We received the following reaction. The response paper by the writers of this letter can be found where our paper also appeared, under "Needs for agrometeorological solutions to farming problems"

Professor Kees Stigter

President

International Society for Agricultural Meteorology

12 October 2009

Dear Prof. Stigter,

We write regarding your recent publication on the INSAM website “A "Forests as biotic pump” hypothesis discredited due to errors in basic atmospheric physics”.

In this publication you refer to the biotic pump concept being “completely discredited” due to errors exposed by Meesters et al. (2009). We would be disappointed if INSAM’s President would consciously choose to abandon the criteria of scientific objectivity when presenting a topic of such general interest. We therefore presume that you are not completely aware of all the relevant developments in this area and provide you with some updates.

The central idea behind the biotic pump concept, namely the forest-induced horizontal transport of water vapor, is widely recognized as a new concept in meteorology. Critical evaluation by meteorologists is valuable and welcomed. However, in the case of Meesters et al., the critique helped reveal inconsistencies in the standing meteorological paradigm and misunderstandings of those particular authors rather than any problems with the biotic pump theory. The principle misunderstandings are considered in our response to your critique (Makarieva and Gorshkov, 2009a), which you neglect to cite in your publication and may not have read. Here we highlight a few additional points for your information:

1) In his official conclusion the Handling Editor Dr. Bart van den Hurk warns the reader that “The debate between Meesters, Dolman and Bruijnzeel (MDB) and Makarieva and Gorshkov (MG) concerning the biotic pump theory and evaporative force postulated earlier by the latter authors is not concluded by the publication of the "Comments" by MDB and the "Reply" by MG.” [ http://www.cosis.net/copernicus/EGU/hessd/6/S744/hessd-6-S744.pdf] Dr. Hurk also notes that the discussion “may trigger more debates that lead to an enhanced understanding of the physics that drives the planetary hydrological cycle in general, and the role of large evaporating bodies in particular.” Presenting what you imply is a closed case while not mentioning this ongoing discussion misleads your readers.  This may deprive them from participating in the relevant intellectual efforts in this field.

2) In your publication you once again advance the idea that condensation increases local air pressure. We refer you to papers in the mainstream meteorological literature, see, e.g., Trenberth (1991, Equation 6) and also below, to check for yourself that many professional meteorologists of the highest rank (apparently not Meesters et al.) appreciate the fundamental physical fact that condensation reduces the weight of air column and thus immediately reduces the local air pressure in the lower atmosphere where the biotic pump winds develop.

3) Finally, our theory has advanced since December 2008 when Meesters et al.’s critique was published. In our recent works published after peer review in a reputable physical journal, we show that the physics behind the biotic pump theory now emerges as a novel theory of atmospheric circulation that provides a unified quantitative description for such phenomena as (1) the large-scale (continental and oceanic) circulation, (2) hurricanes and (3) tornadoes (Makarieva and Gorshkov, 2009b,c).  Sound numerical estimates of the wind wall and eye radius and wind velocity profiles (tangential, radial and vertical) for hurricanes and tornadoes are produced by the new theory using only a limited number of fundamental atmospheric parameters (Makarieva and Gorshkov, 2009c).

We hope that you agree that readers of your website would benefit from an objective coverage of the current standings of the biotic pump theory rather than from being misled by the biased and insufficiently informed conclusions of Dr. Meesters. We would like therefore to request you (1) to publish our response to your publication on your website (the text is attached below) and (2) to provide a link to our response from the web page where “the biotic pump is physically discredited” message appears.

We are copying this letter to all INSAM Vice-Presidents, Dr. Hubert Savenije (HESS Editor), Dr. Douglas Sheil, Dr. Antonio Nobre, Dr. William Laurance, Dr. Jan Cermak, Dr. Fred Pearce (New Scientist), Dr. Jeremy Hance (Mongabay.com), Dr. Steve Mirsky (Scientific American), Dr. Andrew Mitchell (Global Canopy Program), Dr. Peter Bunyard (The Ecologist), Dr. Clive McAlpine, Dr. Travis Taylor, Dr. James Porteous (The Ecos Magazine), Dr. Andrew Sugden (Science), Dr. Henry Gee (Nature), Dr. Andrew Revkin (New York Times). We will also see to undertake any further efforts to make this letter and the ensuing correspondence, if relevant, publicly available. We will be doing so in the hope that you agree that the subject needs to be dealt with in an objective and balanced fashion.   We are certain that publishing our commentary will bolster the reputation of the INSAM web site as a valuable source of current viewpoints and knowledge in the environmental sciences.

PDFs with all relevant publications on biotic pump are attached to this letter. [Available form the authors. KS.]

Thank you for your interest in our work.

Yours very sincerely,

Anastassia Makarieva

Victor Gorshkov