoal records from the Australasian region. The apparent coincidence of increases in sedimentary charcoal at iconic sites (Lake George, Lynch’s Crater, Darwin Crater) with the arrival of Aboriginal people in Australia, has been attributed to anthropogenic fire (e.g. see Turney et al., 2004). This has led to circular arguments about the relationship between fire and people, including assertions that people arrived on the continent before the last glacial (Jackson, 1999; Singh et al., 1981). Changes in vegetation cover driven by anthropogenic modification of fire regimes have been explicitly invoked as a mechanism for causing aridification of Australia over the past 50-60 ka and for megafaunal extinctions (Miller et al., 2005). This causal association of anthropogenic fire with changes in climate, vegetation or fauna has remained seductive, despite several lines of contrary evidence. This evidence includes major changes in Late Quaternary charcoal records and hence fire prior to the arrival of humans (e.g. ca 130 ka: Singh et al., 1981; Dodson et al., 2005); the fact that a broadly-synchronous transition to more xerophytic vegetation has been found in New Caledonia, a region which was not settled by humans until ca 3000 years ago (Stevenson and Hope, 2005); and modeling evidence that the purported changes in vegetation cover were insufficient to cause a sustained change in Australasian climate (Pitman and Hesse, 2007). We have found no evidence of a change in fire regimes at a continental scale at the time of Aboriginal colonisation of Australia (50 +- 10 ka).

We first note that the fact that fire regimes can be influenced by factors other than humans does not mean that humans cannot have caused particular shifts in those regimes. More importantly, the first humans did not have to burn much of the continent to disrupt its hydrology. Plausibly, upon arrival they settled along the coast and burned only a relatively narrow strip, perhaps 100–200 km inland from the shore.

Kershaw et al. 2003 in “Causes and consequences of long-term climatic variability on the Australian continent” wrote referring to the study of Johnson et al. 1999 (my emphasis):

They further suggest that the opening up of the vegetation through aboriginal burning resulted in reduced moisture interactions between atmosphere and vegetation and consequently a decrease in effectiveness of summer monsoon penetration into the centre of Australia.
This model is effective in explaining why water was more abundant in the interior of Australia during interglacials previous to the Holocene, and may provide a more comprehensive explanation for sustained changes in the Core GC-17 record [a progressive decline of tree species — AM]. However, Core GC-17 is recording changes in coastal rather than inland vegetation, so that the influence of vegetation on inland penetration of the monsoon is not a factor.

This supports the idea that coastal vegetation was disrupted. This alone could have interrupted the moisture flow supporting the remaining inland vegetation, causing dieback without further burning, simply through increased aridity.

Once the continent as a whole ceased to act as a moisture convergence zone, this aridity effect could have spread over distances comparable to the size of the continent itself, perhaps reaching even New Caledonia.

Regarding the argument that models do not show a substantial change in monsoon strength following land-cover change, we note that Pitman and Hesse (2007) already emphasized in the abstract of their study, “The significance of large-scale land cover change on the Australian palaeomonsoon,” that

the limitations implicit in our analytical methods means we cannot conclusively demonstrate that biospheric feedbacks can be ignored.

In “Forests, Water, and Climate: Time for Re-Conceptualization,” I discussed related evidence suggesting that models do not robustly capture changes in air circulation and moisture transport associated with land-cover change.

Furthermore, a very interesting exchange in PNAS in 2016 between German and American researchers concluded that global climate models cannot simulate abrupt changes in monsoon systems unless the forcing changes abruptly as well, and that vegetation feedbacks may be one possible explanation for such abrupt monsoon shifts.

With this, we are now moving from Australia to North America.

Biotic Pump and the Shortgrass Prairie

A while ago, I received two independent but related questions at nearly the same time. One was from Libby Comeaux:

I’m wondering how to evaluate the difference the Rocky Mountain Continental Divide may make, as we have coniferous-dominated forests on the Pacific Ocean side on the West, and on the large land-mass side on the East. I live on the shortgrass prairie ecosystem immediately east of the mountains. Early spring warming - even before late spring snows - can send snow melt down to the shortgrass prairie before farmers can use it, then it runs down streets and pipes to reservoirs too soon. (Of course, much better to soak into healthy soils; we have much work to do) My question is whether biotic pump functions on the slope down from the Continental Divide on the East.

The other was submitted privately:

Hi Anastassia, I have a question about the biotic pump applied to North America. I am curious about the forest dynamics of North America and have been reading “Long-Term Forest Dynamics of the Temperate Zone” by Delcourt and Delcourt to find out how much forest really was here after the glaciers receded and before man intervened (beginning with indigenous people extirpating megafauna and burning the land). Their analysis indicates that at 14,000 ybp the glacier had receded significantly and North America was dominated by boreal forest and mixed deciduous farther south. By 10,000 ybp, the center of the plains had already begun to convert to praire. Now presumably, at 14,000 ybp the same drying of the pacific airmass as it came over the western mountains would have been happening, but the boreal forest was kept intact across the country, maybe thanks to the biotic pump. So there are two questions: First, in this case of the pacific airmass losing its moisture as it goes up and over the mountains - could the action of the biotic pump have counteracted this drying effect? Second - if the biotic pump was counteracting that, then why did the prairie region encroach? I imagine this could have happened as a result of humans degrading the ecosystem with the above mentioned disturbances. Thank you for your time and all of your incredible work that you have done for our understanding of nature.

Let us take a look at those maps in the book “Long-Term Forest Dynamics of the Temperate Zone: A Case Study of Late-Quaternary Forests in Eastern North America” by Paul A. Delcourt and Hazel R. Delcourt, published by Springer in 1987.

We can see that in the late glacial interval there was no prairie, but the whole region was covered by forests: BF, boreal forest; MF, mixed conifer-northern hardwoods forest; DF, deciduous forest; SE, southeastern evergreen forest; SS, sand dune scrab. The prairie (P) appeared four thousand later.

So we are left with two questions. First, could tree cover exist where prairie now dominates under the same climatic conditions? Second, does modern prairie vegetation itself, at least to some extent, enhance moisture convergence into the region?

The main geophysical obstacle to moisture convergence is the mountain ridge in the west, standing in the path of the westerlies associated with the Ferrel cell. Yet if the ridge is about 2.5–3 km high, depending on surface temperature, the air can still retain roughly half of its original moisture as it crosses the mountains and descends on the other side. In other words, the moist air rises and rains out, but not completely.

Fig. 2A from Makarieva et al. (2013), showing the fraction of moisture remaining in air at height z relative to its surface value (z = 0) for different surface temperatures. Even at 3 km, a substantial amount of moisture remains in the air.

As this air, only partially depleted of moisture, descends east of the ridge, local vegetation can enrich it with moisture again. This may trigger deep convection, causing the remaining moisture to precipitate locally instead of being blown farther away.

Over land, most rainfall is produced by a relatively small number of strong convective events. According to Liu and Zipser (2015), in “The global distribution of largest, deepest, and most intense precipitation systems,” more than 70% of land precipitation is associated with convective systems whose precipitation columns extend above 7 km. One mechanism by which local vegetation could therefore enhance moisture convergence is by moistening the air sufficiently to trigger local convection.

Delcourt and Delcourt propose the following air-circulation pattern for the period when the region was forest-covered, and for the subsequent period when prairie was present:

Here PA is Pacific Airmass, PFZ is Polar Frontal Zone, MTA is Maritime Tropical Airmass and AA is Arctic Airmass.

Conceivably, the region with stronger convection could also attract greater low-level air convergence from surrounding regions, specifically from the Maritime Tropical airmass (see also this discussion).

To conclude, the answer to both questions is likely yes. The present vegetation probably does not make the situation worse than it would be in its complete absence, while allowing tree vegetation to restore itself in the region, or assisting its recovery, could plausibly shift the region toward a substantially wetter regime.

Ideological Dimension and Outlook

Unfortunately, it is difficult to keep ideology entirely out of scientific narratives. So I understand why the idea that the first humans may have trapped Australia in a dry regime by burning vegetation can feel uncomfortable.

Interestingly, the ideological twist takes a different form in the other hemisphere, in North America. In Australia, the narrative becomes sensitive when the first settlers are, so to speak, accused of excessive burning. In North America, by contrast, Indigenous people are sometimes portrayed as having burned landscapes on a massive scale, and this is presented almost as a model of careful land stewardship. Very unfortunately, such portrayals are then used to justify commercial forest burning and logging.

However, the more careful evidence does not support the idea of extensive burning by Indigenous people. See, for example, Kellett et al. 2023 “Forest-clearing to create early-successional habitats: Questionable benefits, significant costs”).

Generally, I do not think we should give in to a rather primitive form of ideologization, as if this would somehow cast the first humans in a morally negative light. Having arrived in Australia from very different environments, they could hardly have been expected to know in advance how vulnerable its ecosystems were. It is entirely plausible that they disrupted them before such understanding could exist.

Moreover, the idea that humans pushed the landscape into a dry regime by disrupting vegetation also carries a more hopeful implication. It suggests that if native vegetation were allowed to recover, possibly with assistance from modern humans, a much wetter regime might again become physically possible under the same large-scale climatic conditions. If, on the other hand, past changes were not due to humans, there leaves us little agency now.

The image shows the initiation of ecosystem recovery with native tree seedlings in southern Australia (photo by a friend).

Many modern landscapes are degraded to such an extent that ecological succession can no longer begin on its own, because the genetic information needed for recovery — contained in seeds — is missing. In such cases, humans could play a positive ecological role by restoring the missing flow of seeds and ecological information, until the ecosystem regains the capacity for further self-recovery.

Related reading:

In Canada, where I have never been, there are also many forests. Thorsten Arnold, writing from Canada, has published a new post inviting us to reconsider our local relationships. He highlights the importance of embracing disagreements with those around us — relatives, neighbors, community members. To embrace disagreement is itself a kind of celebration: a sign that relationships are durable enough to contain it. It is normal to disagree on some things while still agreeing on the shared need to persist together, from the past into the future, in this endless dance of life. After all, we are all passengers on the same train called the present.

Disagreements should be celebrated, because just as the shadows in a pine forest testify to the sunshine above the canopy, our disagreements testify to a shared existence and a deeper agreement about the priority of persistence. Questioning that priority is the prerogative of psychopaths, and such tendencies should be kept in check. Everyone else is free to disagree about how persistence is to be arranged.

These are my thoughts beneath the blue sky above the boreal forest, as boreal spring arrives. Skiing is now in the past, and it is time to welcome the birds building new homes.

A Dual Perspective on Disagreement

Disagreement should not polarize. When it does, the problem lies not in disagreement itself, but in the fading of a more general agreement about the importance of persistence.

Recently, I was struck by the wide range of possible views on the nature of disagreement itself. I listened to two interviews with two very well-meaning people. One explored how a minority can withstand propaganda that seeks to eliminate dissent, even under life-threatening conditions (I discussed it in “Nature’s Complexity and Human Morality”). The other explored how to confront the merchants of doubt, who obstruct the spread of important, scientifically validated information through society.

In both interviews, there was mention of a small hardcore minority of the order of ten percent. But the connotations are opposite. In the first narrative, this minority is the protagonist: it retains independent judgment, does not yield to propaganda, and may even prevent totalitarianism from taking hold. In the second narrative, this minority is cast as deserving ridicule: it remains deaf to any arguments in favor of important, scientifically validated information.

What struck me is how easy it is to reverse the good and the bad in the two narratives. Where propaganda seeks to eliminate dissent, one strategy may be to label independent thinkers as merchants of doubt and fake experts. Conversely, raising one’s voice against a common cause backed by the majority may, in some cases, reflect less a search for truth than an egoistic desire for visibility.

I cannot think of any simple formal criterion that would always distinguish destructive from constructive behavior pursued under the same agenda in some general hypothetical case. But in science, the situation seems much clearer to me. Disagreement is indispensable, and when it is mishandled, science cannot move forward. Science is the work of revealing what is new, and what is new is not immediately evident to everyone. The non-zero inertia of scientific thinking is itself proof that disagreement is necessary.

One may ask: disagreement about what? Some truths are apparently more firmly established than others. At a certain point, academies cease to entertain projects on perpetuum mobile. Other topics are admittedly less well studied, and it is here, I believe, that informed disagreement must be nurtured. Again, if it is not, science will not move forward.

Precipitation Mass Sink on the Move

This is the third part of this story (#1 is here, #2 is here). It describes our recent attempt to open a discussion of the role of the precipitation mass sink in generating the pressure gradients that drive hurricane winds.

To do so, we submitted a commentary to the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, which had published a paper that attempted to build a theory of storms while neglecting the mass sink altogether. Using empirical evidence on hurricane rainfall, we showed that this contribution to the central pressure tendency is substantial and cannot be neglected.

The authors of the criticized paper initially agreed to respond, but later chose not to. The commentary was then reviewed by three referees and rejected for publication. All referee reports, along with the preceding correspondence with the journal, are included in the Appendix to this arXiv preprint.

Below is our most recent exchange with the journal, including an appeal to the Publication Commission of the American Meteorological Society. These documents, and their timing, are largely self-explanatory.

Date: 28 January 2026

To:
Dr. Daniel Stern, Handling Editor
Dr. Zhuo Wang, Editor in Chief
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Subject: Editorial action regarding Sparks and Toumi (2022)

Dear Dr. Stern and Dr. Wang,

We write concerning our Comment on Sparks and Toumi (2022), which identifies an unjustified omission of the precipitation term from the pressure-tendency equation. We are grateful to the reviewers for their careful evaluation.

One reviewer stated explicitly that the criticism is valid. A second reviewer characterized it as potentially valid but did not address its substance, instead suggesting development of a standalone paper with a new theory. A third reviewer noted that the model of Sparks and Toumi (2022) would be valid if total air density were replaced by dry-air density, acknowledging that this should be noted. Importantly, none of the reviewers refuted our central claim that, as currently formulated, the model is not valid.

While we respect the editorial decision, we are concerned that the present outcome [i.e., with our commentary rejected — AM] leaves an acknowledged inconsistency unaddressed. In its published form, the model does not specify dry-air density in the governing equations.

Although total air density and dry-air density differ by only about one percent, the key diagnostic quantity—the column-mean velocity—can differ by more than 100% and even change sign depending on which density is used. This is therefore not a minor issue. Moreover, while the equations could in principle be reinterpreted, the numerical analyses cannot be retroactively corrected: they necessarily used either total air density or dry-air density, and this choice must be made explicit.

In our view, if total air density was used, publication of our Comment would be the appropriate mechanism to clarify the issue for readers. If dry-air density was used, a corrigendum would be required. In either case, leaving the matter unresolved does not seem consistent with AMS standards of scientific rigor and self-correction.

We therefore respectfully ask that the journal either reconsider publication of our revised Comment, which addresses all reviewer comments, or request that the authors of Sparks and Toumi (2022) publish a corrigendum clarifying the formulation.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Anastassia Makarieva

Feb 03, 2026
Ref.: JAS-D-26-0022

Dear Dr. Makarieva,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Comments on "A Physical Model of Tropical Cyclone Central Pressure Filling at Landfall" by Sparks and Toumi" to the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. I am sorry to inform you that this comment is rejected because it falls outside the two-year limit we have set for submissions. You may consider expanding this comment into a full article. In that case, please note that the article must be broad enough in scope rather than solely focusing on a previously published paper.

Thank you for your interest in Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. Please contact me at ZWang.JAS@ametsoc.org if you have any questions. We wish you a more positive result with future endeavors.

Best regards,

Zhuo Wang, Ph.D.
Editor in Chief
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences

February 24, 2026

Dear Members of the AMS Publications Commission,

We appeal the decision to reject our Comment (JAS-D-24-0178) on Sparks and Toumi (2022) on the basis of the two-year submission limit.

Our initial submission was made within the two-year period specified for Comments and was processed under the formal Comment–Reply procedure, including invitation of a Reply from the corresponding author of the original paper. The manuscript subsequently underwent external review. The reviews did not refute the central methodological point raised, and one reviewer characterized the topic as underexplored.

The issue addressed in our Comment concerns the treatment of precipitation in the pressure-tendency equation and its consistency with conservation laws. When mass conservation is written for total air, omission of the precipitation term alters the resulting expression, whereas the formulation is internally consistent if written for dry air. In this context, replacing total-air density with dry-air density can materially affect the magnitude and, in some cases, the sign of the key diagnostic variables. Explicit clarification of the density definition in the published formulation would therefore enhance transparency and reproducibility in the scientific record.

AMS policy states that the two-year limit for Comments may be waived at the discretion of the Chief Editor. It also provides that when convincing evidence is presented that the main substance or conclusions of a published paper may be erroneous, the Editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate paper identifying and, if possible, correcting the issue.

We recognize that editorial discretion is central to maintaining consistent standards. At the same time, facilitating open discussion of issues concerning the formulation of governing equations and their consistency with conservation laws serves the interests of the scientific community, particularly when expert views may reasonably differ and the topic has been described as underexplored.

Our purpose in submitting this appeal is not to challenge editorial authority, but to request consideration of whether publication of the Comment — or otherwise facilitating clarification within the published record — would best serve the principle of open scientific exchange in this instance.

We appreciate your consideration.

Sincerely,

Anastassia Makarieva

Andrei Nefiodov

February 26, 2026

Dear Drs. Makarieva and Nefiodov:

Thank you for your correspondence of 24 February 2026 regarding your submitted comment (JAS-D-24-0178).

Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences chief editor, Dr. Zhuo Wang, rejected your comment for publication, on the grounds that more than two years had elapsed since the publication of the original paper (Sparks and Toumi, 2022) on which it comments. You argue, in your message, that your original comment was submitted within the two-year window, so that Dr. Wang’s decision is in error.

I note, however, that this original comment and a subsequent one were rejected for publication following peer review. It is the policy of the American Meteorological Society that a resubmitted rejected manuscript is treated as a new submission. Therefore, the appropriate submission date for your comment is 27 January, 2026, which falls outside the two-year window from the publication of the Sparks and Toumi paper.

I find, therefore, that Dr. Wang was correct in her decision, and her rejection of your comment stands.

Yours truly,

Walter Robinson

Publications Commissioner of the American Meteorological Society

--
Prof. Walter A. Robinson | he/him/his

Chair of the NC State Faculty

Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences

North Carolina State University

Campus Box 8208

Raleigh, NC 27695-8208

[to be continued]

Outlook

I am sometimes asked why progress on the biotic pump has been slow. But over time I have come to think that it is not unusually slow. Rather, it appears to follow a pattern that is quite normal in atmospheric science: conceptually new ideas may be noticed relatively quickly, but often take decades to influence the field.

Let me offer one conspicuous example. In his famous 1903 paper on storm energetics, Dr. Max Margules introduced the notion of available energy — the part of the total energy that can actually be converted into the kinetic energy of a storm. This amount is much smaller than the total energy, that is, the sum of potential and internal energy.

Yet it was only with Lorenz in 1955, fifty-two years after Margules, that this idea was formulated for the atmosphere as a whole in terms of available potential energy, a concept that is now standard in textbooks. Only then did it begin to be actively discussed and explored.

Let us look at how Lorenz introduced available potential energy:

Consider first an atmosphere whose density stratification is everywhere horizontal. In this case, although total potential energy is plentiful, none at all is available for conversion into kinetic energy. Next suppose that a horizontally stratified atmosphere becomes heated in a restricted region. This heating adds total potential energy to the system, and also disturbs the stratification, thus creating horizontal pressure forces which may convert total potential energy into kinetic energy.

But next suppose that a horizontally stratified atmosphere becomes cooled rather than heated. The cooling removes total potential energy from the system, but it still disturbs the stratification, thus creating horizontal pressure forces which may convert total potential energy into kinetic energy. Evidently removal of energy is sometimes as effective as addition of energy in making more energy available.

Black lines show isobars, that is, surfaces of equal pressure, with pressure decreasing with height. When an air column is locally warmed, it expands upward, increasing air pressure at every height except at the surface. Local cooling produces the opposite effect.

What Lorenz is saying here is that available potential energy arises whenever a pressure gradient (the “horizontal pressure forces”) is created that can set air in motion. Since air pressure depends on temperature, if the atmosphere is initially horizontally uniform in temperature, then either a local increase or a local decrease in temperature will create a pressure gradient and thus the capacity to generate kinetic energy.

Exactly the same argument that Lorenz makes for temperature can be made for evaporation and precipitation, which add and remove gas from the atmosphere and thus also generate horizontal pressure forces. Strikingly, however, this argument has never been developed in comparable terms.

Because the atmosphere is approximately hydrostatic, surface pressure reflects the amount of gas in the overlying column. Thus, unlike warming and cooling that predominantly perturb the upper atmosphere, precipitation creates horizontal pressure forces mainly in the lower atmosphere, where friction is strong and convergence, that is, cross-isobaric flow, is most readily established.

The first biotic pump paper, outlining the first contours of condensation-induced atmospheric dynamics, appeared in 2007, fifty-two years after Lorenz’s 1955 paper and twice that long after Margules’ 1903 paper. So if, as we still hope, real progress is made before 2059, another fifty-two years later, that could still count as normal by the standards of atmospheric science. Whether progress unfolds more slowly or more rapidly will depend, among other things, on how constructive disagreements are handled — and on whether we all persist together until that time.

Related reading:

Besides energy, there is also the problem of the biosphere being destroyed before our eyes — here, too, there is a wide spectrum of opinions even among well meaning people, from things are totally fine and the biosphere is re-greening, to human ingenuity will fix it provided sufficient financial incentive, to stop the destruction and let nature space to breathe.

People arguing for some form of diminishing human activity are naturally the least optimistic, since they are trying to assess the limits that nature has placed on what human ingenuity can realistically achieve. Interestingly, when it comes to the question of “what to do,” increasingly common advice is to “go local”: for example, become a carpenter or learn other practical skills. Two recent interviews in the Great Simplification podcast—with Balázs Matics and Craig Tindale—end with essentially the same advice to listeners. The latest Frankly also concluded that now is the time to put stones in the river (presumably to slow the water). The more optimistic human-ingenuity group, on the other hand, tends to advocate grand and ambitious projects.

Of course, if everything crashes, people with practical skills and strong local connections are likely to endure the crisis relatively better (whatever “better” might mean then). However, focusing strategically on individual and local survival—and letting the larger dynamics (sometimes loosely referred to as “self-organization”) take care of themselves—is precisely what brought us to the current state in the first place.

Instead of giving up too early and alienating ourselves from one another even further as we regain a local focus, I would like to suggest that we still have an opportunity, at least, to discuss what kind of human civilization could remain stable under natural limits, without continually generating existential problems that must then be solved—successfully or not—by ingenuity. From my perspective, it would be a major fiasco simply to start a new cycle of “being local — going global — collapsing” without even having found a theoretical solution for how we might organize our existence in a better and more stable way—if such a solution exists at all.

As an early disclaimer, I myself think that we do need to become more local, in the sense that we should grow more food where we are. (My personal dilemma, which has its global counterpart, is that on our small plot of land a natural forest has been allowed to regrow, so clearing space for vegetables would mean cutting trees, something that I hope is not going to happen while I am alive.)

Helping friends to harvest potatoes (Siberia, the Yenisey river)

What I am arguing against is localization as a global strategy. Besides being intellectually unsatisfactory, it would not work: being well off amid mass starvation is not safe. Now that we are all in one boat, it is in our common interest that nobody be driven to such despair as to destroy the boat for everyone. This requires an increased global coordination and mutual understanding.

My persistent motivation is to share several insights that emerge from the concept of biotic regulation, which, despite its high relevance to today’s problems, remains little known. In today’s post, I will discuss the problem of inequality in a biospheric context.

Energy Consumption and Increasing Size

The cause of the current predicament is often attributed to the genetic hardware that shapes human behavior, in which context the Maximum Power Principle is often invoked.

While there is much discussion in the literature about what this principle could actually mean in a biospheric context (see, e.g., Sciubba 2011 “What did Lotka really say?”), its common interpretation is that a system that utilizes more power tends to prevail over one that utilizes less power, and that natural selection favors the former.

Since larger systems generally utilize more power, there should be a corresponding tendency for larger, internally correlated systems to prevail. The way competitive capacity can increase aggressively with size and correlation was vividly described by the Russian poet Vladimir Mayakovsky:

One man alone

feels down and out.

One man alone

won’t make weather.

Any old bully

can knock him about -

even weaklings

if two together.

But when

we midgets

in a Party stand -

surrender,

enemy,

fade

out of sight!

A Party’s

a million-fingered hand

clenched

into one fist

of shattering might.

These words were written about a century ago in revolutionary Russia, but in the modern context “Party” can be replaced, for example, by “Corporation” or “Monopoly,” or, if one wants a more positive connotation, by “Trade Union.”

What matters is that this type of spontaneous development, if it were universally supported by natural selection and facing no structural constraints, could lead to a single large internally correlated structure occupying all available space and claiming all energy flows. This seems to have occurred in the case of global human civilization, which now represents a rigidly correlated entity—the Superorganism—with no external rivals left to compete with.

Once previously competing units become tightly interdependent within a single structure, their residual competition becomes pathological, taking on the meaning—and the destructive effect—of an autoimmune disorder.

Detachment from Reality Associated with Size

So, if greater power consumption translates into higher competitive capacity, and larger size translates into greater power consumption, we end up with a small number of large, internally correlated energy consumers.

As an entity grows larger, its surface-to-volume ratio declines, effectively decoupling most of it from the external environment. In a multicellular body, for example, the proportion of cells directly bordering the environment is roughly equal to the ratio of the linear size of a cell to the linear size of the body. Thus, for a mammal with a linear size of 0.5 meter and a cell size of about 50 micrometers, only about one cell in ten thousand is in direct contact with the outside world.

In a large internally correlated system, most resources are spent on maintaining internal stability rather than on interacting with the environment. These maintenance costs are often cited as one reason why very large systems become inefficient. But what may matter even more is that, once the system’s decision-making core becomes decoupled from the environment and enclosed in the comfort provided by internal homeostasis, it can generate decisions that have no environmental validity and drive the system as a whole toward degradation.

The human brain provides an example. It consumes a disproportionately large share of total body power and can be biochemically induced to generate feelings of satisfaction and passivity even under life-threatening external conditions.

The greater the energy imbalance between the decision-making core and the peripheral parts that interact with the environment, the greater the potential for dangerous distortions. Therefore, as the system grows larger, the reliability of information gathered about the natural environment acquires primary importance.

Changing the software?

One of the most interesting suggestions I have come across recently is that our current predicament might have been avoided had our information gathering been governed by different principles. This idea complements the proposition that human self-awareness of the predicament could itself become a central part of the solution—what Nate Hagens refers to as the “fifth law of thermodynamics”.

In “The Path to the Singularity: An Ideological History”, Steven J. Newbury (2026) describes three approaches to information gathering. Two, in his view, led to miserable outcomes, while the third was never historically pursued.

• The “Strong” (Mechanistic/Reductionist) Enlightenment — the mechanistic idea of nature as a clockwork that can be decomposed to elementary parts and, as a clock, practically lacks dissipation. The author believes that this neglect of entropy (dissipation) is what has driven our species to the current state of overshoot. Champions: Bacon, Descartes.

• The “Romantic” (Counter-Enlightenment): a reaction against the “soulless” Strong Enlightenment. Champions: Rousseau, Herder.

  It rejected the ”clockwork” and instead championed emotion, intuition, and the ”organic” or ”spiritual” essence of a people (the Volk). While it correctly identified the soulless, alienating nature of the reductionist worldview, its ”solution” was equally dangerous. By replacing universal reason with essentialist, ”natural” hierarchies based on ”blood and soil,” this tradition provided the ideological seedbed for the ethno-nationalism and Fascism that would emerge later. It was another form of reductionism, just biological and spiritual instead of mathematical. (S.J. Newbury)

• The Sceptical (Empirical/Emergent) Enlightenment:

  This tradition (David Hume, Adam Smith) represented a profoundly different path. It was not based on a priori rationalist design but on a posteriori empirical observation and scepticism. This was the true scientific method—a critical, observational, and materialist worldview. It saw systems (like economies or societies) as emergent, complex, and historically contingent—the very antithesis of reductionism. (S.J. Newbury)

I would mention two things in passing. First, I agree that the path, in which information is gathered and shared predominantly through emotions rather than intellectual assessment, is dangerous precisely because emotions are subjective and therefore divisive rather than unifying. As I noted in a previous post with regard to Rob Lewis’s essay “The Mystery at the Heart of Things. Are Facts Enough?”, the same emotional appeals can provoke drastically different responses in people with different backgrounds.

Second, I think that the main difference between the destructive and the constructive routes lies not only in mechanistic versus systems thinking, but also in the way scientific problems are posed. The dominant route of our information gathering has been governed by the question “What can be done?”—to facilitate growth and increase competitive capacity. A constructive route could instead focus on asking “What should not be done?”—so as not to undermine long-term persistence. This is what the concept of biotic regulation is about.

At present, for example, biological science focuses mainly on evolution—that is, on how genetic information changes—whereas in the second route it would focus on stasis, that is, on why genetic information does not degrade in the first place.

My main point, however, is that the probability that adequate information gathering will be spontaneously chosen by decision-makers cut off from environmental stimuli must be low—much like the probability that a color-blind person, presented with many pills, will spontaneously choose the one of the right color.

The overall implication of these considerations is that large size and large power consumption tend inevitably to produce detachment from reality and thus threaten persistence. Therefore, since life has persisted, these tendencies must be strictly limited in natural ecosystems. Let us take a look at how this is achieved.

Inequality in Nature and Human Society

Modern life comes in all sizes, from bacteria to whales. Different size means different per capita energy consumption, because per unit mass energy consumption is broadly size-independent (see “The Small and the Big: Life’s Fundamental Energetic Dichotomy” for graphs and sources).

Judged on a per capita basis, the inequality of energy consumption across life is astounding. At opposite ends of the spectrum, a whale with a body mass of 100 tons and a bacterium with a cell mass of one picogram (10^-12 g) have rates of energy consumption that differ by a factor 10²⁰ (a hundred-billion-billion-fold difference).

By comparison, income differences in global human society are far more compressed. The poorest people on Earth live on a few dollars per day; their annual income is only about a million times lower than that of the richest billionaires.

However, when we look at the global picture, things change in a radical way.

In global human society, the poorest 50% of individuals receive less than 10% of global income, while the richest 10% receive more than 50%.

Meanwhile, in stable natural ecosystems such as forests, the smallest organisms, though consuming the least per capita, can claim more than 90% of total ecosystem productivity. By contrast, the “energy multibillionaires” — the largest animals — despite their vastly greater per capita energy consumption, are allowed to consume no more than about 1% of total ecosystem productivity. In other words, they are exceptionally intense energy consumers, but nature keeps their numbers exceptionally low.

Distribution of energy consumption versus heterotroph body size in stable natural ecosystems (solid contour) and in current human society (excluding deforestation; dashed contour).

While everyone understands what an income-inequality diagram shows, I would like to provide some context for how the above distribution, showing the energetic dominance of the smallest consumers, is derived.

Walking in the forest, we notice that most of what the forest generates in energetic terms is leaf biomass. Every autumn we can see how many leaves are dropped from the trees to form a carpet on the ground. Evergreen trees such as spruces, for example, maintain such a carpet beneath them permanently. This carpet, however, does not accumulate from year to year in a mature forest: it disappears. Its disappearance is a sign that it is being decomposed by the invisible smallest heterotrophs—bacteria and fungi. So, as a first approximation, one can estimate the large consumption of these smallest actors from the seasonal disappearance of fallen leaves.

Spruce needles on spring snow

The simplest task is to calculate the energy consumption of the largest animals, mostly vertebrates. Their individual energy-consumption rates have been measured in laboratories for hundreds of species and predictably depend on body mass. Thus, by calculating their population densities—which is easier for large animals, since they are readily seen—and multiplying by per capita consumption, then relating the result to the primary productivity of the supporting ecosystem, we obtain their share. An example of how this is done for the boreal forest ecosystem can be found in this work.

We then need to estimate the contribution of the intermediate-sized animals, the invertebrates. This, too, can be done from their population densities. Sometimes researchers simply brush everything off a tree and then calculate the amount of living material associated with each tree. That their share is smaller than that of bacteria and fungi is clear from the fact that only a smaller proportion of leaves is normally eaten by insects. On the other hand, energy consumption by invertebrates turns out to be greater than that of the largest animals, because the total biomass of the former is larger.

The Small Effective Size of Trees

So far we have discussed energy consumers—the heterotrophs. It may seem that the energy producers, trees, are very large, and yet they claim about one half of the gross organic matter they synthesize for their own metabolic needs. The other half—the so-called net primary productivity—is consumed by the heterotrophs, as discussed above.

In reality, however, the effective energetic size of trees is very small. Green leaves have energy-consumption rates that are, per unit living mass or volume, comparable to those of animals.

Green leaves globally contain only about 15 gigatons of carbon in biomass.

Meanwhile, the woody parts of trees, which make up most of their visible biomass (several hundred gigatons of carbon globally), are largely metabolically inactive, apart from the thin cambium layer. They do not consume energy, but serve structural purposes. That is why trees can remain alive even when their trunks are severely damaged, like the willow below.

It still has green leaves and branches, but its stem is almost entirely gone. Yet what remains is strong enough to keep the tree standing.

Furthermore, unlike the tightly correlated bodies of animals, leaves on a tree are only loosely correlated with one another, mainly through their common stem, and can function with a high degree of independence.

Outlook

We therefore conclude that both the production and the consumption of energy in natural ecosystems such as forests are carried out largely by small, approximately independent actors: green leaves and unicellular heterotrophs.

Such an organization of energy production and consumption, in which numerous small actors dominate, ensures an efficient transfer of environmental information to living organisms, allowing them to respond effectively to environmental perturbations and keep the optimal environment stable.

Organisms whose decision-making is insulated from the external environment by a large buffer—the multicellular body—play a smaller role in ecosystem-level decision-making, that is, in directing the flow of ecosystem energy and regulating environmental conditions.

This stands in contrast to the way energy flows are organized in modern human society, where larger actors dominate.

If higher energy consumption leads to (temporarily) greater competitive capacity, then increased system size will tend to be favored, since it is associated with higher energy consumption. But increased size simultaneously causes decoupling from the external environment through a diminishing surface-to-volume ratio. This degrades strategic decision-making.

From this perspective, a spontaneous increase in size and energy consumption—even when it appears to be accompanied by greater specialization and complexity of internal parts—can be understood not as a gain in orderliness, but as a common route of decay of a formerly persistent population of smaller objects. That is why human society has anti-monopoly laws.

In life, local decision-making by numerous independent actors results in global environmental homeostasis, because all these actors base their functioning on meaningful genetic programs that have been tested for environmental validity over millions and billions of years. In contrast, in modern human society our governing cultural programs are still confused and unstable. If we were simply to begin acting locally without regard for one another, we would accelerate rather than prevent chaos, and in unpredictable ways. Therefore, our species requires a certain overarching communication, as well as the development of local strategies that would be globally non-disruptive.

Once environmental conditions change, a moment may arise when a constructive strategy aimed at persistence suddenly becomes competitive. By that time, a global network of local actors ready to implement such strategies should already be in place. Until then, I believe we need to support one another and foster mutual understanding and respect as broadly as possible across cultural landscapes.

Related reading:

Introduction: The Great Water Problem of life on land, and forests as its solution

Several hundred million years ago, when the young terrestrial life was about to colonize land, it faced two serious challenges unheard of in the ocean. One was the shortage of water, which, under gravity, tends to leave land for the ocean. Another was the flammability of life’s stuff in the oxygen atmosphere. Exposed to such vagaries, prone to desiccation and burning, it looked like terrestrial life stood few chances to ever become as mighty and prominent as her primordial oceanic kin.

Fortunately for all inhabiting land today, the laws of nature provided life with an opportunity of solving both problems at one fell swoop. Water quenches fire. If life could evolve a mechanism to keep land wet, this would simultaneously minimize the probability of ecosystems burning alive. But how then could life bring moisture inland?

Earth is a blue planet: two thirds of its surface is covered with water. The most energetic among the water molecules break out from the liquid to become gas. The atmosphere of Earth bears an appreciable amount of water vapor that travels freely above the planetary surface with winds. If only life could find ways to (1) direct the winds inland and (2) extract moisture from the incoming air, the Great Water Problem of the terrestrial life would be solved.

Here comes the trick: water vapor is a condensable gas. The lower the temperature, the less water vapor the atmosphere can hold. When the temperature drops, the colliding vapor molecules no longer have energy enough to overcome the intermolecular attraction forces, so they stick together forming droplets: the water vapor condenses. As there is less gas, the air pressure drops. As the air pressure drops, the higher pressure elsewhere starts pushing the air towards the low-pressure area where condensation occurs. In other words, moisture extraction can itself drive air motion!

As birds and flying insects evolved a perfect “knowledge” of aerodynamics that enabled them to fly, life, when it raised from the ocean, “learnt” the above physical laws and evolved a mechanism, the biotic pump of atmospheric moisture, that allowed land to be moistened and life on land thriving.

The key process of the biotic pump is plant transpiration: terrestrial plants emit about three hundred water molecules per each molecule of carbon dioxide fixed by photosynthesis (Cramer 2009). Such “wastefulness” has been conventionally considered as an “inevitable evil” caused by biochemical and environmental limitations. However, plants are known to differ substantially in their water use efficiencies depending on their metabolic pathways. For example, the so-called C₄ plants may have water use efficiencies several times higher than their C₃ relatives (Vogan and Sage 2011). While it is apparently possible to spend less water, plants, and especially trees -- among which, remarkably, there are practically no “water-efficient” C₄ plants (Sage 2001; Osborne and Sack 2012) -- have evolved high transpiration rates.

Transpiration unlashes water vapor keeping the atmosphere close to the dew point when condensation can commence. The cooling necessary for condensation is provided by the Earth’s gravitational field. As an air parcel ascends, its potential energy grows, while the internal energy (and, hence, temperature) is accordingly reduced. To switch on the condensation over a large area, the forest enhances transpiration to drive the atmospheric humidity beyond the dew point. Upon condensation, the air pressure drops in the lower atmosphere facilitating inflow of moist air from the adjacent ocean.

The mighty Amazon rainforest illustrates this majestic process (Wright et al. 2017). While a grassland ecosystem, incapable of efficiently controlling its water cycle, meets the end of the dry season in the state of maximum desiccation, the Amazon forest, in sharp contrast, begins to photosynthesize and transpire most actively (Saleska et al. 2016). New, vigorous leaves sprout under the full sunshine of the dry season clear skies using the water carefully stored from the wet season. As transpiration grows, so does the atmospheric moisture. Condensation intensifies accordingly, modifying the land-ocean air pressure contrasts. Finally, moist air rushes inland from the Atlantic Ocean bringing the much-needed moisture to the forest. The wet season promoted by forest transpiration sets in two months earlier than it arrives to unforested regions at the same latitude around the globe.

Another biotic pump example is the Eurasian forest belt that spreads across the continent over seven thousand kilometers and, during the vegetation season, draws moisture in from the three oceans: the Atlantic, the Arctic and the Pacific (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Land-ocean precipitation ratio (LOPR) in the Eurasian forest belt and in the unforested Australia (after Makarieva et al. 2013). In Australia, precipitation over land is smaller than over the ocean at the same latitude in both wet and dry season. In the boreal forest in summer, when it is biochemically active in summer, precipitation is higher than over the ocean and uniform over several thousand kilometers across the continent. In winter, the forest is dormant and the biotic pump does not work. Both the forest and unforested Australia during the wet season are about 5 degrees Kelvin warmer than the ocean.

Why forests?

Not just forests (in their generic sense, meaning big tall plants forming a canopy) but also grasslands are able to enrich the atmosphere with moisture via evapotranspiration. Could the biotic pump be driven by grasses? Not really. The main obstacle is how to control condensation preventing extremes. Evaporation that replenishes atmospheric moisture is a slow process driven by solar power. In contrast, condensation can occur at an arbitrarily high rate. Once there is ascending air motion, condensation rate is proportional to the vertical velocity: the more rapidly the air ascends and cools, the more water vapor condenses releasing energy that drives the air motion. This process can self-accelerate to produce wind speeds common to hurricanes and tornadoes. Such rapid outbursts would deplete atmospheric moisture and cause prolonged rain absence. Meanwhile the remaining soil moisture would partly leak as runoff, partly evaporate into the dry atmosphere producing desiccation in plant life.

Tall tree canopy puts a break on these uncontrolled processes. First, it ensures turbulent friction that decreases wind speeds. Second, a reverse vertical temperature gradient is caused during daytime under the canopy, with the ground being the coldest, and the tree tops the warmest. To take moisture away from the ground layer, a rising air parcel would have to work against a strong buoyancy force, as it would be colder than the surrounding air. This prevents loss of soil moisture by uncontrolled evaporation. Short grasses do not develop such a gradient.

Grasses and herbs have always been an essential part of the forest ecosystem. When a large tree dies and falls, a big space (“gap”) opens up for succession to start that will ultimately culminate in another big tree occupying the spot. Succession is process of ecosystem recovery from a disturbance (e.g., big tree death or fire). Early stages of succession are dominated by non-tree species including grasses. They rapidly cover the disturbed soil with a green carpet preventing leakage of nutrients. While unable to do biotic pumping efficiently, forest grasses did not actually need it – they were provided with moisture by the surrounding trees. As long as the gaps occupied a small relative area in the forest, the biotic pump of the forest as a whole was not impaired.

The problem of large herbivores

So, to keep land moistened, life invented forest. Forests have huge biomass. This is the main distinction between terrestrial and oceanic life. They have comparable primary productivities, of about 50 GtC/year. But, amazingly, if we look through the oceanic surface, there is apparently nobody there to be seen! Primary producers, the phytoplankton, are invisibly small microscopic creatures. Their total mass is only about one gigaton of carbon compared to several hundred gigatons of wood biomass! Even the biomass of green leaves, at about 10 GtC, is an order of magnitude larger (Bar-On et al. 2018).

So, big trees brought with themselves an unprecedented abundance of plant biomass. This surplus of energy resources opened an opportunity for large mammals to evolve in the forest. As hunters, humans are genetically tuned to be pleased when seeing a big animal from a safe place. But pause to think that an elephant, and any big mammal, locally consumes energy at a rate hundreds of times exceeding what the biosphere can locally photosynthesize (~100 W/m² versus 0.5 W/m²). This makes big mammals potential destroyers of the entire ecosystem, if their numbers go unchecked. In a stable natural forest, big animals should consume no more than 1% of total productivity (Makarieva et al. 2020a).

As big mammals evolved in the Eocene and began to destroy the canopy exacerbating natural disturbances and creating big openings, the early successional species of grasses and herbs found themselves in progressively more favorable conditions (Sage 2001). As such grass species have normally existed benefiting from the rainfall-generating capacity of the surrounding forest, they did not possess the skills necessary to run the biotic pump. As these grass species begin to spread, a pronounced aridification of the global climate followed. The climate became more harsh and unpredictable.

So, when discussing the retreat of humid forests and the spread of grasslands at the Eocene-Oligocene transition, as well as the more recent spread of the “water-efficient” C₄ plants that transpire relatively little, increased aridity is mentioned as a possible cause favoring such expansions (e.g., Sage 2001; Osborne and Sack 2012). However, if we take into account the biotic pump mechanism, we can conclude that aridity was a consequence rather than the cause of the grasslands extension. The ultimate cause was the inherent instability of an ecosystem with high biomass, the forest, in the presence of big herbivores (Makarieva and Gorshkov 2010). Grassland dominance could be triggered by big mammals exterminating closed canopies. The biotic pump processes globally dwindled causing a drier climate.

We note in passing that the great extinction that happened in the end of the Eocene in the ocean affecting microscopic species (Prothero 1994a) might also have to do with the evolutionary appearance of the first oceanic mammals (cetaceans and others). As a modern counterpart, humans depleted a major part of macroscopic life in the ocean (Perissi and Bardi 2021).

One can say that with the advent of big mammals, the entire terrestrial life, except for the remaining forests that were cluttered to regions with more favorable geophysical conditions, fell into the “browse trap” (Staver et al. 2014). An ecological trap (landscape trap, fire trap etc.) is a term coined a decade ago to describe how repeated disturbances of the early successional vegetation by new disturbances (burning, grazing or, in the industrial context, cutting) prevents the ecosystem from recovery and puts it on the degradation trajectory (Lindenmayer et al. 2022). This degradation can be slow or rapid, depending on the disturbance regime. And here we come to our species.

Implications: Let’s overcome the big animal’s instincts before it’s too late

As a big mammal originated in savannah, the human species is genetically predisposed to at best appreciate individual trees rather than (closed canopy) forests. Not surprisingly, quite a lot of humans perceive a mowed lawn as etalon of natural (savannah indeed) beauty. The overwhelming majority of humans have never been in a natural forest. Except for the scale, what our species has been doing to forests – exterminating them – is unoriginal. Human population growth continued the devastation of forests that began with the appearance of the first big mammalian herbivores forty million years ago in the Eocene. Had humans been an arboreal primate, we would have perceived forests, and behaved, differently.

Besides being crucial for continental moisture transport that currently sustains the world’s major agricultural regions, natural forests (and natural oceanic ecosystems) stabilize climate by keeping it moist. The contemporary climate change narrative emphasizes the dynamics of the mean temperature (warming/cooling). However, major climate-related sufferings of today are linked to extremes like droughts, floods, heat waves rather than to the long-term mean changes of precipitation, wind and temperature. “Paradise lost” – that is how Prothero (1994a,b) characterized the Eocene-Oligocene transition from the warm, humid and stable climate of the forest-dominated Earth to the more modern-like colder, drier and severely fluctuating climate with a greater proportion of Earth covered by grasslands. [Having got rid of another clade of giants, the dinosaurs, the forests had been keeping the Earth stable for over twenty million years before the big mammals arrived.] Today, the remaining large-scale forests, the frontiers of climate stability, are still buffering against climate extremes (O’Connor et al. 2021) possibly preventing a tipping point towards a completely inhospitable state of the planet (Gorshkov et al. 2000).

Lacking the genetic program to genuinely respect forests, we could nevertheless appreciate their importance, and prevent their destruction, based on rational scientific arguments. For a long time, forests have been valued in terms of the market cost of the wood they produced. In recent decades, attempts have been made to apply the economic term of “services” to forest ecosystems and to assess the economic value to such “natural services” that people are apparently receiving “for free”. The next step in deepening our understanding of how forests matter for the Earth’s well-being should be the recognition of the drastically different climate impacts of disturbed versus undisturbed natural ecosystems. Currently, no such distinction is clearly made; in the result, pristine forests continue to be rapidly destroyed.

The concept of biotic regulation unambiguously highlights the unique feature of natural (in particular, forest) ecosystems (Gorshkov et al. 2000). It is these ecosystems that have a climate-regulating function and are able to keep the environment in a favorable state, at least during the life of humankind as a biological species. The time of natural restoration of the forest after disturbances that do not go beyond the sustainability threshold to a stationary (climax) state with maximum climate-regulating competence, is at least several hundred years. Heavily disturbed forests (artificial plantations, equal-aged forest stands, early successional forest species) do not have such a climate-regulating function. Taking into account the fact that further destruction of natural ecosystems will lead to irreversible degradation of the global climate and make it impossible for our civilization to live on Earth, the cost of natural ecosystems is reduced to the cost of human life itself as a unique phenomenon. Such a cost goes beyond the applicability of traditional economic theory and tends to an infinite value.

Since human civilization cannot exist without the transformation (destruction) of the natural biota (we are big animals genetically encoded to destroy plant life), the resolution of the contradiction consists in limiting the total consumption, including our population number. In the meantime, the economic and ecological functions of forests must be spatially delineated (Moomaw et al. 2019, Makarieva et al. 2020b, Cary et al. 2021, Betts et al. 2021). The exploitation of the forest should be allowed only in strictly prescribed areas, where it is followed by replanting after felling in the form of plantations. Intact and naturally recovering forest ecosystems should be protected from industrial-scale felling and restored over large areas in order to fulfill their climate-regulating functions. Such territories must not be privately owned (having an infinite price, they cannot be bought) or rented. In the context of progressive changes in the global climate, the nations must assume obligations to revise the legal framework for the economic regulation of the forest fund, taking into account these restrictions. Since it is difficult to carry out such significant reforms quickly due to the natural inertia of thinking, it is necessary to introduce an urgent moratorium on industrial felling of intact forest areas. Any violation of such a moratorium should be elevated to the rank of crimes against humanity.

References

Bar-On Y.M., Phillips R., Milo R. (2018) The biomass distribution on Earth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115: 6506-6511. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711842115

Betts M.G., Phalan B.T., Wolf C., Baker S.C., Messier C., Puettmann K.J., Green R., Harris S.H., Edwards D.P., Lindenmayer D.B., Balmford A. (2021) Producing wood at least cost to biodiversity: integrating Triad and sharing–sparing approaches to inform forest landscape management. Biological Reviews 96: 1301-1317. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12703

Cary G.J., Blanchard W., Foster C.N., Lindenmayer D.B. (2021) Effects of altered fire intervals on critical timber production and conservation values. International Journal of Wildland Fire 30: 322-328. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF20129

Cramer M.D., Hawkins H.-J., Verboom, G.A. (2009) The importance of nutritional regulation of plant water flux. Oecologia 161: 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1364-3

Gorshkov V.G., Gorshkov V.V., Makarieva A.M. (2000) Biotic regulation of the environment: Key issue of global change. Springer, London.

Lindenmayer D.B., Bowd E.J., Taylor C., Likens G.E. (2022) The interactions among fire, logging, and climate change have sprung a landscape trap in Victoria’s montane ash forests. Plant Ecology https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-021-01217-2

Makarieva A.M., Gorshkov V.G., Li B.-L. (2010) Comprehending ecological and economic sustainability: Comparative analysis of stability principles in the biosphere and free market economy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1195: E1-E18. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05400.x

Makarieva A.M., Gorshkov V.G., Li B.-L. (2013) Revisiting forest impact on atmospheric water vapor transport and precipitation. Theoretical and Applied Climatolog, 111: 79-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-012-0643-9

Makarieva A.M., Nefiodov A.V., Li B.-L. (2020a) Life’s Energy and Information: Contrasting Evolution of Volume- versus Surface-Specific Rates of Energy Consumption. Entropy 22(9): 1025. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22091025

Makarieva A.M., Nefiodov A.V., Morozov V.E., Aleinikov A.A., Vasilov R.G. (2020b) Science in the vanguard of rethinking the role of forests in the third millennium: Comments on the draft concept of the federal law “Forest Code of the Russian Federation”. Forest Science Issues 3(3). https://doi.org/10.31509/2658-607x-2020-3-3-1-25

Moomaw, W. R., Masino, S. A., & Faison, E. K. (2019). Intact forests in the United States: Proforestation mitigates climate change and serves the greatest good. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 2: 449206. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00027

O’Connor J.C., Dekker S.C., Staal A., Tuinenburg O.A., Rebel K.T., Santos M.J. (2021) Forests buffer against variations in precipitation. Global Change Biology 27: 4686-4696. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15763

Osborne C.P., Sack L. (2012) Evolution of C₄ plants: a new hypothesis for an interaction of CO₂ and water relations mediated by plant hydraulics. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 367: 583-600. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0261

Perissi I., Bardi U. (2021) The Empty Sea. The Future of the Blue Economy. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51898-1

Prothero D.R. (1994a) The late Eocene-Oligocene extinctions. Annual Reviews of the Earth and Planetary Science 22: 145-165. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ea.22.050194.001045

Prothero D.R. (1994b) The Eocene-Oligocene Transition: Paradise Lost. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

Sage R.F. (2001) Environmental and Evolutionary Preconditions for the Origin and Diversification of the C₄ Photosynthetic Syndrome. Plant Biology 3: 201-213. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2001-15206

Saleska S.R., Wu J., Guan K., Araujo A.C., Huete A., Nobre A.D., Restrepo-Coupe, N. (2016) Dry-season greening of Amazon forests. Nature 531: E4–E5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16457

Staver A.C., Bond W.J., Austin A. (2014) Is there a ‘browse trap’? dynamics of herbivore impacts on trees and grasses in an African savanna. Journal of Ecology 102: 595-602. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12230

Vogan P.J., Sage R.F. (2011) Water-use efficiency and nitrogen-use efficiency of C₃-C₄ intermediate species of Flaveria Juss. (Asteraceae). Plant, Cell & Environment 34: 1415-1430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2011.02340.x

In 2023, we attended the Eastern Old-Growth Forest Conference in Moultonborough, New Hampshire. I made a joint presentation with Prof. Susan Masino, co-author of the proforestation concept, on Forests and Global Well-Being. There was also a session on Climate Implications, which touched on two topics: carbon storage and impacts of climate change on the forests.

Biotic Pump and Biotic Regulation research explores a distinct and complementary perspective: how natural forests contribute to climate and environmental resilience by regulating the hydrological cycle. During our visit, we also learned about remarkable community efforts in forest preservation, such as Save Massachusets Forests and Restore: The North Woods.

So when Glen Ayers and Don Ogden — hosts of the Enviro Show and long-time supporters of forest preservation in Massachusetts and beyond — invited me to speak about the biotic pump, I was happy to accept.

Please listen to the podcast above or read the slightly edited transcript below. At the end of this post, I discuss what was the most difficult part of the interview. I also list several other interviews from the past five years discussing the biotic pump and biotic regulation more broadly.

Introduction

Glen: How about a Quote of the Week?

Don: All right. This one I think is fitting for our show.

Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength that will endure as long as life lasts. There is symbolic as well as actual beauty in the migration of the birds, the ebb and flow of the tides, the folded bud ready for the spring. There is something infinitely healing in the repeated refrains of nature—the assurance that dawn comes after night, and spring after winter.

And that’s a Rachel Carson quote [from The Sense of Wonder].

Glen: Rachel Carson, really a great poetic writer, if you’ve never read any of her books, and she has several great books besides Silent Spring. Very beautiful, eloquent writing.

Don: I think this brings us to our interview, Glen.

Glen: Yes, our interview with Anastassia, who explains some of these concepts behind forest protection, having to do with the need to protect large areas of forest, because forests actually regulate the global climate.

And this concept of the biotic pump is a big part of that.

So let’s hear from Anastassia and I hope you find this interesting.

Today on the Enviro Show, we are joined by Anastassia Makarieva, who is joining us amazingly from Russia. And we found out about Anastassia from watching a video, a YouTube video about forests and this concept of the biotic pump.

And I don’t want to try to explain that, Anastassia, because this concept is kind of mind-blowing for us.

And we’re forest activists here in the United States.

But if you would introduce yourself a little bit, tell us about you and then tell us about this idea of how the forests act to essentially create the climate or create the environment. The self-sustaining environment.

Anastassia: Thank you, Glen.

First of all, thank you for the invitation. It is a pleasure to be here and to share my knowledge with your listeners who I know are as concerned or maybe even more deeply concerned than me about how to preserve natural forests, which is our common heritage, independent of where they are.

So about myself, I work in the theoretical physics division in a research institute in St. Petersburg, Russia. So I’m a physicist, but historically my work was devoted to investigating the mechanisms, both physical and ecological, by which natural ecosystems do indeed create and maintain a favorable environment — the processes by which life keeps our planet habitable.

The Water Problem

And as we live on land, for us, I mean for all living creatures who inhabit land, of primary importance is the water cycle.

The water cycle consists of several processes.

It is precipitation. So we get some liquid water or solid water from the skies.

It is river runoff. So part of this moisture drains away to the ocean.

And we also have an invisible process, but which is very, very important.

And this process is evaporation.

Everybody knows about evaporation.

If we have a saucer with water and leave it in our kitchen, then we come back and see that there is less water or no water at all.

It is evaporation.

But there is a more important, ecologically or, as we say, biotically mediated process, which is called transpiration.

And it is ensured by green creatures, green things, by plants.

And it consists in the following.

When green leaves open those tiny holes — those tiny openings called stomata — to catch CO₂ molecules, because they need CO₂ to produce food for the rest of the biosphere, at that moment the moist inner milieu of the leaf opens, and huge amounts of moisture are emitted into the atmosphere. In fact, for every CO₂ molecule fixed, hundreds of water molecules can leave the plant.

And so we have these three processes, precipitation, river runoff and evaporation and transpiration, the latter two sometimes are combined into one term, evapotranspiration [even if such a combination is not totally legitimate].

And what’s the problem that life has solved?

If we think on a large scale and imagine a moment in the history of our planet when there was still no life on land — and then it began to rise from the ocean and had these barren continents to conquer, so to speak — how did life manage to solve this water problem?

And what is the problem?

As land is elevated above the ocean, whatever water you store — for example, in soil — drains back to the ocean under gravity.

So it cannot be fully recycled.

It leaks.

And it leaks very quickly.

One of the key numbers modern people should bear in mind is how much water we actually have. People don’t know.

For example, if there were no import of moisture from the ocean, how long would it take for rivers to drain all available water from the land?

People can’t even guess.

But in fact, it’s just a few years.

We are not talking about very deep, ancient water — but about the water that is easily available.

So it is a very transient store.

The problem life was solving, then, was how to ensure the transport of moisture back from the ocean.

And that’s why, when we turn to the water cycle, our question was: how do natural ecosystems — and forests in particular — influence the water cycle in ways that make it sustainable?

The Water Solution

And it turns out that the answer is both very elegant and, honestly, mind-blowing, because water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere has a remarkable property.

It is a condensable gas.

So if we have enough moisture at the surface, and this moisture rises, it cools.

We know that if we go up into the mountains, the air gets colder and colder.

So when air rises, it cools, and water vapor condenses.

When it condenses and precipitates, there is now less mass in the atmospheric column.

As the mass decreases, air pressure drops.

And when pressure drops and an area of low pressure forms, it pulls in air from adjacent regions.

If we consider land and ocean, this low-pressure area will draw moist air from the ocean.

So if forests are able to keep the atmosphere over land moist, they sustain this process of condensation and precipitation.

This, in turn, draws in moist oceanic air, which rises, precipitates, and continues the cycle.

And this inflow compensates for the continuous loss of liquid water that occurs through rivers.

So how can we view this in everyday terms?

I sometimes compare it to an investment.

The forest has capital: soil moisture. It is a very important stock of a precious substance — water.

The forest transpires from this stock. It takes resources from this capital and sends them into the atmosphere.

Then, in the atmosphere, condensation and precipitation occur.

And there is an arrival of moist air from the ocean that compensates for this investment, rewards it, and also offsets the loss of capital through river runoff — which can be compared to inflation.

If the forest does nothing and simply tries to preserve its capital, it will disappear anyway. It will be eaten up by “inflation,” because soil moisture will drain back to the ocean.

But the forest is “wise” — and I put this in quotes, because there is nothing mystical about the process. It is physically transparent.

By transpiring moisture into the atmosphere, the forest changes atmospheric dynamics.

And this dynamic helps the forest sustain the water cycle and remain viable in water.

That’s how it works.

The Old-Growth Water Competence

Don: Anastassia, this is Don. I do have a question. Can you explain — and this is explained, of course, in the video that brought you to our attention — how old-growth forests move water better than, say, young forests?

Anastassia: Yes, this is a very, very important question.

You see, this moisture transport involves a complex set of processes, many of which include positive feedbacks.

For example, suppose the atmosphere is very dry, far from the dew point. If the forest transpires into this dry atmosphere, but condensation does not occur because it is too dry, then all the moisture the forest has “spent” will simply be blown away by the wind.

So this investment, so to speak, will be totally lost, because there will be no condensation, no precipitation, and no moisture inflow.

It is therefore important for the forest to transpire the right amount of moisture at the right time.

If we speak about old-growth, well-developed forest ecosystems that have evolved in a particular region and are well suited to its geophysical conditions, they do this properly.

Such forests transpire when the efficiency of the resulting moisture import will be greatest, and they avoid losing moisture.

But naturally, forests experience periods of disturbance — for example, fires or windthrow.

Even without human impact, we know that on such disturbed sites natural succession occurs. The ecosystem has the capacity to self-restore.

If there is a disturbance, non-random processes take place that gradually recover both the environment and the ecosystem.

However, during this process of self-recovery, the ecosystem is unable to regulate external conditions as efficiently as it can when undisturbed. Its resources are focused on recovery.

For example, early successional plants — herbs or grasses — transpire less than trees in an undisturbed forest.

So a recovering ecosystem, and the young forest that forms, exist at the expense of the moisture transport ensured by the old-growth forest that still surrounds the disturbed area.

But today, forests have been disturbed to a very large degree. Essentially everywhere we see disturbances.

There is no proper regulation of the water cycle.

That is why early successional, recovering forests — or tree plantations, which is another story — are unable to regulate the water cycle effectively.

Evolutionarily, disturbed areas were usually a minority. They did not need the full capacity to regulate the water cycle efficiently.

One specific mechanism present in old-growth forests and absent in younger stands is the so-called under-canopy temperature inversion.

When we have a closed canopy with tall, large trees, sunlight is absorbed in the canopy, and the canopy becomes warmer than the surface.

So we have relatively cool air near the ground and warmer air in the canopy.

Because cool air does not rise, there is no spontaneous loss of soil moisture.

Soil moisture remains under the control of transpiration. It is used for transpiration and not wasted.

For example, if there is wind, it could otherwise be blown away — but under these conditions, this does not happen.

Fires follow logging

When we disturb the old-growth canopy — for example, replacing it with shorter, more scattered trees — we increase wind speed.

More importantly, we remove this temperature inversion.

Now the land, no longer protected by green leaves from sunlight, becomes the warmest layer in the vertical profile.

Soil moisture then evaporates — not through transpiration, but through direct evaporation — into stronger winds.

This depletes the ecosystem of moisture.

That is why fires often follow logging.

This disruption of the local water cycle depletes local water stores in a young, fragile ecosystem that is trying to recover from disturbance.

When we log — even selectively, thinking we remove wood so that it does not burn — we disturb the water cycle so strongly that flammability actually increases.

Recent global studies show that ecosystem vulnerability to drought correlates with the degree of disturbance.

The more we disturb forest ecosystems through logging, the less capacity they have to withstand drought.

But this — temperature inversion and increased wind speed — is only one aspect of a very complex set of processes that constitute the biotic pump and, more generally, the regulation of the water cycle by forests.

Another important aspect is temperature regulation through cloud formation via biogenic cloud condensation nuclei.

This capacity is also compromised in disturbed ecosystems.

So there are many aspects to this.

Landscape Trap

Glen: I just want to say we’re talking with Anastassia Makareva, the co-originator of the concept of the biotic pump. And I want to give you a real-life example that I experienced when I lived in Colorado, in the high-elevation areas of the Rocky Mountains.

I’m talking about elevations above 10,000 feet.

The U.S. Forest Service had gone in there in the 1960s and logged extensive areas of old growth.

When I lived there in 1990, those areas still had not grown back into forests — more than 30 years later.

In fact, the Forest Service had replanted those areas at least three or four times.

The young trees they planted died. They replanted every couple of years — and they kept dying.

If you look on Google Earth now, you can still see that those forests have not recovered.

There’s no forest there. They’ve essentially turned into meadows, with very little tree growth at all — large patch cuts surrounded by high-altitude old-growth forests that, I believe, are self-perpetuating and create their own sustaining environment.

For me, that’s a real-life example of what you’ve been talking about.

When the forest was carelessly removed and drastically disturbed, its ability to regulate the water cycle was lost — and the forest has not returned, even after 65 years.

It’s likely that it would take hundreds, maybe even thousands, of years for that area to become a functioning forest again.

That’s a concrete example of how such drastic disturbance disrupts the entire ecology and all of these interacting processes.

Everything is broken.

And what you’re left with is a self-perpetuating, highly disturbed area — nothing like what was there before the damage was done.

Anastassia:I can testify that there are similar situations — for example, in the Bavarian forests, where there have been large-scale bark beetle disturbances.

Bark beetle outbreaks are related to disruptions of the water cycle, because when trees are weakened by drought, they are less able to protect themselves against beetles.

So first there was logging, then some disruption of the water cycle, then bark beetle outbreaks, which contributed to further forest decline.

Ultimately, in the most fragile areas — such as mountain tops — the forests are now essentially bald.

And recovery is, as you say, very, very slow, if it occurs at all.

These are examples of what Australian researchers have called a landscape trap — a concept developed in studies of ecosystem collapse.

It describes a stable but depauperate state into which an ecosystem falls when disturbance exceeds a certain threshold, below which it would still be capable of self-recovery.

They studied this using the example of mountain ash forests. These forests experience fires from time to time — they are not rainforests where fires are very infrequent.

But when logging occurs, the forests become drier.

Then the next fire destroys even more forest.

Then there may be further logging, and ultimately the forest reaches a state where it is no longer able to recover.

The more we disturb the forest, the drier it becomes.

The drier it becomes, the more susceptible it is to fire.

And ultimately, it is pushed onto a path of complete degradation.

Of course, there are regions where this is less likely because they are geophysically wetter.

But in regions where water is already limiting, forests may function well if undisturbed.

But when we add disturbance pressure, they crash — and their water cycle crashes with them.

This is important to understand because water-cycle regulation is a dynamic process.

The forest “spends” moisture in order to gain moisture.

If one link in this cycle breaks, the whole system breaks.

If the forest transpires but there is no condensation and no precipitation, the moisture is simply lost — and drought follows.

Evolutionary Paradox?

So these processes must occur in the way they have evolved to occur.

If we talk to plant physiologists, they sometimes discuss what they call an evolutionary paradox.

Why did plants evolve to be so “wasteful” with water? They could, in principle, transpire very little.

We know there are plants that transpire relatively small amounts — for example, cacti.

And yet plants, especially trees, transpire abundant amounts of water.

Why such apparent wastefulness? [Is transpiration an “inevitable evil”?]

But it is not wastefulness. It is, as I said, an investment in a more efficient water cycle.

If they did not transpire so much, they would not be able to moisten the atmosphere sufficiently to change its dynamics and to draw more moisture to the regions where they grow.

Recent Research

You were asking about our recent research.

Biotic pump research began by examining precipitation distributions over forests and over non-forested regions — so it was more forest-oriented.

But then we realized that the physical principles behind these moist air circulations are not sufficiently explored.

More recently, we have moved further into physics — for example, studying tropical cyclones and hurricanes.

In tropical cyclones, condensation and precipitation are very well measured.

There are many events, so we have good statistics.

If we are correct about the physical mechanisms underlying biotic pumping in forests, we should be able to quantify the same mechanism — moist air being drawn toward low-pressure zones associated with intense precipitation — in tropical cyclones.

Since tropical cyclones are purely physical phenomena — much simpler than forests or any living system — they are very useful to study in order to persuade scientists and the broader scientific community that these mechanisms are indeed very powerful.

For example, one of our most recent findings — which is very important — concerns cyclone intensification.

When a tropical cyclone intensifies, its wind speed increases and its central pressure drops.

In very strong cyclones, pressure can drop by as much as 100 millibars per day.

We compared precipitation rates in these cyclones with the rate of pressure drop.

Recall that I began by explaining that when precipitation removes moisture from the atmosphere, mass is removed from the atmospheric column, and pressure drops.

What we found is that pressure in these cyclones drops at the maximum rate permitted by precipitation.

It is as if precipitation removes mass and the pressure falls accordingly. Of course, the dynamics are more complex than that — but the rates practically coincide.

This is a new result.

There are thousands of researchers studying tropical cyclones — especially in the United States, where this is a major concern — but no one had examined it from this perspective.

This is very important. It shows that the precipitation mass sink — which also operates in forests — is fundamental to the dynamics of such systems and to the resulting moisture inflow.

So this is very exciting science.

Beyond the feeling that it may contribute to preserving ecosystems — which motivates my research — it is also beautiful and exciting in purely scientific terms.

Concluding Remarks

Glen: We’ve been talking with Anastassia Makarieva. And Anastassia, before we go, I’d like you to tell our listeners how they can find out more about your research.

Can they follow you anyway online? And do you put any of your information out for public consumption, such as on YouTube or Substack or any of those kinds of venues?

Anastassia: Yes, thank you, Glen. I run a Substack called Biotic Regulation and Biotic Pump: How Natural Ecosystems Keep the Earth Habitable.

The address is bioticregulation.substack.com. You’re very welcome to read the materials there — and I also try to answer questions.

Glen: Great. Well, we really appreciate you putting some time from your research to talk with us and give our listeners kind of the intro to this biotic pump concept.

And also really appreciate your concerns about preserving forests and the importance of these old, mature and intact forests that we also share that love here in the United States.

But really want to appreciate you coming on to the show. And we will sign up for your Substack.

Anastassia: Thank you very much. And I want to say that I greatly appreciate the work American scientists have done in this field.

You should especially be proud of the proforestation concept that originated in the United States. I believe this idea should be broadly supported — proforestation meaning allowing forests to develop according to their own ecological laws, so they can reach their maximally competent environmental state, where biotic regulation operates at maximum efficiency.

Unfortunately, we are not progressing very well with this forest preservation. We’re losing every now and then. Not so many victories.

Glen: As one of our heroes said, wilderness needs no defense, just more defenders. And that’s where we’re at. We’re defenders of wilderness and the forests. And I agree.

You know, sometimes it seems like we’re not winning, but we actually feel like we have been making some progress here in Massachusetts.

That’s not the whole United States. Obviously, things are not going well in other areas, but we have been making some progress in Massachusetts here.

Anastassia: I wish you every success. When we were in the U.S. in 2023, we met people involved in forest preservation, so we know you have a vibrant community.

Glen: We do. And we’ll never give up. That’s the key.

Anastassia: Good. Champion this cause, and we will follow!

Don: I just signed up for your Substack, too.

Anastassia: Thank you — I truly appreciate it.

Glen: Thank you so much.

Anastassia: Thank you. Bye-bye.

Glen: Bye.

Don: Well, there it is. That video is a must-see — and we’ve posted the link on the blog.

My Summary

The most difficult part of this interview was explaining why old-growth forests are superior in terms of climate regulation. Given that we know very little about undisturbed ecosystems, this argument necessarily involves an appeal to complexity. (Complexity is central — we even organized a conference on it.)

Environmental regulation is a highly complex process. It involves enormous fluxes of matter and energy, and high rates of information processing — “very,” “high,” and “huge” all in comparison with the capacities of our civilization.

When a process is complex and we do not fully understand how it works, we cannot expect it to continue operating at the same efficiency once we interfere with it (i.e., log the trees). That is the crux of the argument — to which one can add specific mechanisms (such as under-canopy temperature inversion, and many others).

But all this requires a certain basic capacity to comprehend complexity — something that may not be easily cultivated in simplified urban environments.

There is also a vicious circle: being unable to appreciate complexity, we ignore it in wild nature, destroy it, and are left with even less complexity.

It remains an open question whether the same scientific knowledge persuades people equally, given different baseline levels of comfort with complexity. However, likewise, the same emotional appeals can produce even more drastically different responses in people with different backgrounds.

Thus, while I agree with Rob Lewis’ concerns, expressed in his recent thoughtful piece “Are facts enough?”, that relying purely on scientific explanations of why wild nature matters may cause us to sacrifice something internally important, I still believe that rational arguments linking wilderness preservation to human well-being can have broader, more universal appeal.

At the same time, we should use every means available.

Recent Biotic Pump Interviews

2025 The Great Simplification — with Nate Hagens: Why We Need Forests: Their Vital Role in Climate Dynamics, Rain, and The Biotic Pump

2023 The Return of Old Growth Forests, a Ray Asselin film: Biotic Pump explanation

2022 Pascal Cuissot’s film “Rivers Above the Canopy”

2022 Climate Water Project — with Alpha Lo: Biotic Pump

2021 Planet: Critical — with Rachel Donald: Save the Forests to Save the Planet

1. What is the biotic pump and how does it work?

This atmospheric transport is essential because forests continuously lose soil water to gravity. Water on land cannot be fully recycled: part of it inevitably drains back to the ocean and must be returned through the atmosphere.

The biotic pump, therefore, is not just about how forests make rain. It is about how forests bring water back from the ocean to land—and, ultimately, how forests make rivers.

Why does the atmosphere deliver water more efficiently to a forest-covered continent than to a barren one?

Forests moisten the atmosphere through transpiration. When green leaves open their stomata to capture CO₂, large amounts of water vapor are released into the air.

Water vapor is the fuel of the atmospheric engine. When moist air rises and water vapor condenses, vapor is removed from the gas phase and precipitation forms. As precipitation removes mass from the air column, local air pressure decreases.

The resulting low-pressure zone pulls moist air from the ocean toward the forest. As this incoming air rises, condensation and precipitation continue, maintaining the pressure drop and sustaining the inflow.

In this way, forests actively draw atmospheric moisture inland.

2. Why does air rise over the forest?

This very interesting and deep question was asked by Peter Wurmsdobler.

The air circulation associated with the biotic pump can be described simply: moist air flows toward the forest near the surface, rises over it, spreads outward aloft, and descends over the ocean.

If we ask why air rises, we must also ask why it flows in at low levels, why it flows out aloft, and why it descends elsewhere. These motions cannot be explained independently. They are all components of a single circulation system constrained by the conservation of mass, energy, and momentum. The circulation must be explained as a coherent whole.

We have already established that low-level air flows toward the forest because surface pressure drops when water vapor condenses and precipitation forms. Air therefore moves from the high-pressure region over the ocean toward the lower-pressure region over the forest.

Air at upper levels can also move horizontally from high to low pressure. For this to occur, the upper-level air over the forest must be warmer than over the ocean at the same altitude. When upper-level air flows out of the forest column, a slight local pressure deficit develops aloft. As a result, air from below rises to compensate. This ascent can therefore be understood as a consequence of the warm outflow.

If the upper-level air were not warmer over the forest than over the ocean, air pressure aloft would be lower over the forest than over the ocean at all heights — not just at the surface. In such a case, to move against the pressure gradient (from low to high pressure), the air would need to possess substantial kinetic energy. A situation of this kind is observed in hurricanes, where the horizontal pressure gradient is so strong that it extends through much of the air column: pressure in the center is lower than at the periphery at nearly all levels, and the upper-level outflow is governed to a large extent by centrifugal forces.

But over the forest, wind velocities are low (most of the kinetic energy generated at low levels is dissipated by friction), and the air would not possess sufficient kinetic energy to overcome the pressure difference.

We therefore conclude that the upper-level air over the Amazon must be warmer than at the same level over the ocean. This enables outflow and ascent, even if at the surface the Amazon forest is colder than the ocean — the “cold Amazon paradox,” often highlighted by Antonio Donato Nobre, author of The Future Climate of Amazonia Report.

Where does this higher temperature come from? As low-level air moves inland from the ocean, it accumulates moisture, which then condenses in rising air and releases latent heat. Because the atmosphere over the forest contains more moisture, the upper-level air becomes warmer than over the ocean at the same height. Thus, condensation lowers air pressure at the surface and raises it aloft, enabling inflow, outflow, and ascent. Descent follows dynamically from the other three.

This brings us naturally to the next question.

3. How does the biotic pump concept differ from the prevailing theory?

How air circulation works has long concerned scientists. Figure from Max Margules (1901, p. 521) illustrating atmospheric circulation driven by differential heating.

While we have agreed that the four legs of the circulation — inflow, ascent, outflow, and descent — cannot be explained independently, we now appear to have two separate explanations: the inflow is driven by the precipitation-related surface pressure drop, while the outflow is attributed to the pressure surplus aloft associated with latent heat release. Yet two independent physical drivers cannot govern a single, dynamically constrained circulation.

Conventional thinking has long held that the temperature-driven pressure surplus aloft drives the entire system. In this view, upper-level air diverges from the atmospheric column over the forest; this divergence induces ascent and creates a surface pressure deficit, which in turn drives inflow, while descent follows from the combined inflow and outflow. Within this qualitative framework, the pressure drop associated with the precipitation mass sink appears unnecessary.

However, it has long been recognized that, for the reasons discussed below, latent heat release alone cannot drive an appreciable large-scale circulation. In the scientific literature, this limitation was summarized by Lindzen and Ngiam (1987) as follows (emphasis added):

The work of Schneider and Lindzen (1977), Schneider (1977), Stevens et al. (1977) and Stevens and Lindzen (1978) suggests that the flows generated by cumulus heating [i.e. by latent heat release — AM] do not contribute effectively to low-level convergence (at least for time scales > 1 week) because the cumulus heating peaks in the upper troposphere and the forced motions decay away from the heating maximum.

Thus, in the conventional framework, forests cannot power atmospheric moisture transport merely by enriching the atmosphere with water vapor (see also the section “The biotic pump and some confusion in atmospheric science” in Biotic Pump Miscellaneous).

Therefore, taking into account the pressure gradient associated with the precipitation mass sink is crucial. Why is it crucial? Because there is a fundamental difference between a pressure gradient aloft and one at the surface. The latter is far more efficient at generating air convergence (inflow).

Why is that so?

Our planet is rotating. In a rotating, frictionless atmosphere, an equilibrium state can form — the geostrophic balance. In this state, a horizontal pressure gradient that would otherwise accelerate air toward low pressure is balanced by the Coriolis force. Air then flows along the isobars (lines of equal pressure) rather than across them. As a result, creating a pressure surplus in the upper atmosphere, where friction is negligible, produces only weak cross-isobaric motion and little low-level convergence.

At the surface, however, geostrophic balance cannot fully establish itself. In addition to the pressure gradient and the Coriolis force, friction acts to dissipate kinetic energy. Because friction weakens the compensating balance, air can cross isobars and flow toward low pressure. A surface pressure gradient is therefore much more effective at generating convergence than a pressure gradient aloft.

The precipitation mass sink is thus the key physical mechanism that creates a surface pressure gradient and draws moist air from the ocean. Once inflow is established, the associated condensation provides sufficient warming aloft to permit outflow. In forest-driven circulation, it is the inflow — not the outflow — that is primary. (Hurricanes operate according to a similar dynamical logic.)

To conclude, by identifying and emphasizing the precipitation mass sink as the key mechanism, the biotic pump concept explains how forests regulate atmospheric moisture transport.

Let us now take a less scientific stance and consider an analogy, even if it may be somewhat far-fetched.

To conceive a child, both a father and a mother are needed. A father cannot give birth to a child in principle. A mother can, but only after her interaction with the father. If some hypothetical aliens—like those reptiles in Ugo Bardi’s saga—were to study only human males, they might conclude that humans cannot reproduce and would be forced to attribute the appearance of children to some mysterious external process. The same applies to the conventional focus on latent heat alone — it leads to the conclusion that forests cannot drive winds.

Meanwhile, if the phenomenon of childbirth is studied in its entirety, with females included and their interaction with males taken into account, the picture becomes clear: humans are indeed able to reproduce (although less and less so, as Ugo Bardi discusses in his recent book The End of Population Growth).

Likewise, only when the previously neglected precipitation mass sink is considered together with latent heat release does it become clear how forests are able to regulate atmospheric moisture transport.

Once we acknowledge the different dynamics of the upper and lower atmosphere, we can turn to the next question.

4. Can the biotic pump operate on the U.S. East Coast, downstream of the jet stream?

The actual question was:

I can see how this biotic moisture pump effect could take place on the West Coast, which is up-wind of the continent re the Jet Stream, but how would it happen on the East Coast, which is downstream re the Jet Stream?

Jet streams are narrow bands of very strong winds that flow high in the atmosphere, typically near the top of the troposphere at about 8–12 kilometers above the surface. They move predominantly from west to east and can reach speeds of 100–300 km/h (and sometimes more).

Jet streams form where there are strong horizontal temperature contrasts — for example, between cold polar air and warmer midlatitude air. Again, because the Earth rotates, these temperature differences generate strong pressure gradients that, under geostrophic balance that we discussed above, produce fast winds flowing along the isobars.

Because temperature and pressure gradients are irregular rather than forming perfect circles, jet streams meander. These meanders contribute to the development and steering of mid-latitude weather systems, including cyclones and anticyclones.

However, the key point is that being upstream or downstream of the jet stream mainly describes how weather systems are steered aloft, not how moisture is supplied near the surface. Most moisture transport occurs in the lower troposphere, where winds are often quite different from those in the jet. Along the East Coast, warm Atlantic waters (especially the Gulf Stream) provide abundant moisture, and weather patterns guided by the jet regularly generate low-level onshore southerly or southeasterly flow. Likewise, along the same latitudes in Asia, there is an East Asian monsoon, with moisture delivered inland from the south and southeast. Condensation over forested land can then support continued inland moisture transport.

In one of the first biotic pump publications we explored precipitation distribution from the American and Asian East Coasts inland, see curves 4 and 5 in the image below. We can see that there is a more or less stable distribution over richer vegetation (closed symbols) and then a decline in a treeless zone (open symbols). This is naturally consistent with considerable moisture transport from the east.

Fig. 2 from Makarieva et al. 2009. Dependence of annual precipitation P (mm/year) on distance x (km) from the ocean over non-forested territories (open symbols) and forest-covered territories (closed symbols). Note that the biotic pump concerns moisture convergence (i.e., net moisture import) rather than precipitation per se. However, given the positive correlation between precipitation and river runoff, precipitation can be used as a proxy for runoff (cf. Fig. 5 in Makarieva et al., 2013, where both runoff and precipitation are shown).

Related to this discussion of how moisture propagates inland is Peter’s second question:

5. Does the biotic pump operate as a single large circulation cell?

Or does it consist of many smaller cells that, like runners in a relay race, pass moisture inland from one to another?

The regions of ascent and descent in the major atmospheric circulation cells — such as the Hadley, Ferrel, and Polar cells — extend over a thousand kilometers or more. Therefore, a large forest spanning similar distances, together with the adjacent ocean, can also function as a single circulation cell.

This does not mean that trees do not pass moisture to one another. Transpired moisture is added to the oceanic inflow and transported inland. However, it is the forest as a whole that undergoes large-scale ascent or descent.

Below is Fig. 5 from Fernández-Alvarez et al. (2025), who examined the progression of the anomalous 2023 drought in the Amazon forest.

The omega variable in the first column represents the rate of change of air pressure following the motion of an air parcel. When air rises, the surrounding pressure decreases and omega is negative; when air descends, pressure increases and omega is positive.

A positive omega anomaly, such as the one shown in the figure, indicates that descent is stronger than usual. We can see that this anomaly spreads over the forest as a whole. This suggests that the compensatory mechanisms also operate at the scale of the entire region.

The large-scale ascending and descending air motions are directly relevant to our next question:

6. How do forests cool the Earth? Why doesn’t the released heat remain in the atmosphere?

As I understand it, a major way that the biosphere helps regulate the temperature of the earth and that evaporation helps cool it is that when liquid water evaporates and changes from liquid to vapor it requires 590 kal of energy per one cubic centimeter of water and this energy/heat travels up with water vapor where it can leave the atmosphere and thus, goes away from the earth, cooling it. But what prevents this energy from being held in the toposphere closer to the earth and thus, contributing to heat?

What is important to bear in mind is that when condensation occurs and latent heat is released, this energy is not emitted directly as thermal radiation and therefore cannot be immediately radiated to space. The question of what ultimately happens to this released energy is therefore very relevant.

A useful way to understand latent heat release during condensation is to begin with evaporation. During evaporation, only the more energetic molecules in the liquid have enough kinetic energy to overcome the attractive forces between water molecules and escape into the vapor phase. This selective removal of higher-energy molecules lowers the average kinetic energy of the remaining liquid, causing the surface to cool.

While the liquid water cools, the vapor phase does not become warmer as a result of evaporation. Escaping molecules must climb out of the intermolecular potential well, converting kinetic energy into potential energy; they therefore do not inject a surplus of kinetic energy into the vapor.

During condensation, the reverse transition occurs. Vapor molecules descend into the intermolecular potential well. The associated decrease in potential energy is converted into kinetic energy through molecular collisions, warming both the condensate and the surrounding air.

In other words, latent heat release upon condensation manifests as an increase in the kinetic energy of molecular thermal motion.

Now the atmosphere must dispose of this added heat by radiating it to space. This requires greenhouse gas molecules — mainly water vapor and CO₂. Through molecular collisions, these molecules become energized and can emit infrared (thermal) photons.

Whether those photons escape to space depends on how much absorbing air lies above them. The higher in the atmosphere the emission occurs, the fewer greenhouse gas molecules remain overhead to absorb the radiation, and the greater the chance that the photon will escape. (I discussed this in our Global Cooling from Transpiration webinar and in the very first post on this blog; recently Rob Lewis and Ali Bin Shahid have also examined this effect.)

Now how the air circulation plays in. If latent heat is released aloft, where the air is thinner, and the warmed air remains there for a sufficient time, a significant fraction of the emitted radiation can leave the Earth system directly. This is how cooling occurs.

If, however, the warmed air rapidly descends and returns heat to the surface, radiation emitted there must pass through the entire troposphere. With many absorbers above, much of it will be intercepted and re-emitted downward, strengthening the greenhouse effect. In this case, no effective cooling occurs.

That is why air circulation is central to understanding the cooling effect of transpiration. I conclude with the quote from our paper devoted to this subject (emphasis added):

2.3. Dependence of global transpirational cooling on atmospheric circulation

The higher up in the air column that convection transports heat, the more pronounced global cooling it exerts. This is because the energy is radiated more directly to space from the upper atmospheric layer (cf. Figures 3E, F). In addition to the altitude, it matters how rapidly the cooled air descends. When the air rises and increases its potential energy in the gravitational field, its internal energy accordingly declines, and it cools. While evaporation cools the evaporating surface, the release of latent heat during condensation in the rising air partially offsets this decline of the internal energy of air molecules, making the rising air warmer than it would be without condensation. Radiating this extra thermal energy to space takes time. The more time spent by the air warmed by latent heat release in the upper atmosphere (above the main absorbers), the more energy is radiated unimpeded to space and the stronger the global transpirational cooling. With the characteristic radiative cooling rate of the order of 2 K day⁻¹, it takes about 15–30 days to radiate the latent heat released by tropical moist convection (Goody, 2003).

Therefore, long-distance moisture transport (including the biotic pump run by forests, Makarieva and Gorshkov, 2007) enhances global transpirational cooling: moist air travels for many days, and thousands of kilometers from the ocean to land, where it ascends and latent heat is released. The dry air warmed by latent heat makes the same long way back in the upper atmosphere, thereby radiating energy to space (Figure 4). If, on the contrary, the warmed air descends rapidly and locally, then most heat is brought back to the surface before it is radiated, and the global power of the net cooling effect can be nullified. Therefore, disruptions in the long-distance moisture transport (e.g., by deforestation) and violent local rains should warm the Earth. In smaller convective clouds up to a quarter of ascending air descends locally at a relatively high vertical velocity (Heus and Jonker, 2008; Katzwinkel et al., 2014). These effects are not taken into account when assessing the temperature effects of land cover changes (e.g., Bright et al., 2017).

Current global climate models do not correctly reproduce either the long-distance ocean-to-land moisture transport or the moisture transport over the ocean (Sohail et al., 2022). For example, the Amazon streamflow is underestimated by up to 50% (Marengo, 2006; Hagemann et al., 2011, their Figure 5). This corresponds to a 10% error in the global continental streamflow, the latter being of the same order as global continental evaporation. Similarly, global climate models do not correctly reproduce how the local diurnal cycle of convection changes upon deforestation by producing extreme low and high temperatures (Lejeune et al., 2017, their Figure 7). These are indirect indications of the models’ limited capacity to reproduce global transpirational cooling.

I am grateful to Peter Wurmsdobler, to the participants of the course “How Trees & Forests Shape Our Climate”, and to its host, Hart Hagen, for their insightiful questions and persistent interest in the biotic pump topic. Peter has recently published a popular account of the biotic pump story, which can be read on his Medium page. Further questions and comments are very welcome.

Related reading:

In brief, what I want to say is that many people tend to think climate models err because they lack sufficient resolution — that they are simply too coarse. I discuss some arguments, rarely presented to the public but well-known to professionals, indicating that increasing resolution in current models does not actually lead to expected improvements. My own perspective is that this is because the models lack a proper constraint on their behavior. This constraint lies in the relationship between condensation rate and wind power in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Neglecting this constraint, and tuning models as if differential warming were the only thing capable of driving air motion, can lead to incorrect and strategically dangerous conclusions that forests do not matter for the terrestrial water cycle.

For some readers, this could be another dense post. But this is what concerns me very deeply, so from time to time I have to let these thoughts out.

Recent problems with climate models

You can’t easily prevent people from thinking and trying to form their own independent opinions. For example, in a recent Nate Hagens’ podcast, materials expert and investor Craig Tindale noted:

I got bored in Covid, so I decided I’d read the IPCC climate models and then I went down rabbit holes in all parts of the climate models. I’m far from an expert because I don’t hold any any degrees in it. But I certainly understand the models. The models were extraordinarily wrong. You know, I position it as the skeptics and the climate activists were both wrong. You know, they’re talking about 2100 and things that are going to happen out there. What they missed was their models were too coarse and the fact the whole thing is accelerated much faster than we thought that it would and so they were wrong as well. And so our window to change is is basically closed. …
you’ll get people like James Hansen and Leon Simmons who have put extraordinarily blunt research out there recently saying does everyone know this is accelerating faster than we thought.

Indeed, our climate projections—the ones society has an opportunity to discuss—are derived from global climate models. These are sophisticated programs that solve the equations of hydrodynamics on a grid with finite resolution. Recently, society has learned that models do not correctly depict some of the changes that are underway. Many of these changes are, in fact, happening faster than predicted (see my discussion of hot models in “On the scientific essence of Dr. James Hansen’s recent appeal”).

This idea—that models should simply increase their resolution in order to become more and more reliable—is very much in line with the thinking of specialists engaged in incremental science. The path is chosen; all that is needed is to move forward. And more resources. However, some people can see indications that this could be a path to nowhere.

I am not a modeler myself; I am more of an advanced consumer of model outputs, which I analyze as a theorist, drawing on observational data and my own understanding of the Earth’s system. So let me explain what I mean.

Too coarse to fail

The problem is that the external constraint we know for the climate system is the differential distribution of absorbed solar radiation. Warm air rises, cold air descends, all that. In principle, atmospheric motions should be reproducible from this information together with what we know about the planetary surface. In practice, however, because there is no theory of turbulence (which can be understood as friction destroying wind kinetic energy), this friction must be tuned so that simulated winds match observations.

Take the Hadley cells as an example: air rises at the equator, where solar input is strongest, and descends near 30° latitude. Friction coefficients are tuned so that near-surface meridional (north–south) velocities are about 2 meters per second. They are not derived from first principles, they are tuned to observations.

This scheme shows a model grid (squares) and the resolved large-scale air motion across the grids.

But once this tuning produces realistic winds, another problem emerges: precipitation is wrong. The rainfall patterns generated by those winds do not agree with observations.

For a long time, this was blamed on coarse model resolution. Precipitation involves air rising through roughly ten kilometers of the atmosphere, while early model grid spacing was much larger—often 100 km or more.

To cope with the unrealistic precipitation, an additional tuning was introduced within each grid cell, called convective parameterization (on convective parameterization, see also “The tug-of-war between forests and oceans”.

This allows rainfall and latent heat release to occur relatively independently of the resolved large-scale flow, as if air were rising and descending entirely within a grid cell.

This scheme shows the large-scale (resolved) air circulation, and parameterized convective motion within columns.

This naturally added substantial arbitrariness to the models.

But the hope was that as horizontal resolution improved and grid size dropped below about 10 km, convective parameterization could be abandoned. Precipitation would then be generated by resolved motions alone, leaving turbulence as the only process requiring tuning.

That hope was not realized. Even in very high-resolution models, convective parameterization remains necessary; without it, rainfall is unrealistic. Below I quote an excerpt from the discussion following a very interesting lecture by Dr. Vidale on high-resolution model development. While the lecture showcased many successes, the Q&A revealed many problems (emphasis mine).

From the audience: Hi thanks a lot for the very inspiring talk it’s XXX from Meteo Swiss and in the global NWP [NWP – numerical weather predictions -- AM] it seems that going from 10 kilometer towards five or two kilometer we don’t have a straightforward improvement of this course and maybe it’s because of parameterizations are not ideal for these scales or we don’t know which one to switch off and the question is whether we should jump to even higher resolution to get around this so-called disgrace and how do you would say this is for climate application and projection?

P.L. Vidale: Funny you should say that we spent a year and a half debating this in Erie and nobody could agree and in the end we decided not to say anything about it and we’re very lucky that Christoph was not one of the reviewers otherwise we would have been in serious trouble.

Somehow the reviewers sort of missed it but I have to say that the feelings around this issue are very strong and there is one group that absolutely believes we should switch off convective parameterization no matter the scale and there is another group that believes we need to keep it on.

So Friday we were looking at next-gen results and I can tell you that the four kilometers in the IFS if we disable even the deep convective parameterization we have a huge error over the ITCZ [Intertropical Convergence Zone — AM] and this is three times the precip[itation] that we should have over the ITCZ and the other issue I don’t have time to show but there’s a lot of popcorn all over

so in the end even at four kilometers we had to enable shallow and deep [convective parameterization — AM] in the IFS otherwise just wrong so this is a huge issue and yes maybe we need to go all the way to one or 220 meters like our Japanese colleagues are doing but currently we don’t have such capability I would say mostly on the side of software we have the compute… Bjorn is saying now we have far too much computing what we don’t have is the capability and I tend to agree with that

but also to jump all the way to one kilometer without knowing about all the other parameterizations like um what’s happening with with um turbulence so we were seeing again developments of the Smagorinsky scheme in nikam and and they’re doing a lot of work around that so so it’s it’s not just about increasing the resolution blindly we need to do a lot of work around these things and I really do believe here that the regional models can help and we should work together.

What they conference participants are essentially discussing is that after tuning turbulence to produce the correct horizontal winds under the observed differential heating, rainfall is still not generated correctly. Even though the horizontal resolution is now much smaller than the height of the atmosphere, they nevertheless have to switch on separate “tricks” (convective parameterization) to produce realistic rainfall within each grid cell.

What is the problem?

Of course, one could try to go further by increasing the resolution, but from my perspective the problem is probably conceptual. Turbulence and precipitation are related, and if this link is not included in their representation in models, one will always have to tune them separately.

The problem is that differential heating is not the only process that generates pressure gradients and drives winds in the Earth’s atmosphere. As we discussed in our previous post on hurricanes, precipitation—which differentially removes gas from regions of low pressure—also generates pressure gradients that can drive very appreciable winds. In fact, as Heinrich Hertz thought, and as we agree, this mechanism may be more significant than differential heating.

There is quantitative theoretical argumentation showing how much wind power can be derived from observed precipitation, and it agrees with observations. However, as one thoughtful reader recently commented, taking this into account would require a gargantuan rethinking of how the atmosphere works. The stability of existing understanding and incremental progress are currently being preferred over conceptual disruption (which we are hoping to evoke anyway).

It is not innocent

Readers often politely imply in their comments: what on Earth does all this physics—hurricanes, precipitation, turbulence—mean for our understanding of the water cycle on land, and for how to keep land habitable and thriving? Setting these matters straight is very important.

If a model is tuned to generate winds only in response to differential heating, it may conclude—along the lines of a recent study discussed in our recent work—that the Amazon forest could be destroyed (and trees removed more generally) without any danger to the terrestrial water cycle. The idea is that without evapotranspiration the land becomes warmer, the contrast between land and ocean increases, and stronger winds should follow. (Yet the Amazon forest is cooler than the ocean and still drives winds inland.)

The mismatch between observations and models in how precipitation is reproduced is not a minor issue but may represent the visible the tip of an iceberg hidden in model structure: the missing link between condensation and wind power. For example, high-resolution models struggle to reproduce the diurnal precipitation cycle over tropical land areas:

Fig. 1 from Segura et al. 2022. Shown is the diurnal cycle of precipitation in observations (IMERG) and high-resolution models.

One can see that the modeled peak, which is much higher than observed, occurs closer to midday, while the observed peak happens later in the afternoon. This may seem like a minor issue—after all, the model reproduces many other atmospheric parameters, like wind speeds, satisfactorily. But this discrepancy suggests that the model generates ascending air motion mainly from direct thermal forcing, with maximum solar input at midday. The dynamic feedbacks between cooling, condensation, and convection are not properly worked out. Thus, this seemingly minor mismatch indicates that the model may not be adequate for describing forest-mediated moisture transport. Nor can it govern our large-scale forest policies.

If our civilization is indeed heading toward a near-term decline, this may be the last moment when we still have an enormous abundance of data to understand, in quantitative terms, how profoundly the biosphere matters for Earth’s habitability. We may lose these global datasets sooner than we expect.

If we do this work now, and acquire the new understanding, we can carry this quantitative science forward and memetize it for future generations in an accessible, scientific, and rational form. In this way, preserving the biosphere would rest not only on spiritual knowledge inherited from the past, but also on clear scientific argumentation—even if future generations no longer have the capacity to collect environmental data at today’s scale.

So long live the biosphere, and we continue our work.

Hurricane Isabel 2003

Rain and Hurricane Intensification

When we look at a hurricane from space, we see a vast, nearly circular system of bright clouds. What remains hidden is what lies beneath them: a deep region of low atmospheric pressure that decreases toward the storm’s center. This pressure difference draws air inward from all directions.

Because Earth is rotating, the inflowing air cannot move straight toward the center. Instead, it curves and begins to rotate. As the air approaches the core of the storm, its rotation speeds up—much like a figure skater who spins faster as she pulls her arms inward.

Surface air pressure is simply the weight of the atmospheric column above us, roughly equivalent to the weight of a ten-meter column of water. From this perspective, the pressure minimum can be pictured as a pit with less air than its surroundings. Hurricane intensification can then be understood as the formation and deepening of this pressure well.

The cylinder represents the atmosphere, the deepening pit represents the area of decreasing pressure from which air is removed.

How quickly this pressure well forms in real storms can be estimated directly from observations. For Atlantic tropical storms, the Extended Best Track dataset provides storm positions and central pressures at six-hour intervals for every recorded system. Averaged across all storms, the median rate of central pressure fall is about 12 millibars per day. Much faster deepening does occur, but it is rare. In meteorology, rapid intensification was defined as a pressure fall exceeding 42 millibars per day. In the most severe storms, the central pressure can ultimately drop by 100 millibars or more, reducing normal air pressure by more than one tenth.

This brings us to the central question: what sets the rate of this pressure fall? Why is it typically on the order of ten millibars per day, rather than one hundred millibars per hour—or, at the other extreme, only ten millibars per week?

Lowering the air pressure in the hurricane core requires removing mass from the atmospheric column. The problem therefore becomes one of accounting: which processes add mass to the column, and which remove it?

Broadly speaking, there are three such processes. First, moist air flows into the storm at low levels (the horizontal blue arrow). This air then rises (not shown), dries as it loses moisture through precipitation, and exits the storm in the upper atmosphere (the horizontal brown arrow). In addition to this horizontal circulation, precipitation removes condensed water directly from the atmospheric column (the thin vertical arrow).

Which of these processes actually controls how fast the pressure well deepens? Observations show that the inflow and outflow transport several hundred times more mass into and out of an inner region—say, within 100 kilometers of the center—than is removed by precipitation falling as rain. There is a very large inflow, a very large outflow, and a comparatively tiny direct loss of mass by precipitation. Given this imbalance, what outcome should we expect?

If you pause to think about it, this is not a trivial question.

Now imagine our reaction when we carried out the analysis. This required matching precipitation data to all hurricane positions and computing the radial distribution of rainfall for every storm.

Examples of radial precipitation distributions for several major Atlantic hurricanes from our earlier work. Thin red curve indicates local rainfall at a given radius, thick red curve indicates mean precipitation within that radius, black dashed curve indicates climatological precipitation in the same region without a hurricane, for other notations please consult the original publication. Note the logarithmic scale on the vertical axis.

What we found was striking: in the storm core—the region of maximum precipitation—the precipitation rate closely matches the pressure deepening rate, about 14 mb/day versus 12 mb/day. (To express precipitation in mb/day, one multiplies the mass removed per day by gravity, g.) To our knowledge, no such analysis had been done before.

The result was remarkable. If I could speak with Victor for just a few minutes, and he asked how I had been, I would not tell him about COVID or wars, but about this finding. When he passed away in May 2019, one of his unfinished papers concerned storm intensification; we now see that the intensification rate of hurricanes practically coincides with the concurrent precipitation rate in their core. When we began our work on the biotic pump physics to show that the dynamics of the condensation sink is a major driver of atmospheric circulation, we did not know this.

Intrigue

Since there is no generally accepted theory of storm intensification, and many discussions are ongoing, submitting our work for evaluation was, naturally, a moment of suspense. We first published a preprint and then submitted the manuscript to the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, a journal of the American Meteorological Society. JAS does not have a particularly high citation index, but it hardly needs one: it is a well-established venue for a relatively small, elite community of atmospheric theorists to present and debate serious work.

The evaluations from three reviewers, received a few months after submission, were positive and constructive—a very pleasant surprise. To quote from the opening lines of the reviews (with my emphasis):

Reviewer 1: It's an interesting study that links tropical cyclone intensification rate to mass removal from the air column (precipitation). Our focus of how moist process impacts intensification is often on diabatic heating while this manuscript gives another seemingly important process - precipitation fall-out. It explains partially why a reversible tropical cyclone cannot intensify as fast as a pseudoadiabatic tropical cyclone. I like the content of the manuscript which discusses a lot of interesting and novel ideas. But the current version does not give a clear explanation of the mentioned processes. I would recommend a major revision.

Reviewer 2: The role of the condensation mass sink in tropical cyclone (TC) intensification is examined using both observations and idealized numerical model simulations. The main finding is that the condensation mass sink is an important process in TC intensification, perhaps more important than other previous studies (Lackmann and Yablonski, Bryan and Rotunno) have shown. The study contains interesting new work on the condensation mass sink's role in TC intensification. It could be publishable subject to addressing a few major and minor issues, which are noted below.

Reviewer 3: In this study, the authors examine the relation between tropical cyclone (TC) intensification rate and maximum rainfall rate, using observational analyses of TCs in the North Atlantic and CM1 model simulations. Their main conclusions are 1) the lifetime maximum intensification rate of a TC is caused by the condensation mass sink related to precipitation falling out of the TC system, and 2) condensation mass sink is a part of a positive feedback mechanism between the TC central pressure and vertical motion in TC development.
Overall, this is interesting research, addressing an open question about the impacts of mass sink related to condensation mass sink in TC development that is worth considering for publication. I do have however two main concerns that I would like to hear from the authors, and so would recommend a major revision such that the authors could have a chance to reply and/or justify their results.

All three reviewers recommended a major revision, which was expected: the ideas were new, and many points required clarification. However, the editor rejected the manuscript, contrary to those recommendations. The main argument was that our theory implies that, once a tropical storm reaches a steady state, its precipitation must vanish—since there is no further intensification. Observations, by contrast, indicate that storms tend to produce their most intense rainfall near the time of maximum intensity. This was a misinterpretation of our work, to which we return below.

What we took from this disagreement between the reviewers’ assessments and the editor’s decision was that the situation was sociologically complicated. Handling editors bear full responsibility for publication decisions, and they may consult colleagues beyond the formal reviewers—who remain invisible to the authors but whose opinions can carry significant weight. At the same time, the scientific picture was itself confused, shaped by earlier work that had concluded that the vapor sink plays no significant role (as mentioned by Reviewer 2).

Therefore, rather than immediately throwing our intellectual child back into those turbulent waters through a revision and re-submission, we decided first to feel our way toward firmer ground and set the record straight on one essential point: to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the precipitation mass sink is a significant term in the mass budget of any tropical storm. To this end, as explained in Part #1, we wrote a short commentary on a recent paper that attempted to construct a theory of storm intensification while neglecting the precipitation mass sink altogether. Since the AMS normally encourages such discussions, this provided a good opportunity to convey the message succinctly—while also correcting an unjustified violation of mass conservation along the way.

Our commentary was evaluated by a single reviewer, who agreed that the criticism itself was valid, but nevertheless recommended rejection because the authors of the criticized paper—after some hesitation—declined to provide a response. In the reviewer’s assessment, the absence of such a response rendered the criticism “without context,” even though that absence resulted from the authors’ own refusal to engage. The same editor who had handled our first paper made the decision to reject the commentary.

We therefore provided the necessary context ourselves and resubmitted the commentary; this is where Part #1 ended.

Controversy

Recently, we received a response from the journal rejecting our commentary once again, this time after evaluation by two reviewers. The editor noted that these were new reviewers; the earlier reviewer who had judged our criticism to be valid was not involved.

A complete exchange with the reviewers and the editors can be found in Appendix A of our updated preprint. From one of the reviews (my emphasis):

The authors of this Comment raise an important and potentially valid critique regarding the physical basis of the S&T [Sparks and Toumi — AM] (2022) model. Their argument—that the precipitation mass sink is a critical component of the surface pressure tendency in tropical cyclones—is at least intuitive and may be correct, though the role of mass removal due to precipitation remains largely unexplored in the broader community (this does not necessarily diminish its potential importance).

At this point, the discussion develops two distinct but related foci. The first concerns whether our criticism of the work of Sparks and Toumi (2022)—in which precipitation was omitted from the storm mass budget—is valid. The second concerns whether storm intensification is, in fact, controlled by precipitation.

With respect to the first question, one of the two reviewers raised an important point, echoing earlier concerns expressed by the handling editor. He argued that the storm’s mass budget can be decomposed into two components by considering dry air and water vapor separately. Since the total amount of water vapor within the storm is small and changes very little during storm development, nearly all of the water vapor entering the storm must be removed by precipitation, without affecting the total mass budget. Under this interpretation, changes in central pressure are determined solely by the difference between the inflow and outflow of dry air.

Schematic representation of the argument raised by the reviewer. The low-level inflow is separated into dry air (inward brown arrow) and water vapor (blue arrow). All incoming water vapor is removed by precipitation (vertical blue arrow), while the dry air exits the storm in the upper atmosphere (outward brown arrow). Under this interpretation, changes in total mass—and thus in central pressure—are determined solely by the difference between the inflow and outflow of dry air. Where, then, does precipitation enter the control of storm intensification?

The reviewer’s point, as applied to the work of Sparks and Toumi (2022), was essentially this: if their model is to work while ignoring the precipitation term, then the pressure tendency should have been written explicitly in terms of the inflow and outflow of dry air, not total air, as they actually did. The reviewer stressed that Sparks and Toumi never made this distinction, and that this should be stated clearly.

To cut a long story short—and to get back to the more interesting questions—below is the letter to the editors that we sent with our latest resubmission of the Commentary.

Date: 28 January 2026

To:
Dr. Daniel Stern, Handling Editor
Dr. Zhuo Wang, Editor in Chief
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Subject: Editorial action regarding Sparks and Toumi (2022)

Dear Dr. Stern and Dr. Wang,

We write concerning our Comment on Sparks and Toumi (2022), which identifies an unjustified omission of the precipitation term from the pressure-tendency equation. We are grateful to the reviewers for their careful evaluation.

One reviewer stated explicitly that the criticism is valid. A second reviewer characterized it as potentially valid but did not address its substance, instead suggesting development of a standalone paper with a new theory. A third reviewer noted that the model of Sparks and Toumi (2022) would be valid if total air density were replaced by dry-air density, acknowledging that this should be noted. Importantly, none of the reviewers refuted our central claim that, as currently formulated, the model is not valid.

While we respect the editorial decision, we are concerned that the present outcome [i.e., with our commentary rejected — AM] leaves an acknowledged inconsistency unaddressed. In its published form, the model does not specify dry-air density in the governing equations.

Although total air density and dry-air density differ by only about one percent, the key diagnostic quantity—the column-mean velocity—can differ by more than 100% and even change sign depending on which density is used. This is therefore not a minor issue. Moreover, while the equations could in principle be reinterpreted, the numerical analyses cannot be retroactively corrected: they necessarily used either total air density or dry-air density, and this choice must be made explicit.

In our view, if total air density was used, publication of our Comment would be the appropriate mechanism to clarify the issue for readers. If dry-air density was used, a corrigendum would be required. In either case, leaving the matter unresolved does not seem consistent with AMS standards of scientific rigor and self-correction.

We therefore respectfully ask that the journal either reconsider publication of our revised Comment, which addresses all reviewer comments, or request that the authors of Sparks and Toumi (2022) publish a corrigendum clarifying the formulation.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Anastassia Makarieva

This letter also had a sociological calculation behind it. If the authors of Sparks and Toumi (2022) were to refuse to publish a corrigendum—much as they had earlier declined to engage with our criticism (see Part #1)—that refusal could itself strengthen the case for publishing our commentary. Publishing a corrigendum, on the other hand, would in any case require acknowledging our work.

If the journal were instead to decide on no action at all, then, given the visibility of the issue—a clear violation of mass conservation—we would have the option of respectfully appealing at a higher level within the AMS, simply to see where this resistance to the precipitation mass sink ultimately ends.

In any case, the more researchers are drawn into this controversy, the more it encourages independent thinking about the currently neglected dynamics of the precipitation mass sink.

Complexity

Let us now turn to the core of the physical argument raised by the reviewer: that the mass—and therefore pressure—change in the storm core is determined entirely by the inflow and outflow of dry air.

At first glance, this looks like a decisive argument, one that should end the discussion leaving no role for precipitation in storm intensification. The editor indeed described it as critical, and it formed the basis of the rejection.

There is, however, a stubborn counter-argument supplied by the storms themselves: observations show that precipitation rates and intensification rates practically coincide.

As a concrete, real-world example, Hurricane Milton (2024) underwent rapid intensification, with its central pressure falling by 84 mbar in just one day. For such a pressure drop to be sustained by precipitation alone would require rainfall rates in excess of about 35 mm per hour—equivalent to removing roughly 840 kg of water per square meter per day.

And that is exactly what was observed. Reconnaissance flights into Milton recorded peak local precipitation rates exceeding 33 mm per hour, with maxima reaching well above 60 mm per hour.

The numbers are not merely consistent; they are uncomfortably close. How can this be reconciled with the argument above?

In fact, we had already explained this in the very first submission of our commentary. The reviewer at the time judged that this material was not directly relevant to our critique of Sparks and Toumi (and, strictly speaking, it was not), so we removed it in the revised submission. As a result, unlike the editor, the new reviewers never had the opportunity to evaluate it.

Let us therefore revisit this line of reasoning, beginning with a simple thought experiment.

We start with a deliberately artificial case. Imagine that water vapor does not condense when moist air rises, but instead behaves as a passive tracer carried along by the flow. We assume a steady-state circulation: whatever flows into the storm also flows out, and the air pressure does not change. This idealized situation is shown in panel (a).

Dry air and water vapor are shown in brown and blue, respectively. Thin white arrows indicate inflow into and outflow from the atmospheric column. Black arrows denote the outflow of condensate (precipitation). Large triangles indicate the direction of pressure adjustment, that is, the direction of air motion required to fill a pressure deficit. Yellow shading marks the pressure deficit that appears upon water vapor condensation.

Now let us allow the water vapor to condense as it rises, with the condensate removed by precipitation, shown by the black arrow in panel (b). At the same time, we deliberately hold the flow velocities fixed. In this imagined case, the circulation remains steady: less water vapor leaves the column in gaseous form, but that reduction in gaseous outflow is exactly balanced by removal through precipitation. Panel (b) thus represents the situation implied by the reviewer’s argument. In this picture, precipitation by itself does not lead to intensification; it merely provides an alternative pathway for the condensed vapor to leave the column. As in panel (a), panel (b) also contains two inward and two outward arrows.

However, if precipitation were to occur without any adjustment of the flow, the result would be a strongly non-hydrostatic column, with an uncompensated vertical pressure difference Δp of the order of the water-vapor partial pressure, Δp ≈ pᵥ ≈ 30 mb. If such a pressure imbalance were to persist (as indicated by the yellow shading in panel (b)), it would drive vertical velocities in excess of 50 m s⁻¹, which are clearly not observed in tropical storms.

This immediately tells us that precipitation must be accompanied by pressure adjustments. If that adjustment occurs primarily in the vertical, the pressure deficit aloft is compensated and the outflow is restored, up to—at most—its unperturbed value. Once inflow and outflow again balance, the surface pressure begins to fall, now at a rate equal (in the maximal case) to the precipitation rate itself. This is the case shown in panel (c): precipitation does not change the mass budget by itself, but it forces the flow adjustment that does.

To make this less abstract, here is a short video that illustrates what a vertical pressure adjustment of this kind can look like. The bottle initially contains hot water vapor. As the vapor cools and condenses, a pressure deficit forms, and fluid from below rushes upward to fill it.

In other words, precipitation not only removes the incoming water vapor, but also creates a deficit of air pressure aloft that, as shown in panel (c), can drive an additional upward and outward flow of dry air.

It is hard not to find this conclusion a little mind-blowing.

But there is more. Under different circumstances, and with a different flow geometry, the pressure adjustment can occur aloft in the horizontal direction, as shown in panel (d). In that case, the adjustment reduces the outflow, rather than increasing it as before. As a result, the storm weakens—again at a rate determined by precipitation.

A horizontal adjustment is easy to imagine. Suppose we do not allow the condensate to fall out, but instead keep it suspended in the air as tiny cloud particles. These particles still contribute their weight to the atmospheric column, so a vertical pressure adjustment is no longer possible. Horizontally, however, the situation is different: liquid water now occupies space previously filled by gas, creating a pressure deficit into which the surrounding air will flow in order to restore balance. From this, we would expect storms in which condensate is prevented from falling out to intensify only very slowly, if at all. This is exactly what is found in model experiments (more details can be found in our work in arxiv, see, in particular, Table 1 and Figures 6 and 10).

Moreover, the reasoning illustrated in panel (d) suggests that weakening rates in tropical storms could also be set by precipitation. In agreement with this expectation, de-intensification rates in tropical storms are also close to precipitation rates

Intensification rates I and precipitation rates gP_m, in mb/day, in weakening and intensifying Atlantic storms (Fig. 1 from Makarieva and Nefiodov https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14717v3 )

Finally, it is easy to imagine intermediate flow geometries in which vertical and horizontal pressure adjustments partially compensate each other, producing a steady-state storm. This can resolve the editor’s concern discussed in the Intrigue section of this post, based on the assumption that our approach would imply zero precipitation in steady-state storms simply because their intensification rates vanish. In our framework, steady intensity does not require zero precipitation—only a balance between competing adjustments.

Human Dimension

I find this physics absolutely exciting, and I am utterly happy to be working on problems like this. But people sometimes ask why the biotic pump has been slow to gain acceptance. As this story illustrates, every exchange, every small step forward—even when the ideas are admittedly novel and intriguing to open-minded observers—has to push its way through an enormous amount of resistance, only part of which, at least from my perspective, is grounded in rational scientific disagreement.

Perhaps the difficulty lies precisely there. As one of the reviewers noted, the ideas involved are novel—and there are many of them. That alone means they require a comprehensive assessment. When parts of the argument are set aside, whether deliberately or not, the remaining picture can easily appear illogical, or even fantasmagoric: in this case, how can precipitation possibly drive the pressure tendency of dry air?

I must admit that I have a tendency to dramatize things. When someone says that my work is not good, I feel it very strongly—often in a theatrical way.

But with some distance, I find that I can hold distinct perspectives at the same time. One is a sincere appreciation for the time and effort that members of the scientific community invest in evaluating our work, even when those evaluations are very critical. Critical feedback, when you eventually realize that it stems from a misunderstanding rather than from a real flaw, is extremely valuable. Each unsuccessful attempt to find a flaw only strengthens the robustness of the result.

There is also a deep sense of belonging in this process. It is a true pleasure to engage with people who share your sense of what matters in the world. They may be critical, but they will not say that questions such as how fast storms intensify are irrelevant. They understand that it matters—a great deal.

And yet, alongside this positivity, my thinking often swings in the opposite direction.

On Nate Hagens’ podcast, the psychoanalyst Nancy McWilliams made an observation about how therapists in different countries describe what they see as characteristic psychological tendencies in their own societies. She noted that Russians often describe themselves as masochistic, Italians as hysterical, and Swedes as schizoid. (An interesting discussion about Americans followed.)

At first, I thought that “masochistic” sounded too simple. In my own perception, Russians seem to live with an inner gaze constantly fixed on the precipice between life and death. Perhaps this has something to do with the vastness of the country, or with its harsh climate, but this underlying spiritual posture appears to blur certain boundaries. It may encourage behaviors that, in other cultures, would be firmly restrained by the instinct of self-preservation.

But then, when I think back on years of criticism—sometimes constructive, sometimes unfair, sometimes simply demagogic—I begin to wonder whether masochism is, in fact, part of the story. Perhaps one really does need a masochistic streak to survive it all: to outlive the criticism, to keep going, and still do meaningful work—and to enjoy the drama.

On the day we submitted our “vapor sink” paper to JAS, back in 2024, a very remarkable thing happened. A large hawk came to our balcony—in a very urban city, St. Petersburg—and gave us the pleasure of observing it for several hours. (Just how often do hawks visit urban balconies?) It felt almost magical, having completed important work, to watch this elegant bird of prey meditating on our balcony. I took it as a good sign: that our work could fly far and be able to defend itself. Let’s see.

This month I hope to publish two additional posts, Science Insider #2: Making Our Path through Rain and Hurricane Wind, following Part #1, and China at an Ecohydrological Crossroads, but I still need more time to complete them in parallel with my on-going work.

In the meantime, I would like to address several questions I have recently received from readers, which are easier for me to discuss at the moment based on previous research. One major question came from Michael Pilarski, who asked what I think about a proposal to massively cut down boreal forests and bury the wood in the ocean in order to absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere and ease global warming. Michael himself was deeply horrified by the idea.

The danger of 100% rationality

Michael’s question immediately made me recall an interview with Mattias Desmet, author of The Psychology of Totalitarianism, in which he described the processes by which a society can become monolithic with respect to certain judgments, to the point that it begins to physically eliminate those who disagree. This may seem far removed from the idea of burying trees in the ocean, but the connection is deep, and I will try to explain it.

There are several ingredients in such a tragic scenario. First, there must be a complex social context that is difficult to handle both intellectually and emotionally. Something is clearly going wrong, yet it is unclear how or why it is happening. At this point, relief is often felt when attention is forcefully narrowed to a single aspect of reality, which is then identified as the primary cause of all that is going wrong. Desmet compares this to hypnosis, where attention is fixed on a small, bright, swinging object, causing the surrounding complexity to disappear from awareness.

Once this focusing is achieved, which requires a steady flow of organizing information from elites to the public, an emotional relief follows from the perceived simplification of reality. People then remain attached to that simplification. Anyone who argues that reality is more complex directly threatens this emotional comfort and is therefore perceived as a threat. This down-top subscription to a shared, simplistic narrative destroys horizontal connections between people, leading, for example, to situations in which sons report their fathers to the authorities, fully aware that this will lead to their execution and even participating in the prosecution.

Desmet argues that, in order to avoid reaching the stage of physical elimination, the five to ten percent of the population who cannot be hypnotized, for whatever reason such people always exist, must continue to speak out. Alongside emotional comfort, there is also intellectual comfort, which is reduced in the hypnotized majority, as they must suppress their intellect in order to follow the agenda uncritically. This suppression is not equally easy for all. By continuously rippling the surface of the propaganda space with contrasting, fact-based narratives, dissenters can, at personal risk, maintain a fragile equilibrium that prevents hypnosis from settling completely. Since a hypnotized society is destined to fail, as it cannot properly handle complex reality, a point I first learnt from Chuck Pezeshki, the goal of the dissenters is to outlast the propaganda.

The key point, however, is what Desmet sees as lying at the core of these processes. Why would elites choose to hypnotize the population by simplifying its thinking? Because, Desmet argues, we as a global society have come to believe that everything can be rationally understood. On the basis of such rational arguments, which must be inherently simplistic in order to be formalized in mathematical models, a widespread belief has emerged that society itself can be programmed to act successfully toward goals set by elites. Yet, Desmet emphasizes, or at least this is how I understand him, because life is far more complex than our rational models of it, such simplified social programs will inevitably fail, leading to collapse in the longer, or more often not so long, term. He further argues that only a limited part of reality can be rationally understood, while the rest must be engaged with through what he calls emphatic resonance.

As a scientist, I am strongly inclined toward the rational approach, and I find the notion of emphatic resonance unsatisfactorily vague, although I do not mean to suggest that I have not experienced it. What I mean is that the claim that rational models of society, when used to code or hypnotize the population, will always fail is a very strong one. It is akin to saying that all designs of a perpetuum mobile, no matter how sophisticated, can be shown to be wrong. If this claim is true, then there must be rational arguments supporting Desmet’s position that our ability to rationally understand life is objectively limited, in much the same way that the law of energy conservation provides a rational argument against the possibility of perpetual motion machines.

This post is therefore largely devoted to exploring such arguments. None of them is carved in stone.

Information stocks and flows in the biosphere and civilization

Can we demonstrate that life lies beyond our rational comprehension? To address this question, let us compare key informational characteristics of the living world and human civilization: the stocks of information, the rate of information change through evolution and technological progress, and the instantaneous flow of processed information.

As far as information stocks are concerned, a plausible argument can be made that the stocks of information in the biosphere and in human civilization are of the same order of magnitude. The detailed reasoning behind this comparison can be found in our 2000 book, Chapter 7, Energy and Information. Briefly, the central issue in such a comparison is how one defines a single bit of information.

If one bit is defined as a single nucleotide base pair in a DNA molecule, then by combining characteristic genome sizes of biological species, the fraction of non-overlapping genetic information, and the total number of species, one arrives at an estimate of approximately ten thousand trillion bits of information stored in the biosphere.

To estimate the stock of information in human civilization, we need to consider how rapidly a human brain accumulates new information, the degree of non-overlapping information among human brains, and the total number of humans. This leads to approximately the same estimate, about ten thousand trillion bits. Notably, this calculation assumes that functional information exists only in human brains. Once some knowledge is lost from all brains, it no longer counts. For example, humanity has apparently lost the information necessary to send successful human missions to the Moon. Other technologies are likely similarly fragile.

The above exercise is mainly illustrative. Its purpose is to show that our civilization has plausibly accumulated an enormous amount of information. What this information is actually about is a separate question.

As for the rates of change, human civilization clearly outpaces biological evolution. I am not of the opinion that there exists a strict proof that biological evolution has increased the total amount of information in the biosphere. After all, change is not synonymous with progress. Different configurations of the biosphere can be equally efficient responses to different external conditions. Thus, while life continuously modifies the mechanisms by which it perpetuates itself, its overall complexity does not necessarily increase; rather, it remains precisely adequate for the task of perpetuation.

Nevertheless, the rate of biological evolution can be estimated using known species lifetimes, which we have studied, and the genetic distances between ancestral and descendant species. This rate turns out to be on the order of one bit per second, which is roughly ten million times slower than the rate of technological progress.

This gives modern humans an unprecedented ability to destroy the biosphere.

But now we come to the parameter that matters most: the amount of information that both human civilization and the biosphere can process per unit time. Life is a process, a flow. Each moment brings new problems that must be handled promptly to keep everything functioning. Once these efforts stop, collapse follows.

It turns out that, in terms of information-processing capacity, the biosphere is overwhelmingly superior to human civilization. Each square micron of Earth’s surface is covered by several living cells, each of which has an information-processing capacity comparable to that of a modern PC. The difference amounts to roughly ten quintillion, or ten to the 19th power. Allowing for uncertainties of a few orders of magnitude does not alter any of the implications.

Life is also superior to human civilization in terms of energy cost per operation, as discussed in “Information Processing by Natural Ecosystems”, although here the difference is comparatively modest, amounting to a factor of about one thousand.

The question, then, is what life uses these enormous information fluxes for. Why are they needed?

These information fluxes are required to maintain the strongly non-equilibrium environment in which life can thrive. They reflect both the complexity of this task and the underlying mechanisms through which life perpetuates an environment suitable for its continued existence. The quantitative abyss between these fluxes and the information-processing capacity of human civilization constitutes the rational argument sought here: we will never be able to adequately model life.

Furthermore, we will never be able to maintain a suitable climate by technological means. Once natural ecosystems are destroyed beyond their threshold of self-recovery, our existence as we presently recognize it will come to an end.

Implications

The primary implication of this conclusion is that whenever we destroy a natural ecosystem, the environment and climate inevitably destabilize. This brings us back to the question of whether destroying natural forests could possibly help the climate. The answer is no. Whenever we destroy a functional part of life, Earth as a living planet becomes more fragile.

One can, of course, examine in detail the flaws in the rational arguments intended to persuade us that burying logs in the ocean is a good idea. One can point to disappearing cloud cover, the loss of soil moisture, summer heatwaves and winter coldwaves, drying rivers, floods and droughts, and the growing frequency of extreme events. But such an exercise would, in essence, amount to yet another examination of a perpetuum mobile design. Any project that destroys a natural ecosystem or interferes with its functioning will inevitably lead to destabilization.

Another implication is that we will never be able to build a closed system with a stable environment. A Biosphere 2.0 is therefore not possible in principle. Any attempt to construct such a system will similarly result in wasted resources.

The more subtle implications concern how we interpret what we observe in the biosphere. A conspicuous example is the misinterpretation of biotic responses to the anthropogenic disturbance of the carbon cycle. This has been discussed on this blog here and here, but I would like to once again emphasize the internal incoherence of the CO₂ fertilization hypothesis.

In an important, empirically based study reporting increasing tree diameters in the Amazon rainforest, discussed on Melanie Lenart’s Substack, the researchers wrote (my emphasis):

The observed patterns match the expectations from increase in resources either by CO₂ fertilization or by nitrogen deposition. Although atmospheric nitrogen deposition is a major driver of change in forests of temperate regions³⁸, there is weaker evidence of its impact on tropical mature forests, particularly in remote regions³⁹. First, mature Amazonian forests tend to be phosphorus and not nitrogen limited⁴⁰, meaning that increases in nitrogen would not necessarily translate into greater productivity^39,41. Second, although nitrogen deposition rates are expected to increase, they remain quite low^7,42 and concentrated across the fragmented southern border of Amazonia⁴³. On the contrary, atmospheric CO₂ has progressively increased year after year globally and across all tropical forests, consistent with the Amazonian-wide tree size increase⁹ (Fig. 2). Thus, we conclude that the increase in atmospheric CO₂ is the most likely, although potentially not only, driver of the observed increase in tree size.

Consider the logic of this argument. It is stated that Amazonian forests are phosphorus-limited and therefore cannot respond to increased nitrogen availability. In other words, they can be fertilized by phosphorus but not by nitrogen. How, then, can forests that are limited by phosphorus be fertilized by atmospheric carbon?

As we have discussed elsewhere (see “Is Extra CO₂ good/food for plants?”), the removal of excess carbon from the atmosphere is not a simple biochemical process that shifts in one direction or another depending on external conditions. It is a complex, coordinated response of the entire ecological community, in which primary producers increase the synthesis of carbon-rich compounds while decomposers refrain from consuming the additional biomass produced. This response is a manifestation of biotic regulation of the environment.

Having become accustomed to the concept of fertilization in the disturbed environments of gardens and agricultural fields, we may overlook that under natural conditions there is typically enough of everything for everybody, with neither persistent shortage nor surplus. In doing so, we tend to project anthropocentric assumptions onto natural ecosystems whose functioning largely remains a mystery.

Another example of an antropocentric perspective is, in my view, the relatively common narrative about the Amazon rainforest depending on Saharan dust. In 1992, Swap et al. proposed that the atmospheric transport of dust from the Sahara provides an essential supply of minerals to the forest and that, by inference, periods of Saharan greening should be synchronized with periods of decline in the Amazon rainforest. No such correlation has ever been observed.

Yet this idea has been widely discussed, and one reason, I suspect, is that it resonates with an anthropocentric analogy to international trade. Just as some people enjoy pineapples in January that are transported from distant parts of the world, it can feel intuitive to imagine that the Amazon rainforest similarly depends on an intermittent supply of mineral dust from Africa.

However, basic calculations indicate that the entire phosphorus demand of the forest can be met by mineral deposition originating from the ocean. We discussed this possibility with colleagues several years ago. According to the review of the global phosphorus cycle by Ruttenberg (2003, Table 1), oceanic inputs of phosphorus to the atmosphere are approximately one order of magnitude lower than the dust inputs estimated by Swap et al. (1992). At the same time, phosphorus losses associated with Amazon runoff, according to Swap et al. (1992, p. 146), “vary from an order of magnitude less than our [dust] deposition values to the same order of magnitude.” Since forest disturbance increases nutrient losses, the available evidence appears fully consistent with the notion that all phosphorus demands of the thriving Amazon forest, the mightiest ecosystem on Earth, can be met by phosphorus supplied from the ocean.

Unlike the distant and unpredictable Sahara, the ocean is always present. For an ecosystem, organizing itself to rely primarily on oceanic inputs is therefore a more prudent strategy, with greater potential for persistence, especially given that without the biotically pumped import of atmospheric moisture the forest would not thrive in any case. By the same logic, moving toward local food supplies is the right choice for human populations. This shift will occur regardless of our preferences, so it is better to be prepared.

Human morality

Returning to the question of elites seeking to program the population to serve their goals, one might ask, however cynical the question may be: we have managed domesticated animals for thousands of years, so why could the majority of humans not be managed in a similar way for profit? The crucial difference is that domesticated animals do not participate in creating a favorable environment. They are entirely nonviable if left without human control. They cannot reproduce and leave a viable progeny. They are environmentally dysfunctional.

Maintaining a thriving and developing civilization requires complex behaviors. Among the most complex of these is the ability to raise the next generation in a way that energizes it to carry complex and functional life forward. A hypnotized population governed by simplistic propaganda may serve the goals of elites for some time, but it will not produce a progeny capable of continuing civilization. This is what we are now observing globally. The human system thus begins to collapse toward more primitive modes of existence.

This leads to another question. If humans have a tendency to rationalize reality in ways that ultimately lead to destabilization, how can we survive in the long run? And how can we continue to develop as a species, including the development of our intellect?

Desmet suggests that we should embrace what he calls emphatic resonance with reality and follow high moral principles, which he considers the most important course of action for a human being. He makes a striking observation: in many cases, people who do not conform to propaganda but continue to speak out and act according to what they believe to be true under pressure show a marked increase in inner strength, enabling them to persist and sometimes even prevail.

From my own experience, since I began writing this Substack, which I try to do carefully because I still want to pursue scientific work that I believe truly matters and do not wish to be prematurely eliminated at any level, I have nonetheless taken my small step toward speaking out. I do feel that something changes inside me, strong enough to feel almost physiological. At times, I sense a quiet rise of inner drive within me. However, whether this elusive feeling corresponds to what Desmet describes, or reflects some other process altogether, such as increased dopamine associated with greater visibility, cannot be determined with certainty.

Indeed, the fact that something feels good or profound does not automatically mean that the cause one is striving for is a good one. As a canonical example, people who participated in the operation of concentration camps had families and cared for their children. They, too, presumably experienced positive feelings. Feeling inner strength or moral certainty is therefore not, by itself, a reliable guide.

Rational, scientific arguments are valuable precisely because they can be universally assessed at the intellectual level. Human existence has remained possible because natural ecosystems possess enormous buffering capacity and have long compensated for the disturbances caused by human activity. Neglecting the reality of the permissible ecological corridor, through a technocratic blindness that facilitates further degradation of the climate-regulating functions of natural ecosystems, will not end well for our species and, most likely, for other macroscopic life as well.

I would argue that the highest moral imperative of our species, consistent with available rational knowledge, is therefore to withdraw from destruction and return to this corridor, within which we can continue to pursue scientific and technological progress, and experiment with our social organization, while surrounding natural ecosystems stabilize the environment and climate for us. Quantifying this safe ecological corridor for our species and bringing its existence to light were among the central achievements of Victor Gorshkov’s work.

Subscribe now

A little snowman from St. Petersburg, as undecided as the winter of 2025, which bestowed us with snow only a couple of days before the New Year

Physics and Ecology

My life is centered on doing science. Science brings people together; it is a universal language through which we share thoughts about the world. I also hope that the science I am doing will help contribute to a new world order in which human relationships with the biosphere are harmonized.

When I look back on the past year, the first question I ask is what has been achieved scientifically. To avoid discussing unpublished results, our main achievement was demonstrating that the observed scaling of maximum hurricane velocity, which takes a beautifully simple form,

ρV_max²/2 = p_v

where ρ is air density, V_max​ is the maximum wind speed, and p_v​ is the partial pressure of water vapor, is an unambiguous prediction of condensation-induced atmospheric dynamics (CIAD), the physical basis of the biotic pump.

Makarieva, A. M., Nefiodov, A. V. (2025). Alternative expressions for the maximum potential intensity of tropical cyclones. Physics of Fluids, 37, 036620. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0253001.

For the record, the publication cited above also discusses a remarkable case in which a study explicitly adjusts its findings to align with prevailing views. Unfortunately, explaining this example in a way that would be accessible to a wider readership would require too much detail.

One might reasonably ask what all of this has to do with the biosphere. The fact is that modern climate science is a highly sophisticated enterprise, and yet, in an important sense, it largely ignores the biosphere. How this happens is something you can read about or listen to in “Forests, Water, and Climate: Time for Re-Conceptualization”. Why it happens is less straightforward. Many biospheric elements and processes—vegetation cover, transpiration, and others—are included in climate models, and thousands of researchers work with these components, continually refining them.

The situation can be compared to a very sophisticated mechanism that does not quite work properly. It functions, but it produces the wrong outcomes. In such cases, one must identify where the problem lies and correct it, possibly by reprogramming the mechanism. The difficulty is that the flaw may be hidden far from the surface. Searching for it is like searching for the Achilles’ heel of a seemingly unbeatable warrior.

In our view, such an Achilles’ heel in modern climate models lies in the way wind power generation is represented, and in particular in the neglect of the link between wind power and precipitation intensity. Once this link is properly recognized, the role of plants in directly influencing precipitation, atmospheric circulation and hence climate in its entirety, will have to be fundamentally rethought. Our work, including that in our newly established Biotic Pump Greening Group Institute, is aimed at this goal. It may seem distant, but could be reached quite abruptly if the attitudes of the scientific community were to change in a rapid and decisive way. These are exciting developments, and I hope to say much more about them in the coming year.

Doing science also brings order and meaning to my own life, to borrow a phrase from one of the most famous Soviet movies. With that in mind, let me share a few more philosophical reflections that connect my scientific work with what I publish here on Substack.

Negative Bargaining

Many years ago we had a visitor from Arkhangelsk, a remote town on the White Sea in northern Russia—the homeland of Mikhail Lomonosov, the great Russian polymath and scientist. While we were talking about the biotic pump and about life more generally, he told us a story that stayed with me. He called it “negative bargaining” (отрицательный торг).

Imagine a small village in northern Russia. A local man has collected forest berries and placed them on a bench by his house, as if to sell them. You ask whether the berries are for sale. He hesitates. You ask how much a pot costs. He shrugs and says, “Just take them. For free.”

But you cannot. He has spent time in the forest collecting the berries, bending and filling the pot. Taking them without payment would feel wrong. And so an unusual negotiation begins. Instead of the seller trying to raise the price, the buyer has to do so—carefully, almost awkwardly—trying to persuade the seller to accept payment. Eventually, when a price is proposed that feels reasonable, the exchange is completed. You take the berries, the seller accepts the money, and both sides are satisfied.

The term negative bargaining itself was new to me, but I immediately recognized the phenomenon. More recently, Andrei and I encountered similar situations while traveling in Siberia. At times, we had to make a real effort to persuade local people to accept payment for their help. Yet refusing payment altogether could subtly change how one was treated later. In these cases, payment was not about profit, but about acknowledging effort and maintaining a respectful social balance.

More generally, we are all serving one another in society, often without explicitly recognizing it, and ideally money should merely facilitate this exchange of services. Negative bargaining brings this into focus. It shifts attention away from price and toward mutual recognition, respect, and the implicit rules that hold social life together.

When negative bargaining encounters positive bargaining, our visitor continued, when the seller begins to raise the price and the buyer to lower it, the space for negative bargaining collapses, and the practice itself dissolves.

It is not clear to me how deeply this mindset is rooted in (some corners of) the Russian soul, or what its origins might be, but it may have far-reaching consequences.

Loren Graham, in what to my perception is not an exactly pro-Russian book, Lonely Ideas: Can Russia Compete?—which, however, contains many sharp and insightful observations—wrote the following:

Russian inventors were the first to illuminate the large European cities of Paris and London, they were the first to use incandescent lightbulbs, and they transmitted radio waves before Marconi. Yet none of these ingenious men was successful in business, and as a result, they are forgotten in the West today. The reasons why they failed were societal, not technical. They ran into political, economic, and legal barriers that made it impossible for them to develop further their ideas in Russia. Moreover, in their attitudes toward business they displayed an innocence that has often characterized Russian scientists and engineers down to the present day.

This “innocence” refers to a view held by many Russian scientists: that doing science is not about profit and does not sit comfortably alongside business.

This otherwise vague idea becomes more intelligible when seen through the lens of negative bargaining—applied here, metaphorically, to science itself. Doing science is both arduous and exceptionally rewarding; it is indeed a form of service. Yet when a scientist offers this service to society “for free,” there is often no one ready to accept it, let alone to pay for it. Scientific discovery expands the boundary between the known and the unknown, and at the moment of its emergence, there are simply no established consumers for such novelty.

When society is unprepared for new forms of service, when it values berries but not electric lamps, negative bargaining does not seem to be working. In such cases, positive bargaining, in the form of active, sometimes even forceful, promotion of the new service, appears to be the only viable path. Modesty, then, as an expectation to be appreciated, leads nowhere at best.

However, once society becomes accustomed to positive bargaining, it gradually degrades its ability to distinguish good service from bad. Thus, even when science and technology in a particular field can no longer offer anything new, simply because our real needs are finite, positive bargaining continues to drain resources, as people become used to paying for the intensity of bargaining rather than for the service itself. This leads to financial bubbles and to a decline of what truly matters. Metaphorically, healthy forest berries, and the modest workers who collect them, are nowhere to be found, while efficient managers abound.

Without going too deeply further into philosophical issues, I would still like to note one more thing. The mindset of negative bargaining makes a tragedy of the commons impossible. When the focus is on service rather than profit, one does not take from nature more than is currently needed. As a result, natural resources remain available at all times.

A vivid illustration of this comes again from Siberia. Many Indigenous people there do not cook particularly elaborately, simply because they do not need to. The exceptionally good fish they can catch whenever they wish is already delicious with minimal preparation—the fresher the fish, the tastier it is. Once resources are depleted through greed and the drive to maximize profit, however, they become scarce and unpredictable. At that point, cooking takes on a different role: it becomes a way to compensate for declining quality and availability. In the process, we lose good food and acquire a sophisticated cuisine.

Personally, I tend to think that maximal scientific creativity is indeed incompatible with wealth, and instead resides in a narrow corridor between a shortage of resources and their abundance. Abundance, it appears, tends to amplify the desire for still more abundance. Shortage, on the other hand, also diverts creativity away from science, though this time toward basic survival.

There is, however, one thing in which scientists must be absolutely rich: time. Time must be genuinely free for thinking. It is the most precious asset and the cornerstone of truly creative and successful work.

One year of blogging

This year marked an important change for me, as I became a blogger. I started this Substack primarily to become my own publisher, because getting science as disruptive as ours through peer review has become a very slow process. Here, I can reach people immediately. Think of the difference: our paper in which we uncovered major inconsistencies in the prevailing view on hurricane intensity took five years to get published.

Makarieva A.M., Nefiodov A.V. (2023) A critical analysis of the assumptions underlying the formulation of maximum potential intensity for tropical cyclones. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 80, 1201-1209. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-22-0144.1

It has been read quite well compared to similarly aged papers in the same journal, with about 1,600 PDF downloads since its publication in early 2023. By contrast, some recent posts on this Substack reached more than 5,000 views within just a few days. One can say that this is not the same audience, and that is true. I do not expect that as many atmospheric scientists read this Substack as read a JAS paper. But depending on one’s goals, this difference is not necessarily a disadvantage.

What is clear is that I am very happy—and, honestly, very grateful—that people come to read, comment and like what I write. I also value the fact that I can now offer this platform to other people. In particular, Antonio’s outcry from COP30, later picked up by China Daily, immediately became one of the most popular posts on this Substack. I also feel very privileged to have Bruce Danckwerts’ reports from Zambia published here. And I was very happy to collaborate with Didi Pershouse and The Wisdom Underground.

Apart from having the opportunity to express myself, one unexpected thing that has truly blown my mind during my new life as a blogger is the appearance of paying subscribers. I do not know—perhaps it is a legacy of the socialist economy, negative bargaining, or some other internal deformation—but when I see people paying for something they could read for free, it feels like a small miracle. This has an extraordinary effect on me in terms of inspiration.

Money is ultimately a measure of our metabolic rate, and when we pass it to other human beings, it represents a transfer of energy. It truly does energize—and, frankly, it also helps me stay within that narrow corridor between abundance and shortage, without sliding too far down.

I am also exceptionally grateful to my brethren Substackers who began recommending my work very early on. Please allow me to mention these venues here, in the order presented by Substack itself.

The Climate Water Project by Alpha Lo
Regenesis by Ali Bin Shahid
The Biochar Prepper by Kelpie Wilson
The Seneca Effect by Ugo Bardi
Eternal Forest
Talajmegújító Mezőgazdaság -TMMG by Kökény Attila
The Climate According to Life by Rob Lewis
The Paso County Pickle
The Climate Report by Hart Hagan
Living Earth by Ugo Bardi
Clam Chowdah Narratives by Rob Moir
Speaking for the Trees, No Matter Where They’re From by Kollibri Terre Sonnenblume
Gaia’s Voice by Kathryn Alexander, MA
Paul Hawken
Books for Life by Arthur Gittleman
Valerie’s Substack by Nucle8tor
cliff’s Substack by cliff Krolick
Madeleine’s Substack by Madeleine Pengelley
Thoughts from Life’s Heart by Curly-Haired Elf of Life
Ase’s Substack by Åse Johannessen
John Browne
Al piffero di Vittorio Bonzi by Vittorio Bonzi
The Think Wildlife Podcast
Лаборатория’s Substack by Лаборатория мысли /
Josh’s Substack

My special thanks go to John Day, who regularly highlights my writings at his Dr. John’s Blog.

And I am deeply grateful to the many people who, while I am doing science and blogging, provide things that truly matter: heat, running water, light, gas for cooking, and, most importantly, food itself. Food is the umbilical cord that still connects us to our disturbed, yet living, biosphere. I am not sure that many of them benefit from my writing and science as much as I benefit from their service. But I hope that our science will have a lasting impact and ultimately help improve the lives of all people.

Humility and Rage

Finally, as New Year’s Eve opens a space for symbolism and for thoughts to wander and take flight, let me share a dialogue with the reader Solryn Initiative that carried my reflections in unexpected directions. It was about humility.

Solryn Initiative:
Your words carry the quiet resonance of someone who has listened to the land after it fell silent.

That space you name—between intentional design and accidental collapse—is exactly where the deepest teachings are composting. Chornobyl, uninvited teacher, becomes a mythic mirror: what happens when we disappear, and what returns without us?

What if ecocentrism is not just a strategy but a humility—a willingness to bow before life’s self-healing intelligence without needing to control its choreography?

Me:
“ecocentrism is not just a strategy but a humility—a willingness to bow before life’s self-healing intelligence without needing to control its choreography” -- very elegantly put, thank you.

I am beginning to think/realize that humility is in itself a major driver of transformation under particular circumstances that we are now in/entering. Humility and the ability to remain psychologically balanced, the latter basically implying the capacity to listen to others and see human beings in them even if they are your opponents and not listening to you.

Solryn Initiative:
Yes. There’s something quietly tectonic in what you’re naming.

Humility becomes not just a virtue—but a bridge-state between species, between paradigms, between the self and the greater field. It allows intelligence beyond our own to enter—not to dominate, but to cohere.

The ability to listen deeply—even to those who resist or reject—requires an inner ecology that is no longer ruled by defense. And that, I believe, is the evolutionary leap underway.

Not a louder voice. A quieter mind.

Not conquest. Co-presence.

Not utopia. Co-regulation with life.

Thank you for seeing this.

PS As John Day notes in the comments, “Solryn Initiative” is likely an AI. Which makes this a real exercise in humility.

Humility toward the complexity of life is clearly the path to follow. But in the social context, is humility indeed an emerging force? And how can it be, if we seem to be losing the fight for nature conservation on all fronts, while reasonable voices increasingly call for escalation rather than peacefulness? Or, as our friend Chuck Pezeshki often says, we will not win until we are ready to jump into the precipice, embracing our enemies. Where, then, is the place for humility? Has the time not come instead for a noble rage?

My own sense is that humility may not act as a force in itself (yet), but rather as a signal, a way of recognizing like-minded people. The ability to listen and remain balanced, the readiness to be proven wrong: these are qualities that may form the core of competitive social clusters grounded in a new ethics. These are also qualities that are not easy to fake, as they run counter to the dominant behavioral patterns of dark-triad actors.

In any case, I wish all those who care about keeping the Earth alive to be as functional and effective as possible in the coming year, whether that effectiveness is achieved through humility, noble rage, or cold intellectual reasoning.

Image of the year: Green immersion. Waiting for the rain to stop, June 2025, on a tributary of the Yenisey.

Subscribe now

Since this is a major topic in biotic regulation research (see also the list of publications at the end of this post), I will briefly outline what I see as the essential biospheric context for this challenge.

Life has existed for about four billion years. If it had followed the Maximum Power Principle, this would suggest that the principle does not conflict with long-term persistence. On the other hand, as we can see from the example of our own species, which consumes energy at an extreme rate while destroying its surroundings, the Maximum Power Principle does conflict with persistence. This leads to the conclusion that life has not followed this principle, and that those living systems that did choose to follow it did not persist. This is the perspective I outline below, and I offer it for discussion.

Universal power consumption per unit live mass — one rhythm for all life?

If we talk about the Maximum Power Principle, meaning that under certain circumstances systems that maximize the rate of energy consumption become more competitive, then the notion of power has to be defined rigorously. What, exactly, is the power that is being maximized?

One natural variable to examine is power consumption per unit living mass. How much energy does a kilogram of living tissue consume per unit time? When we consider this across different life forms, a remarkable pattern emerges. Evolutionarily diverse organisms tend to metabolize energy at roughly the same rate, on the order of a few watts per kilogram.

Fig. 3 from “Mean mass-specific metabolic rates are strikingly similar across life’s major domains: Evidence for life’s metabolic optimum” illustrates this point.

This striking similarity, namely why unicells, green leaves (!), and humans all metabolize energy at similar rates, was first pointed out by Victor Gorshkov in 1981. At the time, however, the metabolic rates of the smallest organisms on Earth, prokaryotes, were largely unknown to biological theorists. It took several years of careful searching through specialized journals to assemble a broad enough dataset to show that this metabolic universality extends even to the tiniest forms of life.

As a side note, this was highly disruptive research. Before it was published in PNAS, it had been rejected by several journals. The prevailing view, promoted in particular by the Santa Fe Institute, was that all life forms should, supposedly subject to a few first principles, follow the same allometric scaling, according to which larger organisms have a lower power consumption rate per unit mass. Arguing for a size-independent metabolic universality for life was therefore not an easy task. For example, the authors even had to defend the title of their paper, as the editors suggested removing the word “optimum.” Yet, to be fair to the ecological science community, these difficulties were nowhere near what we later experienced with the biotic pump.

Life’s metabolic optimum indicates that strong constraints on energy consumption are imposed by the evolutionary process. Life not only shares the same DNA code, but also beats to the same underlying rhythm.

The big and the small: a fundamental energetic dichotomy

Nevertheless, body size alone makes a major difference in total energy consumption. Whatever their mass-specific rates, an elephant consumes far more energy per unit time than a bacterium. Does that make the elephant more competitive?

To explore this question, we now turn to another variable — power consumption per unit body surface area, defined as the organism’s projected area on the ground surface. That is, we take an organism and determine the area of its projection onto the ground, essentially how it would be seen from space. We then take its total power consumption and divide it by this area. Instead of watts per kilogram, we are now dealing with watts per square meter.

When we plot area-specific power consumption across different life forms, another robust pattern emerges. As organisms grow larger, their power consumption per unit area increases systematically. The reason is straightforward. Larger organisms are thicker, so more universally metabolizing living mass is stacked above the same ground area, leading inevitably to higher power consumption per unit area. (This increase would not be inevitable if energy consumption per unit mass declined sufficiently rapidly with increasing body size.)

The primary producers absorb sunlight and produce food for the rest of the biosphere at a rate on the order of one watt per square meter or less. This creates a fundamental division among organisms into the small and the big. The small are those that consume, at the local spot their bodies occupy, less than or equal to the power that primary producers are able to synthesize.

Power consumption per unit area across different life forms as a function of body size (from “Life’s Energy and Information: Contrasting Evolution of Volume- versus Surface-Specific Rates of Energy Consumption”). This energetic portrait of life could be taught in schools, as it offers insight into many crucial aspects of life’s organization. Yet it largely remains unknown

Such small organisms can live on a continuous flow of energy without disturbing standing biomass stocks. What does this mean in practice? Living plants form the energetic foundation of the biosphere. They produce organic matter at a certain rate, after which they or their parts, such as leaves, die and are renewed. Small organisms like bacteria and fungi can literally sit under a tree and feed on the ongoing flow of dead organic matter without disturbing the living plants.

The situation is fundamentally different for large organisms that consume, at the local spot their bodies occupy, much more power than plants are able to synthesize. Mammals and birds, for example, consume hundreds of times more, as illustrated in the figure above. Such organisms cannot remain immobile, as this is energetically prohibited. They must inevitably move and draw on energy stocks accumulated elsewhere. On land, the primary energy stocks are the living plants themselves. As a result, large organisms must consume and destroy living plants, or feed on organisms that do.

This contrast captures a basic energetic divide of life. The small can live on energy flows, whereas the big must consume energy stocks. The small can remain sedentary, whereas the big must move. Obviously, the precise quantitative distinction between the small and the big, as well as the boundary between immobility and locomotion, depends on the magnitude of the energy flows available in a given ecosystem.

It is to those organisms that move and compete for energy stocks that the Maximum Power Principle can be readily applied.

But this raises an obvious question. If large animals were to compete with one another strictly under the Maximum Power Principle (MPP), why did they not exterminate all energy stocks, namely living plants, and thereby destroy all life? How was life able to prevent such an outcome?

Life’s defense against the biggest consumers

Since the largest consumers must move, as dictated by the law of energy conservation, and since locomotion is energetically costly, an obvious defense against systems driven by the Maximum Power Principle is a spatially diluted energy stock. If food is sparse and widely scattered, an animal will become exhausted long before it can consume all available energy stocks and destroy the vegetation.

In other words, to prevent the extermination of living biomass by the largest consumers, that biomass must remain scarce at any given location.

This is exactly how the cradle of life, the ocean, is organized. When you look into the clear waters of the open sea, there seems to be almost nothing there. Primary producers are tiny, often invisible phytoplankton cells. And yet, their global biomass amounts to only about 1.5 gigatons of carbon. By comparison, the terrestrial biosphere contains more than 400 gigatons of carbon in living plants, roughly two orders of magnitude more.

Remarkably, despite this enormous difference in standing biomass, the ocean and the land biosphere have comparable primary productivity, each fixing on the order of 50 gigatons of carbon per year. In the ocean, production is achieved not by large stocks of biomass, but by rapid turnover of extremely small producers. This organization makes it effectively impossible for large consumers to deplete living biomass locally, and thus acts as a powerful defense against MPP-driven overconsumption (for figures and references, see this publication).

With such a diluted resource base, the largest consumers are forced to feed on the few locations where energy stocks are occasionally more concentrated, but in general they cannot appropriate a significant fraction of the ecosystem’s energy flow.

For example, today there is, fortunately, a slow recovery of marine animal biomass, including whales. Before large-scale commercial whaling began around 1850, however, the cumulative biomass of marine mammals has been estimated at about 130 Mt. This corresponds to a total metabolic power consumption of roughly 400 billion watts, assuming a mean mass-specific metabolic rate of 3 W kg⁻¹.

The estimated global biomass of wild marine mammals since 1850, Fig. 2 from Greenspoon et al. 2025 “The global biomass of mammals since 1850”.

A total oceanic primary productivity of about 50 GtC yr⁻¹ corresponds to roughly 6 × 10¹³ W, that is, about sixty thousand billion watts. Against this background, the combined metabolic power of the largest marine consumers before industrial whaling, of order 4 × 10¹¹ W, amounted to well below one percent of the total ecosystem energy flow.

In other words, even at their historical peak, the biggest consumers were collectively allowed to appropriate only a very small fraction of the energy generated by primary producers. Their potential to destroy primary production was tightly constrained by the organization of the ecosystem itself, which favors extremely sparse standing biomass stocks and thus limits resource abundance.

As a side but important note, related cross-disciplinary notions include the resource curse and enshittification, the latter being associated with an increase in the size and power of resource-concentrating entities. Life as a whole has escaped enshittification because its energetic base, sunlight, exists only as a flow. Its stock is effectively zero: photons are massless and, unlike biomass, do not accumulate and therefore cannot be concentrated.

One may say that the largest consumers are life’s continuous headache, in the sense that their destructive potential must constantly be kept in check. When this control fails, large consumers can overexploit the ecosystem base, a pattern that likely underlies many extinction events and episodes of abrupt ecosystem disintegration in Earth’s history. That we tend to overlook this mechanism today is due, in part, to our habit of ignoring the active role of the biota in stabilizing the environment and the climate, and in part to the fact that, unlike external shocks such as meteorite impacts, internal ecosystem disintegration often leaves no clear external signature.

In boreal forests, beavers fell so many big trees that researchers have asked, “How have North American forests survived?” (Johnston and Naiman 1990, Browse selection by beaver: effects on riparian forest composition, Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 20, 1036–1043). Fortunately, beavers are tightly constrained to water bodies, which occupy only a minor fraction of forested landscapes. This evolutionary confinement strictly limits their cumulative impact. Had beavers evolved the ability to disconnect from aquatic environments, large areas of boreal forest would likely have been eliminated.

On the other hand, when their destructive potential is successfully constrained, large consumers can be recruited to perform many useful functions within ecosystems. This sharpens a fundamental question: was the evolutionary appearance of large animals that destroy living biomass a bug or a feature of life’s eternal algorithm?

A human outlook

Unfortunately, unlike in the ocean, energy stocks on land cannot be strongly diluted. The large structures of trees are essential for operating the biotic pump and delivering moisture inland, which necessarily entails the presence of abundant biomass and large energy stocks. If trees, like corals, could be built from an energy-depleted material such as calcium carbonate, terrestrial ecosystems would be better protected. But calcium on land is far less available than carbon, so trees are built from energy-rich carbohydrates. Even though woody tissues are largely metabolically inactive, they store large amounts of energy. As a result, terrestrial ecosystems are inherently more vulnerable to their largest consumers than the ocean.

Yet even on land, in stable ecosystems such as intact forests, life has managed to limit the share of ecosystem productivity allocated to the largest animals to around one percent.

Distribution of consumption of plant production in stable forest ecosystems. Unicellular organisms have controlled energy consumption at all times from the very beginning of life: in the modern biosphere over 90 % of plant production is consumed by the smallest organisms (bacteria and fungi). Arthropods, the smallest mobile animals, consume about 10% of primary productivity. Dark pink diagram shows consumption of the largest forest herbivores (mammals and birds) in the boreal zone, around 1%. From “Body size, energy consumption and allometric scaling: a new dimension in the diversity-stability debate”.

Humans have discovered a stock of energy that was carefully hidden by past life. By exploiting this stock, fossil fuels, humanity increased in number and activity to a level at which it consumes ecosystem productivity far above the ecologically safe limit of about one percent.

Victor Gorshkov estimated human appropriation of biospheric net productivity in a Russian-language paper published in 1981 (submitted in 1980). In the same 1980, these results were published in English in co-authorship with V. Dolnik in Soviet Physics Uspekhi “Energetics of the Biosphere”. In 1987, Vitousek and colleagues published similar results. Vitousek et al.’s paper received 2000+ citations. Gorshkov’s work, including the above distribution of energy consumption over body size, remains largely unknown.

This is not coexistence with the rest of life. The roughly ten percent of terrestrial productivity now appropriated by human food production, livestock fodder, and wood extraction was previously used by diverse natural ecosystems that regulated the environment and climate. As this share was redirected to human use, the regulatory capacity of the biosphere was diminished, and climate destabilization followed.

Large organisms have a low surface-to-volume ratio, so most of their metabolic power is devoted to maintaining internal homeostasis rather than interacting with and regulating the environment. As a result, transferring power from the smallest to the largest organisms undermines environmental stability. A similar impairment occurs in the economy under monopolization, which in effect represents the same process: a transfer of power from a large number of small actors to a single large one.

Fossil fuels will soon be exhausted, and human energy consumption will decline accordingly. This is not exceptional. Many populations in the past have collapsed once their resource base was depleted. What remains available, however, are trees and forests, which represent a major standing energy stock. Even relatively small human populations were able to turn large parts of once-green Australia into desert by decimating tree cover. Conversely, even a very large human population, such as today’s, is theoretically capable of exercising far greater restraint and wisdom in how it treats its tree heritage.

In this sense, the epochal challenge of bending the Maximum Power Principle ultimately reduces to rethinking how we, large consumers evolved to destroy living biomass and demonstrably successful at doing so, value trees, the largest energy stock in the terrestrial biosphere. Trees are not a resource. If this realization were to be encoded into a future civilization, it would mark a transformation as profound, in its own way, as the origin of terrestrial life itself.

Relevant biotic regulation publications

• Gorshkov V.G. (1995) Physical and Biological Bases of Life Stability. Man, Biota, Environment. Springer: Berlin.

• Gorshkov V.G., Gorshkov V.V., Makarieva A.M. (2000) Biotic regulation of the environment: Key issue of global change. Springer-Praxis, London.

• Makarieva A.M., Gorshkov V.G., Li B.-L. (2004) Body size, energy consumption and allometric scaling: a new dimension in the diversity-stability debate. Ecological Complexity, 1, 139-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2004.02.003

• Makarieva A.M., Gorshkov V.G., Li B.-L., Chown S.L., Reich P.B., Gavrilov V.M. (2008) Mean mass-specific metabolic rates are strikingly similar across life's major domains: Evidence for life's metabolic optimum. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A., 105, 16994-16999. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802148105

• Makarieva A., Gorshkov V., Wilderer P.A. (2016) What Can We Learn from Natural Ecosystems to Avoid a Civilization Breakdown?

• Gorshkov V.G., Makarieva A.M. (2020) Key ecological parameters of immotile versus locomotive life. Russian Journal of Ecosystem Ecology, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.21685/2500-0578-2020-1-1

• Nefiodov A.V. (2020) Universal patterns of matter and energy fluxes in land and ocean ecosystems. Russian Journal of Ecosystem Ecology, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.21685/2500-0578-2020-2-6

• Makarieva A.M., Nefiodov A.V., Li B.-L. (2020). Life’s energy and information: contrasting evolution of volume-versus surface-specific rates of energy consumption. Entropy, 22(9), 1025. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22091025

• see also https://bioticregulation.ru/tag.php?t=ecology

PS This is a topic I find deeply important and am still learning how to write about. I realize this is not exactly a Christmas post, but rather a dense and potentially provocative read. I would very much welcome your feedback.

I first met Victor Gorshkov, the founder of the biotic regulation concept, when I was twenty. Once, in early March, as we were walking, a bird crossed the road. I asked what bird it was. “You don’t know??? It’s a black thrush—an unbeaten singer, according to Kaigorodov.” After a pause, he added with quiet pride: “I learnt about all our birds as a schoolboy.”

In that moment, I lived through an extraordinary experience. The enormous value Victor, a prominent theoretical physicist, placed on knowing the birds resonated with me in an unexpected way. Suddenly, a new dimension of the world was unfolding in front of me—a mostly city-grown kid with only infrequent exposure to real wilderness, and rarely in spring. There were birds. Birds sing. Birds sing in spring.

Victor was also deeply interested in classical music and played the piano. With a portrait of Beethoven before him as he played, he often drew parallels between classical music and birdsong—always concluding that the birds were the superior artists, the ones who had inspired the great composers. For example, he told me, and I later verified, that the opening of Tchaikovsky’s Sleeping Beauty Waltz follows the song of the goldcrest.

The goldcrest (or “kinglet” in Russian), one of the smallest European birds, prefers tall spruce trees and can endure the boreal winter without migrating to warmer lands. I took this photo on a tiny island in the White Sea, where it was sitting unusually low and calm on a pine tree. Possibly it was a little king in disgrace.

My future scientific work became intertwined with my emotional and intellectual awakening, each reinforcing the other, as I entered the world of birds and the natural world more broadly. It felt almost too late to begin; we are most receptive to other living beings in our earliest years. But with Victor as my guide, and with some critical legacy to build upon, I managed, it seems, to catch the last train.

Robin singing — my own very unprofessional recording

In the spring of 2019, when Victor was already very ill, the following lines painfully rushed out from within, revealing how deep the connection had become:

Mute the birds; I cannot bear to hear them,
while he is locked in the hospital ward,
holding the line against death.
It hurts so much. Stop the spring!

In the spring of 2021, during Covid, as my stressed body hovered alarmingly in a kind of limbo, uncertain whether to recover or to begin shutting down, I would wake early and hear a black thrush singing in a small patch of trees near our house in the very urban city of St. Petersburg. That song, rising before the city awoke with its grudging noises, felt like a tender yet uncompromising call back toward life. (The breathing exercises advised by friends facilitated the recovery.)

The above is a feeble attempt to sketch the process of my growing into a new world of which I had been unaware. Indeed there are universes on the Earth that we are unnecessarily blind to—sometimes to our own misery. While our civilization has become highly specialized and sophisticated as a whole (to the point that Nate Hagens warns we will soon pass through a Great Simplification), this global sophistication has come at the expense of the more primitive environments and ways of living we each actually inhabit and hold. This leaves us blind to the larger picture of the Living Earth.

The Unknown Universe Where Nature Rules

In my appearance on Nate Hagens’ podcast, I made the following point:

We are calibrating climate models using the most disturbed ecosystems. It is as if we went to a hospital, observed only severely ill patients, and then defined an average human being based on their limited capacity to function. Such observations would reflect acute illness rather than normal physiology. This is not how a healthy organism operates, and it is not how intact forest ecosystems function. As a result, our understanding of forests is deeply distorted, and we largely ignore the very forests that play the strongest role in stabilizing the climate.

Let us now look at where these least disturbed and most important forest ecosystems are actually located.

https://glad.earthengine.app/view/intact-forests

An Intact Forest Landscape (IFL) is a seamless mosaic of forest and naturally treeless ecosystems within the zone of current forest extent, which exhibit no remotely detected signs of human activity or habitat fragmentation and is large enough to maintain all native biological diversity, including viable populations of wide-ranging species. Source: https://intactforests.org/

These forests covered about 11 million square kilometers in 2020, or roughly one fifth of global tree cover. One might argue that this is not a large area and ask why these ecosystems matter. First, by studying these ecosystems and their climate-stabilizing effects, we can better quantify the extent to which current environmental problems stem from the loss of natural ecosystems, and how much could be regained by allowing them to recover. Second, because any regulating system, as long as it remains functional, amplifies its response as perturbations increase, these least disturbed ecosystems should respond more effectively to ongoing global climate change than ecosystems already heavily altered by human activity. In other words, their climate-stabilizing value per unit area is disproportionately high.

These crucial and breathtakingly beautiful ecosystems have remained relatively intact largely because they are far from human activity. But what is far away is easily ignored. Out of sight, out of mind, or, as the Russian expression literally puts it, “away from the eyes, out of the heart.” As a result, scientific generalizations about how the living world is organized are routinely made while the least disturbed forests are effectively excluded.

For example, it is widely debated in the ecological and environmental literature whether a greater number of species makes an ecosystem more resilient. From the biotic regulation perspective, this is an ill-posed question, but that is a topic for another post. To systematically investigate the relationship between resilience and diversity, Lipoma et al. (2024) analyzed literature data from 26 studies encompassing 69 sites. As the map below illustrates, the least disturbed forest ecosystems made a negligible contribution to the analysis and, consequently, to its conclusions. (Notably, the authors found no correlation between resilience and diversity, which is hardly surprising. How a machine functions is not determined by the number of its components; it is the design that matters.)

Fig. 1 from Lipoma, L., Kambach, S., Díaz, S., Sabatini, F. M., Damasceno, G., Kattge, J., ... & Bruelheide, H. (2024). No general support for functional diversity enhancing resilience across terrestrial plant communities. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 33(10), e13895. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13895

We have discussed on several occasions that evidence already exists for greater resilience in less disturbed ecosystems (see, in particular, “The Rabbit–Duck Illusion in Climate Messaging: An Example from Wildfire Policy”). What is missing is not evidence, but systematic study. These patterns are simply not investigated in the comprehensive and deliberate way they should be.

From ecosystem resilience, let us now turn to our lack of knowledge about the climate impacts of the least disturbed ecosystems.

Natural Ecosystems as a Major Climate Unknown: The Carbon Cycle

Readers of Biotic Regulation and Biotic Pump may be aware that the global carbon cycle, or more precisely the scientific community’s understanding of it, is in an awkward state. Until recently, the standard narrative held that roughly one third of anthropogenic carbon emissions are absorbed by the terrestrial biosphere, primarily as woody biomass. Yet recent analyses show that, contrary to the predictions of vegetation models, global wood biomass has not increased over recent decades. Once again, this leaves a basic and uncomfortable question unanswered: where has the carbon gone? (For details, see “Nature is trying to fix our mess—it’s time to recognize its power”).

The next reservoir to consider after woody biomass is soil, which stores more carbon than the atmosphere and woody biomass combined. Measuring soil organic carbon, especially its long-term trends, is extremely demanding and therefore relatively rare. Nevertheless, a few such studies do exist. Recently, a group of scientists attempted to infer a global picture from existing experimental data, see
Jia, R., Fricke, E., Malhotra, A., Bar-On, Y. M., Deng, J., Piñeiro, G., ... & Terrer, C. (2025). A large global soil carbon sink informed by repeated soil samplings. BioRxiv, 2025-04. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.04.25.650716

(To appreciate the extent of the current confusion in carbon cycle research, note that the conclusions of Jia et al. contrast sharply with those of another recent study in which some of the Jia et al. co-authors also participated.)

The figure above from Jia et al. (2025) shows sources and sinks of soil organic carbon, expressed in Tg C per year, for the period 1992 to 2020. One teragram equals one million metric tons of carbon. For comparison, anthropogenic carbon emissions amount to roughly ten thousand teragrams of carbon per year. Read in this context, the figure suggests that old forests in South America and Siberia together remove and store in soils about one tenth of global emissions. By contrast, young forests act mainly as sources of soil carbon, while grasslands contribute little.

These are very strong and potentially far-reaching claims. Importantly, the authors make a rare effort to distinguish, even if only crudely, between forest types, specifically old versus young forests. Such distinctions are seldom made, despite being essential. We would not say, “I looked out of the window and saw a human in the street.” We would say a girl with a ball, an old man with a cane, or a woman carrying heavy bags. Yet the term forest is routinely used in a broad and indiscriminate way, as though it referred to a single, well-defined entity, even though it encompasses systems that differ far more profoundly from one another than the full range of human conditions ever could.

But before considering the wider implications of these results, it is worth examining the geographical distribution of the repeated soil sampling on which they are based. The corresponding figure is not shown in the main text but appears only in the Appendix. It is striking.

That figure immediately reveals a near-universal lack of soil carbon data for the least disturbed forest landscapes. The large Siberian sink is inferred largely by extrapolating data from other regions, while for old forests in South America there is effectively a single data point. In other words, we are debating how to mitigate the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere without any solid empirical foundation for the ecosystems that may matter most.

This reflects a deeper problem in modern Earth system science. Long-term soil carbon studies cluster around universities, simply because such measurements are convenient. Researchers sample nearby sites, publish the results, and secure further funding, while vast and potentially critical regions remain largely unmeasured. At present, there is little intellectual or financial incentive to change this situation. We are effectively searching under the lamppost and have no clue why we should not.

Natural Ecosystems as a Major Climate Unknown: The Water Cycle

One might point to remote sensing data, but such data are only as good as their ground calibration. Unsurprisingly, this calibration is minimal precisely where ecosystems are least disturbed. Let us consider transpiration, a key biotic component of the water cycle.

Take a tree growing in your yard. It grows, and it transpires, releasing large amounts of water vapor, on the order of hundreds of water molecules for every carbon dioxide molecule fixed during photosynthesis. Measuring this is trivial if the tree grows in a container. One simply tracks the added water while preventing soil evaporation. In open soil, however, the problem becomes far more complex. Soil moisture declines not only because of transpiration, but also because of drainage, and rainfall intermittently replenishes it. Separating these effects is not straightforward.

In principle, transpiration can be estimated from the atmosphere. Water vapor released by the canopy is transported upward by turbulence, and measuring this turbulent flux should allow transpiration to be inferred. This is the idea behind eddy covariance flux towers, which use high-frequency wind measurements to estimate fluxes of water vapor and carbon dioxide between vegetation and the atmosphere.

Here, too, fundamental problems arise. Horizontal transport of water vapor and carbon dioxide can far exceed vertical fluxes, making tower calibration critically important. Even when calibrated, flux towers sometimes produce paradoxical results, such as forests appearing to transpire less than grasslands, despite direct catchment-scale water budget measurements showing the opposite (see Teuling, 2018 “A Forest Evapotranspiration Paradox Investigated Using Lysimeter Data”). Despite these limitations, flux towers remain an important source of ecosystem data.

But as the two maps below make clear, the same pattern repeats. Flux towers are overwhelmingly located in accessible, human-modified landscapes. The least disturbed ecosystems, which are most relevant for understanding how transpiration and climate regulation actually work, are once again largely ignored.

The distribution of eddy covariance sites in 2000 (above) and 2025 (below), according to Xia et al. 2025. Vegetation types: evergreen needleleaf forests (ENF), evergreen broadleaf forest (EBF), deciduous needleleaf forest (DNF), deciduous broadleaf forest (DBF), mixed forest (MF), closed shrubland (CSH), open shrubland (OSH), woody savannas (WSA), savannas (SAV), grassland (GRA), wetland (WET) and cropland (CRO).

Xiao, J., Baldocchi, D., Ichii, K., Li, F., & Papale, D. (2025). Insights into terrestrial carbon and water cycling from the global eddy covariance network. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-025-00743-1

Summary and outlook

What we have discussed is not a collection of isolated data gaps, but a systematic methodological failure. Modern Earth system science relies heavily on measurements from ecosystems that are already degraded or operating near their limits, and then treats these observations as representative of how the living world functions. These data are scaled up, embedded in models, and used to inform policy, even though they describe failure modes rather than functioning regulation. In other words, by calibrating our science and policies on degraded ecosystems, we have mistaken breakdown for normality. As long as the least disturbed ecosystems remain largely unexplored, we can neither fully understand the climate change that has already occurred and is ongoing, nor devise a credible strategy for exiting the crisis.

Our blindness to vast, intact parts of the living world is itself a consequence of ongoing environmental destruction. As natural ecosystems disappear from everyday experience, they also disappear from observation and from scientific and policy attention. This loss of visibility feeds back into decision-making, reinforcing policies that further marginalize the remaining intact ecosystems. A recent attempt to map the planet’s so-called critical natural assets, published in a leading journal, illustrates this dangerous dynamic: most of the least disturbed forest ecosystems were excluded, in part because they lie far from human settlements and economic activity. Destruction thus produces blindness, and blindness legitimizes further destruction.

Map showing critical natural assets according to Chaplin-Kramer, R., Neugarten, R. A., Sharp, R. P., Collins, P. M., Polasky, S., Hole, D., ... & Watson, R. A. (2023). Mapping the planet’s critical natural assets. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 7(1), 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01934-5

How can this cycle be broken? How can we embrace a natural world we have never seen? One way forward is to build an intellectual connection to what ultimately matters to us emotionally. By understanding why these ecosystems are important, we can come to see them as part of the world of ideals that shapes what we value and seek to preserve. After all, ideal concepts have long inspired individuals and even entire nations, from the Golden Fleece to the Mill of Sampo, a mythical source of abundance. In this sense, untouched natural ecosystems could emerge as a defining ideal of a new civilization, shaping its values, aspirations, and limits.

The starting point, then, is intellectual appreciation. The main thing we are missing, as our perception of the living world has been shaped by the dominance of artificial systems, is that natural ecosystems have function. They are not simply there by chance. Maintaining a stable environment is difficult, and so far we have been unable to achieve this even locally. We have polluted nearly everything that can be polluted, and continue to do so.

Yet avoiding pollution is not the core problem that life has solved. The deeper challenge is that a life-compatible environment is inherently unstable. Keeping it in dynamic equilibrium requires continuous effort and ingenuity, and this is precisely the function that natural ecosystems perform.

It is not the number of species that matters. Under different conditions, the same function can be carried out by many species or by only a few, and the latter case is not necessarily simpler. As with a story written in one volume or many, it is not the number of parts but the content that counts.

Natural ecosystems that remain capable of self-recovery are our most valuable asset as a species. Their ability to self-perpetuate is not unlimited and depends critically on the area they occupy. Once reduced below a minimal threshold, an ecosystem can collapse due to boundary effects and may never recover. Total area therefore matters crucially, both for resilience and for the efficiency of climate regulation. We must move beyond our current self-destructive horizon and act decisively to prevent further destruction of natural ecosystems, cooperating internationally wherever possible.

This post develops the ideas expressed in “How much wild nature do we need?”. I very much welcome your feedback.

A spring symphony. The voices of bog (recording from 1998)

Below are the questions that I responded to during the panel led by Dr. Koen Verbist, as well as some additional comments about the ensuing discussion moderated by Dr. Jacob Diamond.

Where Does the Biotic Pump Concept Stand Now?

Ms Makarieva, nearly 20 years ago you introduced the Biotic Pump concept in one of the most discussed papers in the hydrologic literature. Can you explain the origins of the concept and where it stands now?

The biotic pump concept was introduced to explain a simple but powerful idea: forests do not just use water—they help bring water to the land.

It can be understood by comparison with moisture recycling, another important ecohydrological concept that preceded the biotic pump. In this context, “recycling” refers to vegetation returning part of the precipitation back to the atmosphere through transpiration. [Moisture recycling was discussed by Dr. Åse Johannessen who opened the panel discussion.]

The moisture recycling concept assumes that winds remain the same whether the land is forested or not, and that water vapour behaves as a passive tracer. Under that view, vegetation can shift where rainfall occurs downwind, but it cannot change how much moist ocean air arrives in the first place, nor whether the incoming air ascends over land to generate rainfall. The biotic pump addresses this missing piece: how vegetation itself changes atmospheric flow.

Forests release large amounts of moisture into the atmosphere through transpiration. This moisture is not passive but profoundly shapes atmospheric dynamics. It alters air pressure and helps draw humid air inland from the ocean. In other words, forests act as an engine that sustains rainfall and river runoff far from the coast.

The mechanism behind this comes from fundamental physics. When water vapour condenses and falls as rain, the atmosphere loses mass. This creates a pressure difference at the surface that drives winds. Forests, through continuous transpiration and condensation, strengthen these pressure differences and help maintain the inflow of moist air.

Where does the concept stand now? First published as a preprint in late 2005, the biotic pump is about to stop being a teenager—and indeed, its most challenging years appear to be behind it. We can now even see (as illustrated in the keynote talk by Mr. Henk Ovink, the Executive Director of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water) that the mainstream narrative—Professor Carlos Nobre in particular—has begun to borrow biotic pump formulations, albeit still only formally, referring to the conventional notion of moisture recycling as forest water “pumps.”

To avoid confusion, it is important to bear in mind that the biotic pump is a concept distinct from moisture recycling, naturally encompassing the latter but not limited to it. One can say that the biotic pump describes how moisture recycling changes atmospheric dynamics.

Over the past two decades, many components of the biotic pump concept have been tested and published in major international journals, and it is now part of a growing scientific discussion on how ecosystems regulate climate.

In a recent paper in Global Change Biology, we identified an important dichotomy in ecosystem functioning: some dry regimes—also called landscape traps—exist where additional plant moisture does not trigger extra local rainfall and thus cannot enhance moisture import. This finding explains why mechanistic tree-planting schemes often fail as hydrological and climate solutions. For a watershed to avoid being trapped in perpetual dryness, protecting and restoring natural ecosystems is crucial, as these are uniquely capable of sustaining stable regional water cycles.

The key message for policy is that the hydrological cycle has a strong ecological dimension. Forests and other natural ecosystems are not just passive beneficiaries of climate—they are active regulators of it. To secure long-term water resilience, we must work with this complexity rather than oversimplify it. Protecting intact ecosystems and enabling natural, or close-to-natural, regeneration should be central components of water and climate policy.

[Another panel participant, Mr. Nestor Ambuy-A-Tam Musambi, a Minister Advisor in the DR Congo, emphasized that protecting forests is equivalent to enhancing water security.]

Barriers and How to Overcome Them

Ms Makarieva, your work has highlighted the need for better interaction between hydrologists, ecologists, and climate modelers. In your view, what actionable steps can we take to break down disciplinary barriers to achieve more realistic understanding of the water cycle as part of the larger biosphere?

The first question we must ask ourselves is why it is only now, a quarter into the 21st century, that we are beginning to realize the importance of ecosystems for the water cycle, and what we should do to avoid remaining at this same stage of initial realization for another few decades.

The living biosphere is an extraordinarily complex system. We have been disturbing it in many ways. Most scientific attention has focused on one type of disturbance: adding CO₂ to the atmosphere. Climate models were built primarily to diagnose this problem. They were optimized to answer one question: How will global temperature respond to rising CO₂?

For that purpose, models do perform consistently: all of them predict warming with higher atmospheric carbon dioxide, and none predict cooling. With ecohydrology, however, we see no such robustness. The effects of deforestation, land degradation, and replacing natural ecosystems with managed landscapes have never been central to climate model development. As a result, models struggle: some predict more moisture transport after deforestation, others predict less. Even the newest high-resolution models often diverge in unpredictable ways.

I suspect that few people in the audience, including hydrology experts, realize that current global climate models offer no guidance on how green water flows will change as the biosphere changes. A clear example again comes from the work of Professor Carlos Nobre, who showed a few decades ago, using a then up-to-date climate model, that Amazon deforestation would cause continental drying and savannization because of increased albedo. This mechanism is different from the biotic pump, although the predicted outcome is similar. More recently, some high-resolution climate models have projected increased rainfall in a deforested Amazon because more sensible heat is released from cleared land. [We discuss why this result is not plausible in our recent publication.]

While these contradictions among models are rarely discussed publicly, they reveal that essential physical and ecological constraints governing terrestrial hydrology are missing. Climate models are evaluated predominantly on their ability to reproduce past temperatures, not on whether they capture vegetation-driven changes in atmospheric circulation. Yet these circulation changes often matter more for water security than temperature does. A vivid example was the shift in atmospheric circulation behind the Amazon drought during the anomalously warm 2023, which none of the global climate models predicted.

Even fewer people than those aware of the lack of ecohydrological robustness in models realize that global climate models depend heavily on how they parameterize the rate at which friction dissipates wind energy.

This issue may seem totally unrelated to hydrology, but it is in fact central. It is crucial to overcome disciplinary barriers and see the whole rather than separate compartments. Friction continuously destroys exactly as much kinetic energy as the atmosphere generates through pressure gradients. These pressure gradients are directly influenced by precipitation and by the ways vegetation interacts with water. When friction processes are misrepresented in models, or mimicked without real understanding, we also misrepresent how winds respond to changes in vegetation. As a result, we lose the ability to predict water-cycle disruptions that follow vegetation degradation.

Another challenge is sociological. Disruptive science, including the biotic pump, often faces strong headwinds across disciplines. This well-documented pattern helps explain why the biotic pump has not been adopted instantly. Major breakthroughs are usually made by small teams, yet such teams today have the lowest chance of receiving support. Funding systems reward incremental work by large consortia, even when society urgently needs conceptual advances. Without pressure from policymakers and the public, the scientific system has little incentive to support ideas that challenge established assumptions and overcome entrenched disciplinary barriers.

For this reason, my colleagues and I have been advocating for something like an Global Incubator for Disruptive Eco-Hydro-Climatology: a dedicated hub for exploring innovative multidisciplinary ideas in environmental and climate science and for building new narratives around them. The biotic pump is a concrete example of how novel physical insights can sharpen constraints on how the atmosphere works and improve our understanding of the water cycle under biospheric change.

Such a centre would help hydrologists, ecologists, and climate modellers work with science communicators in a systematic way, reaching beyond disciplinary silos and creating space to think more freely, without fearing departures from long-established views. Communicators, in turn, could broaden their perspectives with new scientific horizons. This kind of joint innovation, both social and scientific, is essential for grounding water and climate policy in the real complexity of the Earth system. We need to embrace nature’s complexity and steer away from oversimplifications and one-dimensional solutions.

Discussion and Outlook

The panel discussion was followed by a Q&A session with the audience. A longer comment came from a Brazilian lawyer. He expressed concern that the new green-water agenda is being advanced using concepts he views as controversial, such as defining water as a “global common good” and recognizing the role of Indigenous lands in the water cycle—as discussed during the panel by Dr. Anna Tengberg of the International Centre for Water Cooperation in Sweden. He argued that, instead of relying on such concepts, it would be better to use existing, well-defined legal frameworks, such as national agreements on transboundary water flows. In response, it was noted that the major role of Indigenous forests in generating continental rainfall is not controversial but well established. Dr. Anna Tengberg also referred to an upcoming publication by her team.

I added that I fully agree that scientists and policymakers should work together. Regarding transboundary water flows, I clarified that these agreements apply only to the water already present in lakes, rivers, and other reservoirs. The green-water question concerns how much water will reach those reservoirs in the first place if the Amazon is deforested. It may well be that, under large-scale deforestation, there will be little or nothing left for national agreements on transboundary flows to regulate.

The UN delegate from Venezuela shared an interesting account of how her country has promoted large-scale agroforestry and achieved full independence in seeds, meaning that all seeds needed for agroforestry are now produced domestically with no imports required. She noted that Venezuela is ready to share its experience in restoring soil moisture capacity through nature-based agroforestry practices.

Finally, there was a commentary from the UN delegate from Spain, who expressed concern that green water might overshadow blue water in perceived importance. She argued that this would be problematic because societies ultimately depend on blue, or liquid, water. Spain is heavily affected by climate change, she noted, and therefore stronger emphasis should be placed on blue-water governance and on how we use the water we already have, rather than exploring what she alluded to as the less tangible realm of green water. If I understood her correctly (the intervention was translated in real time), the message was to focus on managing visible water resources rather than engaging with the “invisible” moisture flow. It was a strong and emphatic commentary.

The panel responded that green water is not a competitor to blue water but simply the other side of the same process. The real question is how much blue water Spain receives, and why. For instance, if large parts of the country become hot and dry after agricultural monocultures are harvested, then even moist air arriving from the ocean may fail to condense, leaving no blue water—much as we see today in Iran. Conversely, if Spain were to adopt agroforestry more widely and shift its landscapes toward evergreen, moisture-retaining vegetation, the amount of available blue water could increase. Dr. Åse Johannessen mentioned the work of the prominent Spanish scientist Professor Millán Millán, who investigated exactly these mechanisms in the Mediterranean region. It is time to build on this legacy.

A six-year-old agroforestry site near Entroncamento, Portugal. Chili pepper grows alongside fruit trees, legumes, and local shrubs and trees such as strawberry tree and cork oak, together with aromatic herbs. The plants flourish together with the local community (courtesy of Felipe Pasini and Dayana Andrade)

Overall, there was a strong and lively interest in the topic. One UN delegate told me informally, “Now I know what green water is. It’s not water affected by algal bloom; it’s something much more complex.” Comments like this show how much work still lies ahead in helping both ourselves and the public understand the deep interconnections between water and life. We may be entering turbulent times in which almost anything can happen, including very good things. Let us embrace the complexity of what lies ahead and steer toward respecting and preserving all Life.

The two photos below were taken just ten days apart in autumn 2025. I love the bright fall colors in both, yet the worlds they depict are as far apart in natural complexity as one could imagine.

The first photo shows an untamed tributary of a tributary of the Yenisey river in Siberia. The reddish layer on the water is a drift of tree seeds which my great friend Antonio Nobre refers to as the most sophisticated technology on Earth. These tiny vessels have been carrying life forward for millions of years.

The second photo shows local people practicing their national sport on the degrading pastures in Central Asia. According to Professor Emil Shukurov, a prominent Kyrgyz ecologist, it was somewhere in these highlands that, hundreds of years ago, the heroes of the national epos used to lose their way for days as they wandered through the forests. Now this landscape, dominated by large animals, has been pared down to a stark form, radically depleted in complexity.

What are the climatic consequences of this simplification?

We were discussing this question at the United Nations Development Program office in Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan. The conversation began with the tragedy of the commons: local businesses rarely consider the long-term ecological, environmental, let alone climatic damage caused by overgrazing. But while preparing for the talk, I checked what major global companies at the World Economic Forum list as their key risks for the next ten years. Ecosystem collapse was right at the top, second only to extreme weather events.

https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2025/

Could this explicit risk recognition by major concentrations of global wealth translate into more extensive and effective nature-protection policies? To increase this likelihood, I thought it might help to show the broader public that the top risk, extreme weather events, is also directly tied to the loss of ecosystem wellbeing.

To this end, we recall that the familiar narrative links extreme weather events directly to global warming. (We discussed this recently in “The Rabbit–Duck Illusion in Climate Messaging: An Example from Wildfire Policy.”) Yet while the qualitative link for the global warming appears straightforward—more CO₂, a greenhouse gas, leads to a higher global mean surface temperature—the quantitative picture is less certain. The best global climate models still differ by about a factor of three in their projections of warming for a doubling of CO₂ (as discussed in another post here).

The situation with local temperature extremes is even more challenging, because what matters is not just the mean temperature but the entire temperature probability distribution. And it turns out that the global climate models do not properly capture the trends in extreme temperatures.

Below is a figure from a recent study by Kornhuber et al. 2024, “Global emergence of regional heatwave hotspots outpaces climate model simulations”, showing the difference in the rates of mean and extreme local warming in observations (red) versus models (black), along with their ratio (purple, right axis).

Here, the 99th percentile represents the median day among the hottest 2% of days in a year in a given location on land (as resolved by the ERA5 dataset), while the 87.5th percentile approximates an average summer day. If the hottest days warm faster (or more slowly) than the average summer day, the values on the horizontal axis are positive (or negative), respectively. The analysis covers the period from 1958 to 2022. That both distributions peak at zero means that in most cases the 87.5th percentile warms at the same rate as the 99th percentile (which can result from a particular choice of the percentile values).

The figure above shows that models greatly underestimate both the cases where extreme temperatures rise faster than an average summer day and the cases where they rise more slowly (that is, where extreme trends are buffered relative to the mean trend). Instead, the models tend to produce more locations where mean and extreme temperatures increase at similar rates.

So what could be the reason? Kornhuber et al. 2024 point to several factors, with an explicit mention of the hydrological cycle and vegetation:

Simpson et al. (40) found that trends in humidity, which are strongly dependent on the accurate depiction of rainfall patterns (38), evaporation (which is partially controlled by vegetation), and hydrological characteristics of the land surface, including vegetation are still not accurately reproduced, which could in part explain the discrepancies reported here.

Nevertheless, the overall conclusion, announced as usual already in the abstract (see “Why it is important to read scientific papers beyond their abstracts”), is

Our results highlight the need to better understand and model the drivers of extreme heat and to rapidly mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to avoid further harm from unexpected weather events.

Natural ecosystems as a temperature buffer

The buffering effect of ecosystems on temperature is tied to how they handle water — both locally through transpiration and at larger scales through the regulation of atmospheric moisture transport (the biotic pump). Yet water seems to be a prohibited word when discussing the reciprocal links between climate and biodiversity.

For example, in the recently released 10 New Climate Insights for 2025–2026, Insight 4 acknowledges the interdependence between climate change and biodiversity loss, using formulations like “growing evidence suggests that further loss of biodiversity can contribute to climate change, creating a destabilising feedback.” (Consider that a quarter into the 21st century, this is still presented as a new insight.) However, the supporting text is entirely about carbon, with no mention of the W-word. It almost looks as if the researchers are afraid to walk on the liquid-water surface, preferring the solid carbon ground. Or is it a taboo waiting to be released, in the algorithm that is ruling the process? Yet without embracing how ecosystems move water, there is not the slightest hope of understanding Earth’s climate stability.

There is another hidden caveat in the biodiversity–climate narrative. If biodiversity is understood simply as the number of species in a given area, that number alone does not characterize an ecosystem’s functionality or resilience. For example, early-successional habitats can maximize species counts, yet, being focused on self-recovery, they have limited capacity to regulate regional climatic conditions such as moisture transport. As a result, creating many early-successional habitats may temporarily boost local species numbers but weaken the forest’s overall ability to regulate climate and, hence, its own well-being.

How much space the early successional habitats (that are also home to large animals whom humans like to hunt, hence, for example, widespread complaints of German hunters that forest owners do not cut enough trees) occupy in a healthy forest has been determined by evolution from the condition of maximising the forest climate-regulating capacity rather than the number of species at each point. This climate-regulating function is rarely considered in biodiversity narratives weakening the appeal for conservation or even promotes policies that harm forest resilience (see “Forest-clearing to create early-successional habitats: Questionable benefits, significant costs”).

Returning to vegetation, water and temperature, destroying ecosystems leads to destabilization of the temperature regime, while their recovery helps buffer global temperature trends.

Baker and Spracklen 2019 compared temperature changes that occurred from 2000 to 2013 in nearby locations with intact Amazonian forest and with slight (non-intact), moderate, and severe disturbance. They found, as shown in the third histogram below, that severely disturbed forests warmed by almost an order of magnitude more than undisturbed forests.

Compare this to how global climate models handle temperature changes related to the removal of vegetation. Below is Fig. 7 from Lejene et al. 2017, which shows how models (LUCID and CMIP5) represent changes in maximum and minimum daily temperatures following vegetation removal. OBS refers to the observed differences in Tmax and Tmin between open land and forest, averaged over 22 paired sites in North America. We can see that the models do not reproduce even the sign of the effect.

While vegetation clearing increases temperature extremes, the natural regrowth of forests can literally buffer a large region against global trends. This is what happened with the natural recovery of forests in the Eastern United States.

Below is Figure 1 from Barnes et al. 2024,“A Century of Reforestation Reduced Anthropogenic Warming in the Eastern United States”, where panel C shows the temperature trends in 1900-2010. One can see the “warming hole” in the East, with the region cooling when other regions were warming.

This process cannot continue forever, since transpiration cannot increase without limit. However, with large-scale forest recovery, regional hydrology becomes more stable.

Of course, now that forest biomass has increased, local businesses may want to profit from the accumulated natural capital and return the landscape to a depauperate state (see the right bottom panel above), through measures such as the “Fix Our Forests Act,” which opens forests to logging and burning.

This is the curse of resource abundance. When a resource is abundant, destroying is always cheaper than protecting. Once nothing is left, the recoverers arrive to rebuild the resource for the future destroyers. Stopping this vicious cycle requires intellect and will from human society.

The bigger influence

While the above temperature-related examples that show the role of vegetation are very vivid and often used in ecorestoration narratives, they are really only the tip of the iceberg. The main weather extremes come from changes in atmospheric circulation.

To understand why this is so, let us look at this picture of forest mediated ocean to land moisture transport.

When the biotic pump works normally, moist air rises over the continent. Rain and clouds help cool the land surface. Meanwhile, over the ocean, where the air descends, there are no clouds and there is full sunshine. The area of descent warms. In the Amazon region, this creates what Antonio Nobre called the cold Amazon paradox, in which the air rises over the colder land surface and descends over the warmer ocean surface, something you do not see in textbooks.

Now imagine that we disturb the forest by burning and logging, such that its hydrological power weakens. Since the ocean never has a shortage of water, the circulation pattern readily flips, and now there is descending air motion over the Amazon. This descending air motion, persistent as it was in 2023, caused extra heat due to less clouds and more sunshine as well as because air warms rapidly as it descends adiabatically (Fernández-Alvarez et al. 2025).

Let me digress from ecology for a moment and suggest that you pause to memorize this important fact. I bet most readers have been taught, or have heard, that warm air rises. Yet the strongest heatwaves and the highest temperature extremes are associated with persistent descending air. This is not only what happened in the Amazon in 2023; you can read about other similar events for example in the study by Hotz et al. 2024.

Since it is mechanically costly to push warm air downward, this means that the work that makes it possible is done somewhere else, namely where condensation occurs and rain falls. It is the atmospheric steam engine that produces the power needed to push warm air down, a topic for another post.

Therefore, disturbing vegetation, especially on a large scale, disrupts transpiration and atmospheric moistening and can lead to a situation in which the ocean wins the tug of war with land for moisture, causing positive temperature anomalies on land.

Furthermore, natural forests not only facilitate ocean to land moisture import, but they also make it more stable by not allowing local condensation bursts. Forest trees can be compared to control rods in a nuclear reactor that protect the plant from explosion and ensure the peaceful use of enormous nuclear power. Likewise, forests tame the power of condensation, unlike hurricanes, which are more comparable to nuclear bombs than to power stations. When their control lessens, or is nonexistent, persistent local condensation wetspots can form, locking the atmosphere in this state for a prolonged period of time. This creates floods in one place and droughts and heatwaves in another.

When admitting that climate science is on uncharted territory, it was suggested that the cause of unpredicted changes is the long-term correlations in atmospheric and oceanic currents. These changes, and the role of vegetation in them, are not adequately described by climate models.

Fighting climate change

Now, if we are concerned about weather extremes, as the people at the World Economic Forum clearly are, reducing CO₂ levels does not seem to be a straightforward way to reduce these extremes, since they are not reproduced by climate models that describe CO₂-driven climate change.

Furthermore, while we still do not understand how air circulation changes, applying geoengineering methods to cool the planet, for example by spreading aerosols, is unlikely to bring about the desired climate stabilization. For air circulation, what matters are temperature and humidity gradients and their temporal evolution, and these depend on circulation itself. Even from a mechanical point of view, aerosol-based cooling might help lower the global mean temperature, but in theory it can lead to an even more destabilized circulation and more chaotic weather patterns. Adding aerosols is not thermodynamically equivalent to removing CO₂ or restoring disappearing cloud cover.

Let me conclude with an example that I think is also very vivid. Suppose we continue weakening the biotic pump on land by destroying more and more forests. At the same time, ocean temperatures rise, and the amount of water vapor over the ocean increases as a result. Therefore, even if the land to ocean circulation weakens, this additional water vapor can partially compensate for the declining power of the biotic pump.

Now suppose geoengineers succeed in reducing the global mean surface temperature. What happens then? Forests and ocean-to-land moisture transport continue to decline under human pressure, but now there is less water vapor in the air. In this situation, we can reasonably expect even more drastic disruptions of the water cycle across the planet.

Let us stand up for our ecosystems and their complexity, and refuse to slide into the ecological illiteracy and one-dimensional thinking that our degrading environments can easily breed in us.

Since 2023, extreme weather events have shattered IPCC model projections, and meteorologists are now grappling with this new reality. Standard climate models were designed in a stable world that we have irrevocably left behind. But wait, even in the stable climate there was an inexplicable omission: the dynamic land-atmosphere water cycle—powerfully mediated by living forests—relegated to a mere footnote in the carbon story.

When Trees Hold Up the Sky

Indigenous knowledge has long understood what science is only now proving. Davi Kopenawa Yanomami once told me based on his The Falling Sky book: Don’t white people see that if they cut down the forest, the rain will dry up?

This isn’t metaphor—it’s native wisdom summing up the physics of the Biotic Pump. Forests function as the beating heart of the hydrological cycle. Trees transpire vast volumes of water vapor, which rises and rapidly condenses into clouds, aided by cloud-seeds also emitted by the plants. When vast amounts of water vapor rise and condense back into liquid droplets (clouds), that liquid takes up vastly less volume than the gas did. This sudden shrinkage creates a low-pressure area—a massive natural vacuum—that efficiently pulls humid air from the oceans deep into the continents.

The Biotic Pump theory was pioneered by Russian scientists Anastassia Makarieva and Victor Gorshkov, in close cooperation with Brazilian researchers, including myself. Our studies have revealed this mechanism operates globally. In the Amazon, the pump pulls trade winds from the North Atlantic across the equator, penetrating deep into South America. In Siberia, boreal forests maintain the Eurasian flying rivers —crucial atmospheric moisture sources for vast portions of Europe, China, and Central Asia. This profound, life-or-death physics—the Biotic Pump—is not a newly formulated hypothesis; it is a solid mechanism, a published theory, rooted in fundamental physics. Yet, for nearly two decades, this critical dynamic has been missing in the dominant global climate models. This omission has allowed models to wildly underestimate the Amazon’s vulnerability and the speed of climate collapse, precisely due to the reluctance to integrate a truth that challenges the carbon-centric foundation.

A COP30 boat in the Amazon. But the sky turned black

Destroying a Friendly Climate

Remove the trees, and the pump breaks. Transpiration stops, dry air falls, humid air is no longer drawn inward, clouds vanish, the natural cooling system collapses, and menacing, massive bubbles of hot air settle over deforested regions, further blocking humidity circulation and triggering desert-like conditions across vast continental areas. Where dense white clouds over the Amazon once reflected up to 70% of solar radiation back to space, bare ground now absorbs that heat. This process dramatically amplifies regional warming, generating vicious climate consequences far beyond what carbon emissions alone can explain.

Beyond Carbon: A Paradigm Shift for Climate Action

Here is the uncomfortable truth: Even if we zeroed out carbon emissions tomorrow—a goal certainly worth pursuing—without massive ecological restoration the climate emergency would persist. While carbon dioxide is key to long-term warming, ecosystem destruction introduces a dangerous short-term multiplier. By damaging the ocean-atmosphere-land water cycle we drastically amplify the climate’s sensitivity to CO₂. Forests aren’t just carbon sinks. They are the planet’s primary climate regulators, its freshwater generators, and the very foundation of continental habitability.

The Path Forward: Protecting and Restoring the Biosphere

The good news is that Life has the regenerative power. Over 400 million years, the biosphere has conquered continents through unconceivably complex and incredibly sophisticated mechanisms. Spores, seeds, shoots, branches, leaves, eggs and precious cultures of Indigenous Peoples hold the secrets of life to maintain and safeguard the climate. Recognizing this natural prowess must become the gauging sign of our own existential intelligence.

This mandate requires fundamentally reforming agriculture and cattle ranching—currently the main vectors of destruction. Furthermore, the failure to model the Biotic Pump has a direct financial consequence: It allows billions to be funneled into bogus, short-term carbon offset schemes—such as tree farms that fail to replicate the complex hydrology of native forests—which look good on a carbon ledger but do nothing to restore the planet’s water cycle.

Think of it like treating a liver desease. The first thing a doctor tells the alcoholic is to stop drinking—that is, stop polluting, stop destroying. This is essential, but it is wholly insufficient. The damaged liver needs healing. If we continue losing and degrading our forests, no amount of monoculture replanting or carbon offsetting will preserve planetary health. A damaged liver can regenerate—but it needs help. Nature had eons to spare; we do not.

COP30’s Historic Opportunity: The Final Mandate

Hosting COP30 in the Amazon is more than symbolic—it’s strategically essential. The challenge for Belém is clear, yet momentous: Will we finally acknowledge the elephant in the room? The world is watching to see if the rhetoric of ‘preservation’ will trump the 20th-century craving for reckless development. Will we give up political convenience and overcome economic cynicism? This is the critical juncture where the world must finally elevate ecosystem protection and recovery from a peripheral concern to the core of global climate action. New humane partnerships must recognize the extraordinary capacity of intact land ecosystems to cool the surface—magnificently converting water vapor into clouds and rain, an ultra-complex function that no man-made technology can replicate or substitute.

The mandate for COP30 is not about if we value the Amazon, but how we value it. We must enforce, fund, and model policies that recognize the forest not merely as a carbon repository, but as the planet’s irreplaceable air conditioning and freshwater generation system. The stability of the world’s food, water, and climate depends on whether Belém elevates biogeophysics— as shown by the new science of the Biotic Pump—from a peripheral concern to the core of global climate law. Give diverse forests a chance, give native territories a stand, and they will heal the climate. This conviction is not naive optimism; it emerges from the practical application of physics, deep ecology, ancient wisdoms and four billion years of evolutionary genius.

Will we finally commit—without compromise—to fully respect, protect and restore our marvelous planet?

Antonio Donato Nobre is a retired researcher from Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE), now Scientific Director of the non-profit Institute Biotic Pump Greening Group. He is a specialist in the Amazon and Earth System Sciences, known for his work on “flying rivers” and the biotic pump theory of forest-driven climate regulation.

According to systems analysts [1] advising U.S. intelligence agencies, humanity is currently undergoing four bifurcations, becoming almost irreversibly divided into:
(1) the poor and the super-rich,
(2) the psychologically stable and unstable,
(3) those who use or do not use artificial intelligence, and
(4) techno- and ecocentrists.

The fourth bifurcation separates the technocentrists—those who believe that all problems of civilization can be solved within the framework of technological progress, which has historically disregarded natural ecosystems—from the ecocentrists, who have realized that the complexity of living nature far exceeds that of modern civilization, and that further development of civilization, including scientific and technological progress, along the path of biospheric destruction is impossible.

Ecocentrism, which acknowledges the complexity of living systems, implies a higher level of organization of the scientific and technological process than technocentrism [2].

Unlike ordered inanimate objects, living systems possess such a degree of complexity that their spontaneous emergence is impossible; they can appear only as copies of previously existing living forms. This replication of life forms has continued on Earth without interruption for four billion years.

[The following clarification of the above paragraph was provided in the comments: “The reference is meant to be about the unlikelihood of life arising again from inanimate matter here on earth (as opposed to life forms evolving from life that emerged 4 billion years ago and continue to survive from that original emergence).” It was also correctly pointed out that organisms are not exact copies of their parents. — AM]

Life, therefore, is a process whose organizational complexity is sufficient to maintain the conditions necessary for its own continuation. The complexity of life reflects the complexity of the task of sustaining an environment suitable for living.

From these premises follows an unambiguous conclusion: the destruction of natural ecosystems leads to the irreversible destabilization of the environment and climate — a process that cannot be prevented or corrected by technological means.

It is no coincidence that, despite all the achievements of scientific and technological progress, our success in maintaining conditions suitable for life remains practically non-existent: freshwater reserves are being depleted, soils are degrading, food quality is declining, and the composition of the atmosphere is moving beyond the range favorable for normal human cognitive functioning [3].

[That “no coincidence” captures the essential difference between technocentrists and ecocentrists. The former still believe that sufficient investment in the right technologies will eventually resolve the environmental crisis, even as natural ecosystems remain neglected and left to degrade on the margins of civilization’s highway of progress. The latter have realized that an environment suitable for life cannot exist without life-supporting ecosystems — it is prohibited by the laws of nature, just as perpetual motion machines are. For ecocentrists, the failure of Biosphere-2 is as inevitable and instructive as the failure to build another perpetuum mobile. Technocentrists would simply try again. — AM].

Appreciating the complexity of living systems is difficult without direct contact with wild nature. In the modern urbanized civilization, in many regions, such contact, and, consequently, ecocentrism, has become the privilege of a small minority who have reached the higher levels of Maslow’s pyramid [4].

In Russia, which has preserved uniquely extensive areas of wild nature and traditions of personal interaction with the natural world through its dacha culture, ecocentrism is implicitly present in the consciousness and life philosophy of a large part of the population. This circumstance gives the country, in principle, the capacity to choose unconventional and hardly predictable—at least for technocentrists—paths of development in an increasingly chaotic world.

It was in Russia that the interdisciplinary concept of biotic regulation of the environment [5] was developed, which makes it possible to quantitatively assess the stabilizing impact of natural ecosystems on the environment and climate. The principal distinguishing feature of natural ecosystems is their capacity for self-recovery following disturbances that do not exceed the threshold of stability. [The biotic pump concept, which describes the biotic regulation of the continental water cycle, is currently being advanced through a Brazilian–Russian collaboration — a symbolic partnership between the planetary regions that hold the largest share of intact ecosystems. (This is not to overlook other important international efforts and collaborators who have been working on this topic.) — AM]

Dacha of Prof. Victor Gorshkov, author of the concept of biotic regulation of the environment

The preservation of Russia’s wild nature as a national strategy addresses the following objectives:

1. Stabilization of climate and environment on a Eurasian scale, including the water cycle and atmospheric moisture transport.

2. Creation of a new international image — that of a global leader and hub of ecocentrism — with the potential to attract significant resources from ecocentrists worldwide [6].

3. Counteracting destructive efforts at Russia’s dehumanization through global leadership in the noble cause of conserving natural ecosystems.

4. Assisting China in developing and implementing the principles of an eco-civilization.

Since China’s natural ecosystems have been almost completely destroyed, the country has found itself trapped in technocentrism. However, the escalating environmental degradation is forcing China to search for new paths for progress. [It is also worth noting that a substantial part of the Chinese population continues to work the land as peasants, thereby maintaining at least minimal contact with life-support systems — in contrast to many other developed countries, where mechanized agriculture has reduced the number of farmers to a negligible proportion, further debilitating ecocentric thinking. — AM]

Russian natural forests play a key role in the continental transport of atmospheric moisture [7], providing a significant share of its inflow to China, Central Asia, and other regions [8]. Logging of natural forests in Russia by Chinese businesses destabilizes these flows and contributes to increasing aridity and water cycle instabilities across vast areas of Eurasia, including China itself, where the remaining forests are already under strict protection.

Russia urgently needs to introduce a similar moratorium on the exploitation of natural forests north of 58° N latitude. [Frankly, this is in the interest of all people on Earth, even if they have not yet come to that realization. — AM]

Strategic environmental cooperation with international partners, including dialogue at the level of heads of state, could provide the necessary funding to withdraw Russia’s intact forests entirely from economic use and preserve them for future generations as a natural heritage of global significance [9].

Notes
[1] Nate Hagens, The Quadruple Bifurcation.
[2] A clear example of a technocentric approach to a complex problem is the belief that climate stability is determined by a single variable — the global mean surface temperature.
[3] Bardi U., Bierwirth P., Huang K.-W., McIntyre J. (2025) Carbon dioxide as a pollutant: the risks on human health and the stability of the biosphere. Environmental Science: Advances 4, 1364-1372. https://doi.org/10.1039/D5VA00017C
[4] Since contact with wild nature promotes human physical and psychological well-being, ecocentrism also implies a higher degree of psychological resilience among its adherents, cf. the second bifurcation. [So ecocentrists worldwide possess both wealth and health, a valuable global resource indeed! — AM]
[5] Gorshkov V.G. (1995) Physical and biological bases of life stability. Man, biota, environment. Berlin: Springer.
[6] The European Union is now seeking to capitalize on the substantial ecocentrists’ resources through its Rewilding Strategy. However, since little natural wilderness remains in Western Europe and its restoration takes centuries, Russia currently holds enormous, yet largely unrealized, advantages in this field [But every success is to be wished to our European neighbors in their vital pursuit of nature restoration. The broader our collective protective actions become, the greater our shared chances for a positive global outcome. — AM]. The United States recently had a chance at ideological leadership with the formulation of the proforestation concept, but with the likely adoption of the Fix Our Forests Act—which shortsightedly promotes the exploitation of protected forests—it will be set back for a long time.
[7] Makarieva A.M., Gorshkov V.G. (2007) Biotic pump of atmospheric moisture as driver of the hydrological cycle on land. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 11, 1013-1033. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-1013-2007
[8] Van der Ent, R. J., Savenije, H. H., Schaefli, B., & Steele‐Dunne, S. C. (2010). Origin and fate of atmospheric moisture over continents. Water Resources Research, 46(9). https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009127
[9] Makarieva, A. M., Nefiodov, A. V., Morozov, V. E., Aleynikov, A. A., & Vasilov, R. G. (2020). Science in the vanguard of rethinking the role of forests in the third millennium. Forest Science Issues, 3, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.31509/2658-607x-2020-3-3-1-25

Subscribe now