One more cause of climate change: desertification

"TRY A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE LEISA CONTENTS".

Quite a few suggestions are pouring in to this effect. Pending a comprehensive critique and not necessarily a review / critic of the LEISA contents, we would try to touch upon the quintessential of the difference we make with the ruling/ common place climate change theory as is reflected in the LEISA issue.
THE MUSINGS: A SYNOPTIC REBUTTAL OF THE GHG SCHOOL

The "ocean warming" gives rise to a torrent of moisture laden monsoon winds. Agreed. Unfortunately for us, it does not occur to the GHG School (GreenHouse Gases school) that the "landmass warming" (?) on the other hand unleashes a torrent of dry moist less counteracting winds. The latter torpedoes the former in a mutually reclusive encounter driving the monsoon winds away from the landmass and in to the neighboring seas. We are thus creating a sort of DIVERGENCE having relegated the CONVERGENCE in to the background according to some sensible meteorological sources addressing climate change. It is evident we move on in a concerted manner to tide over the torrent of dry moist less counteracting winds. It is well within the power of our multitudes of "rustic" peasants to tide it over in the medium to longer term. In the event, we would have done away with the climate change and placed India comfortably on the triple surpluses namely
the FOOD,(BIO) ENERGY AND FRESHWATER.

(Read the following for an exposition of the same in detail)


GHG SCHOOL AND **THE FALLACY OF A UNILATERAL SOURCE/ACTION OF CLIMATE CHANGE?

We hold that there are not one but TWO SOURCES of climate change in sharp contrast to the common place wisdom of only ONE SOURCE of climate change.

1) The desertification (of the landmass) driven climate change and
2) The green house gases driven climate change.

The common place vision holds to the latter source of climate change alone. This is not the only difference in our respective visions. There is a finer detail to it.

We hold that the former occupies the pride of place as the "clincher". The latter indeed could be cast in the secondary- supplementary role. In other words, we hold that the common place vision is going blind of the PRINCIPAL SOURCE of climate change i.e., desertified landmass and the concomitant climate change. we elaborate a bit below.

Read the heading carefully again:
THE DESERT LANDMASS MAKES A COMMON CAUSE WITH THE WARMING OCEANS TO CLINCH CLIMATE CHANGE.
We are indeed taking a far more benign view. The real position could be as follows.
*THE DESERT LANDMASS (READ DESERTIFIED) CLINCHED THE CLIMATE CHANGE. THE WARMING OCEANS MAKE THE MATTERS WORSE. *

What follows from above is that the common place theory erred in a) going wholly blind of the principal source of climate change in the first place and b) holding the secondary source as the only source of climate change. Indeed, *there can be no single source of climate change. It goes against the very fabric of the science of climate change.* Given what it is the common place climate change theory namely the GHG (Green House Gases) School of climate change is fallacious in its very standing. More on it below.

*THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE *

"Climate" is a product of the dynamic interaction between the the local and global atmospheric circulations. The global atmospheric circulations are known as the MACRO SCALE circulations where as there are two types of circulations namely the MICRO SCALE (up to 5 kilometers) and MESO SCALE (between 5kms and 500 kms) circulations within the broad category of "local". The climate in other words is a product of the dynamic interaction between the MICRO SCALE, MESO SCALE and MACRO SCALE circulations. The micro scale and meso scale circulations being local are site specific.

Situating it in our context, the desert landmass may be said as the home (desertified landmass) for the micro and meso scale circulations where as the macro scale circulations cover both the warming oceans at one side and the desert landmass at the other. The macro scale circulations indeed are none other than the monsoon winds. The monsoon winds originate the great oceans and move on to the landmass. *What if the "intensely" moisture laden monsoon winds originating the "warming" oceans find encountered by the moist less, dry local (micro scale and meso scale) winds home to the desert landmass? The monsoon winds tend to diverge from the landmass. The **DIVERGENCE could reflect in the form of a) absolute fall in the average annual rainfall and b) erratic rainfall. Conversely, imagine that the monsoon winds find encountered by the moist micro scale and meso scale winds. The "moist" local and the "moist" global winds CONVERGE to produce a positive outcome. We will have a rhythmic and highly predictable pattern of rainfall as in the past even as the average annual rainfall maintains status-quo.

*CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE CENTRALITY OF HYDEL GREEN HOUSE (HGH) *

Have you ever heard of the atmospheric water (vapor) reserves? They are a counterpart of the groundwater reserves. The size of the atmospheric water reserves is proportionate to the size of the groundwater reserves as well as the vegetation. The vegetation serves as the live link between the two. It goes without saying that the vegetation pumps out groundwater in to the atmosphere. The atmospheric water reserves are not the same as the hydel green houses. The atmospheric water reserves upon reaching a critical mass start returning the water pumped in to it by way of evapo-transpiration back to the soil. It is returned in the form of snowfall. In other words, the freshwater is getting recycled ad infinitum on a routine basis. The recycling is the hallmark of the hydel green house. The micro scale atmospheric circulations followed by that of the meso scale serve as the repositories of the hydel green houses (HGH). Indeed, the contours of the hydel green house are broader. It is inclusive of the a) groundwater reserves, b) vegetation and c) the atmospheric water reserves charged with the recycling of water. *The HGH in turn serve to regulate the HYDROLOGICAL CYCLE at large. *

The hydrological cycle has the in-let as well as the out-let in relation with the landmass. The HGH in the first place helps in the convergence of the monsoon winds. It helps in the re channeling of the monsoon yield from the landmass to its original destination i.e.,the high seas and the oceans. The moisture laden monsoon winds originate the high seas and the water yield finds its place back in to the seas thus completing a full circle. The rainwater yield finds its way back in to the high seas thanks to the recycling, The recycling in the post GR (green revolution) period disappeared in to thin air even as "terminal consumption" replaced it. It goes to the credit of the HGH in regulating both the in-lets and out-lets of the hydrological cycle. We may sum it up as follows.

1) It is the undisturbed groundwater reserves coupled with the extensive presence of vegetation, which together serve as the progenitors of HGH.
2) The HGH in turn regulates the hydrological cycle.
3) The vicious duo namely the mining of vegetation and mining of groundwater

reserves unleashed by the GR logically led to the fatal fall of the HGH, which in turn led to the loss of convergence of the monsoon winds. The divergence replaced convergence. The result is the erratic monsoon pattern.

HYDEL GREEN HOUSE MAKES IN TO THE IDEAL PRODUCTION ENDOWMENT PAR EXCELLENCE

The common place belief is that the erratic rainfall coupled with the rising temperatures define the climate change. We have seen above that these two are symptomatic of rather the deep rooted malaise namely the loss of the hydel green house. Restoration of the hydel green house would bring back the rhythmic pattern of rainfall and the regulation of temperatures as well. The GHG School on the other hand argues that it is impossible to get back the rhythmic pattern of rainfall and the regulation of temperatures unless the green house gases load is reverted to their historical lows. That does not appear to be a possibility in the foreseeable future. Citing to the dismal opportunities, it argues that we may have to learn to live (adaptation) with the vulnerabilities? There is yet another glaring anomaly in the position of the GHG School. Assuming that at a future date, the green house gases load is depleted to its historical lows and we are back with the rhythmic pattern of rainfall coupled with the conducive levels of atmospheric temperatures- will that alleviate our food and water problems? Will the two together make in to ideal production endowment? One would apparently agree that some thing more is needed to make in to an ideal (sustainable) production endowment. It goes without saying that the hydel green house makes in to the ideal production endowment.

It is clear from the foregoing that the restoration of the hydel green house is well within our means and it is possible to restore it in the medium to longer term. Note that the restoration is the same as the rolling back of the climate change. The restoration of the hydel green house will not only roll back the desertification of the landmass but also it will go a long way in mitigating the ocean warming. It helps in the large scale carbon sequestration.

Source: 

Forum for tropical water, release Nr. 5, Hyderabad, 1/6/'09
Mohan Reddy Vishwavaram <mohanreddyv1@gmail.com>