Global Warming Driven by Plant Evapotranspiration Reduction
Consensus science facts and diagrams from CO2 GHG proponent sites such as the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and the International Energy Agency are used to quantitatively prove the scientific fact that PER drives AGW, not CO2 GHG. Conversely, 10 CO2 GHG theory problems are quantified and graphically presented, proving CO2 GHG remains an unquantifiable, problematic theory.”
Introduction – The prevailing CO2 GHG theory
Recall Al Gore’s famous graph from the film An Inconvenient Truth showing the correlation between CO2 & global temperature (shown below). The graph is available from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with a time scale 800,000 years ago until only 1850. (Problems 1 & 2 explain why the graph was not carried to present.) The graph shows a clear correlation between CO2 & global temperatures.
The prevailing GHG theory is that manmade CO2 emissions (primarily from burning fossil fuels) increase atmospheric CO2 concentration which then increases global temperatures through the GHG effect. However, this prevailing CO2 GHG theory does not explain the CO2 source for the prior 800k years (prior to man’s 1960+ fossil fuel emission expansion).
10 Problems with CO2 GHG Theory
Problem 1- 1960+ CO2 spike has no correlated temperature spike.
Carbon-cap.com shows the same graph as above, but is extended from 1850 to 2020. As demonstrated, the recent CO2 spike from 280 ppm to 410 ppm did not create an associated temperature spike. The current CO2 ppm is the highest seen for the past 800k years, yet the temperature remains lower than 4 past peaks per chart. Using the correlation, the GHG effect should have caused a 19°C rise over the last 60 years, but the actual is ~1.0°C rise.
Why? CO2 GHG theory proponents have no explanation and now just prefer to disregard the irrefutable 800k year correlation and use a current correlation ~6 factor lower (Problem 2). Hence, the prevailing CO2 GHG theory is contradicted by the irrefutable 800k year CO2 and temperature correlation.
Problem 2- Relative scales were decreased by a 5.6 factor for 1880+ and by a 6.4 factor for 1958+ to show a correlation. Explanation- Different driver than above 800k year correlation due to a different CO2 source.
The first graph below from Zfacts.com shows the same global temperatures and CO2 as the above 800k year graph with a much shorter time scale from 1880 through 2008 and with 5.6 factor lower relative scales for CO2 and temperature. The relative scales (oC / ppm) were decreased to show a proposed theoretical correlation between CO2 ppm and oC. However, the GHG theory requires that temperature rise be proportional to the CO2 increase, not the observed variable factor between CO2 and temperature. Other forcing and later feedbacks have not increased the correlation magnitude. Two negative correlations also exist from 1880 – 1915 and from 1936 – 1977, also inconsistent with GHG theory.
The second graph below is from Climate4you.com. from 1958 through Dec. 2020. (To locate the graph, click the far left dark blue “Greenhouse Gases” link, then the third light blue right bullet “Temperature records versus atmospheric CO2”). The multi colors are measured temperatures from 5 sources. The graph shows a negative correlation from 1958 to 1978, but a positive correlation from 1979 to 2005, with a weaker correlation from 2006 to 2020.
Although CO2 and temperature have both increased over the last 140 years, the proposed new correlation does not mean that CO2 “caused” the corresponding temperature increase. Further, these varying correlation factors between CO2 and temperature do not fit the GHG Theory. In explanation, the above 800k year correlation has a different driver than the below last 140 years correlation: For the above 800k year correlation, plant life increases / decreases drove both CO2 and global temperatures.
For the below 1880+ correlations, fossil fuel CO2 emissions increased CO2 atmospheric concentrations which increased plant water use efficiency (reduction in plant evapotranspiration) which then “caused” the temperature increase as quantified later.
Problem 3- Lagging CO2 on declining temperatures does not fit GHG Theory.
Pro CO2 GHG theory sites widely admit the historical data consensus for a CO2 lag on falling temperatures as graphed below:
- Skeptical Science– CO2 lags temperature by 600 – 1000 years as shown in graph below.
- Real Climate.org– CO2 lag could be as low as 200 years or as high as 1000 years.
This CO2 ppm lag exists only on declining temperatures (shown by black arrows) in graph below, but not on rising temperature. If global warming is really caused by the CO2 GHG effect, then CO2 should always lead temperature, never lag it, especially not by 200 – 1000 years (assuming the prevailing CO2 GHG theory is actually correct). Their prevailing explanation that CO2 correlates upon rising temperature but lags upon declining temperatures does not fit any CO2 GHG calculations or models.
CO2 did not “cause” global temperature changes, but were the “result” of (trailing indicator of) plant evapotranspiration reduction which caused the temperature changes as quantified later.
Problem 4- The explanation for a CO2 source that warming oceans desorb CO2 to the atmosphere is false.
Reference the above CO2 and temperature graphs for the past 400k and 800k years. The CO2 did not come from anthropogenic emissions and the source of CO2 cannot be explained by the CO2 GHG theory. In an effort to provide a CO2 source, GHG proponent’s proposed explanation follows: Temperatures warm or cool due to the Milankovitch cycles solar effects. Warming oceans expel dissolved CO2 to the atmosphere. Cooling oceans absorb more CO2 from the air. All statements appear reasonable, but when analyzed, this explanation is scientifically false.
The oceans absorbing or expelling CO2 with temperature is false. True- Warming oceans have lower CO2 solubility. However, the oceans only average ~5% CO2 saturation(a) levels such that the relatively small 10°C temperature changes do not cause absorption or desorption of CO2 to the atmosphere. Examples- Soda water is super saturated with CO2, flat soda is saturated, and oceans are 95% undersaturated. Heating saturated soda causes desorption, but not heating undersaturated seawater.
Fact- Heating seawater 10°C does not desorb CO2. Henry’s Law does not apply because the deep oceans and atmosphere above are not in equilibrium, are undersaturated. Ocean CO2 concentration is actually limited by mass transfer, not solubility. The CO2 molar concentrations are: ocean = 41 ppm and atmosphere = 410 ppm, providing a driving force for further absorption, not desorption. CO2 absorption from the atmosphere is driven by pure H2O rainfall absorbing CO2 while falling to the oceans.
CO2 desorption is driven by evaporation and by phytoplankton CO2 consumption. These mass transfer absorption and desorption quantities are quantified in the Carbon Balance on page 19 as 92 and 90 GtC/year.
Also, since Milankovitch cycles (not GHG effect) in their explanation caused the temperature rise, CO2 GHG effect did not cause the temperature rise (by definition). In summary, the 800+k year correlation between CO2 & temperature again contradicts the CO2 GHG theory. The irrefutable geologic correlation between CO2 and temperature is driven by plant life increases / decreases, which is the 92% atmospheric CO2 driver as quantified later in the Carbon Balance.
(a) Calculation of 5% ocean CO2 saturation: 2.3mmoles / kg CO2 average concentration in sea water, 17°C average ocean temperature, 2.0g CO2 / kg water solubility at 17°C per chart, 44g CO2 / gmole of CO2. Equation: 2.3mmoles/kg CO2 concentration / 2.0g/kg water solubility * 44g CO2/gmole / 1 000mils/unity = 5.0% of saturation.
Problem 5- No correlation exists between CO2 and temperature over millions of years.
Aquatic plants started reducing CO2 and temperature 550M years ago followed by terrestrial plants at 500M years ago. 410 ppm CO2 is historically low. Per a wryheat.wordpress.com summary and Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore in a 24 page article, plants die at 80-120 ppm, little growth occurs up to ~180 ppm, struggle at <280 ppm, and optimum is 1000 – 3000 ppm.
As plant increased, CO2 always dropped, and the majority of time the temperature fell. Geologic CO2 sources and other geologic factors impacted both CO2 and temperature causing many inconsistencies. However, the CO2 / temperature correlation is not direct nor consistent as required by CO2 GHG theory.
The second more complicated chart (with temperature proxies and CO2 ppm proxies) from Climate journal, 2017, page 11 of 35 also shows no correlation. CO2 Sience.org contains a summary and 36 scientific articles disputing correlations between CO2 and temperature. No evidence exists of CO2 driving temperature, but plant life definitely drove CO2 down and temperature periodically down. Obviously, other factors besides atmospheric CO2 (such as plant life) drive earth temperatures and global warming.
Problem 6- Scientific consensus- Water vapor Is a 3 – 25 times stronger GHG than CO2.
Per Wikipedia, the atmospheric water vapor varies from 100 ppm in the coldest Arctic air, to 42,000 ppm in the warmest tropical air, with a global average of ~10,000 ppm (vs CO2 currently at only 410 ppm). 1. This ~24 factor higher concentration is the biggest reason why water vapor is a stronger GHG than CO2. 2. Moreover, even at the same concentrations, water vapor is 8 times stronger GHG than CO2 as detailed in “Problem 7- Energy Absorption” below.
The quantification of GHG effect on temperatures (using varying grid cell concentrations and GHG warming parameters) varies widely depending on modeling sources. However, scientific consensus is that water vapor has 3-25 (average 14) times stronger GHG effect than CO2. CO2 GHG admittedly does impact temperature slightly, but much smaller than water vapor as quantified in Problem 7.
As a real-life example of water vapor GHG effect, we have all observed how much more temperature varies between night and day in dry vs humid conditions. Hence, water vapor drives any GHG temperature effect, not CO2 GHG.
- Digging in the Clay– Contrarian Source – Water Vapor accounts for 95%, CO2 only 3.7%, per chart 1 below.
- GeoCraft.com, – Contrarian Source – “Water Vapor accounts for 95%, CO2 only 0.12% with methane, ozone, nitrogen oxides, et the balance.”
- Wikipedia, Greenhouse Gas– CO2 GHG proponent – “Water Vapor accounts for 36 – 72%”, “CO2 is only 9 – 26%”, per table 1 below.
- Yale, Climate Connections– CO2 GHG proponent – “Water vapor and clouds account for 66 – 85% of the GHG effect.”
- ClimateData.Info- CO2 GHG proponent- Water Vapor accounts for 60%, CO2 26%, per chart 2 below.
Prevailing CO2 GHG attempted explanation is false.
Water vapor condenses whereas CO2 requires much longer to be removed from the atmosphere. True, however, water vapor is also constantly being added. GHG models use averages over time. GHG models also use different water vapor concentrations for each grid cell (a horizontal resolution as low as 100 km2 and up to 20 atmospheric layers). The average 14 factor stronger GHG effect contradicts the prevailing CO2 GHG theory that CO2 emissions alone causes global warming.
We should instead investigate the causes of higher water vapor content in the atmosphere and its impacts, not CO2.
Problem 7- Water vapor energy absorption (GHG effect) is 8 times greater than CO2 at the same concentration, 192 times greater GHG after incorporating concentrations.
The chart below from Wikipedia Absorption Band compares the solar energy absorption of water and CO2. The best explanation for the chart values is at OzoneDepletionTheory.info. Solar radiation transmitted to earth is in red. Thermal radiation returning to space is in blue. Under the blue half for gray areas outlined by the red boxes compare water and CO2 energy absorptions. Water absorption is 8 times greater than CO2 meaning more GHG effect. Combining the 24 factor higher water vapor concentration from Problem 6, water vapor is a 192 factor stronger GHG than CO2. Further, the CO2 infrared spectrum absorbance shown below was measured at a 33% CO2 concentration with 67% nitrogen as documented by NIST per “GAS- (200 mmHg DILUTED TO A TOTAL PRESSURE OF 600 mmHg WITH N2)”. Actual atmospheric CO2 concentration is only 0.04% vs 33% presented. A similar water vapor curve in NIST has no known concentration to reference. Thus, the CO2 absorption capacity and its GHG effect are greatly overstated. Unfortunately, no firm method exists converting these absorbances to the actual GHG effect. Further, no calculation exits converting that GHG effect to a global temperature rise, just postulations. The discussion of positive and negative “forcing” generally tries to account for lack of data fit by using empirical equations to force fit to actual measurements. The CO2 GHG impact is minor compared to water vapor and is minor compared to energy consumptions such as plant evapotranspiration and photosynthesis as quantified later.
Problem 8- Decreasing relative humidity supports PER science, contradicts GHG theory.
In an effort to recognize the fact that water vapor is the actual GHG driver, CO2 GHG proponents theorize that rising average temperature increases water evaporation rates, which then increases water vapor concentrations, which then results in additional warming. This supposition that relative humidity is rising is false.
The first chart below is from Friends of Science.com generated from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory data at varying elevations from 1970 to 2019 . The second chart is from the Met Office, London, England’s equivalent of NOAA, completely independent data from NOAA data, showing land, ocean, and a blended humidity, from 1970 to 2020, plotting % difference from a 1981 – 2010 average. Both charts show decreasing relative humidity* from 1970 to 2020.
The general downward humidity trend contradicts the assertion that higher temperatures are causing higher water vapor concentrations. Instead, the charts support the plant evapotranspiration reduction science: plant evapotranspiration reduction is decreasing relative humidity. The decreasing relative humidity is caused by anthropogenic plant evapotranspiration reduction, contradicting the CO2 GHG theory.
Problem 9- CO2 GHG models continue over estimating temperature rise.
The GHG theory and model validity can only be demonstrated by accurate and reliable projections. To date the models have consistently overestimated the temperature rise. Per Real Climate.org graph below, of the >102 climate models, all have predicted higher temperature rise than actually has been recorded over the last 15 years. The 4 colored lines are measured global temperatures. The solid black line is the forcing-adjusted model mean temperature.
The gray area is the 102-model ensemble with a 95% spread from the mean. These models are constantly updated in an unsuccessful attempt to account for and reflect the diminishing CO2 GHG impact as discussed in problems 1 & 2 above.
Per an AICHE publication, “Thinking about Climate”, pdf, page 32: General circulation models (GCMs) simulate the various processes that affect climate including solar radiation, atmospheric radiative transfer, circulation patterns in the oceans and atmosphere, water vapor pressure, temperature, cloud formation, ice formation, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. The GCMs numerical simulations solve the Navier-Stokes equations in the atmosphere and oceans coupled with energy flows.
These models are enormously complex and require supercomputers to run the code. To solve the equations, the Earth is divided into three-dimensional grids employing finite-element techniques. Horizontal grid dimensions are typically between 250 km and 600 km. The atmosphere is simulated using 10 to 20 vertical layers and the oceans are sometimes represented by as many as 30 layers. The models describe well-known physical and chemical processes.
However, because some processes such as cloud formation and convection patterns occur at a length scale less than the grid size, a technique called “parameterization” is employed (basically using empirical equations). Modeling clouds is one of the largest sources of uncertainty in GCMs. MODTRAN computer program is the standard to model atmospheric propagation of electromagnetic radiation for the 0.2 to 100 µm spectral range (pertinent range per Problem 7 figure), but is not coupled to GCM models.
GHG theory cannot be quantified (as with PER science) because the energy values (watts / m2) at each wavelength are not assigned in the GCMs. GHG component properties (such as CO2 GHG heat absorbance in kJ/kg) are not assigned including the wavelength of the energy the gas absorbs and quantity of energy at each wavelength.
In an effort to show a correlation between CO2 and temperature, these climate models instead employ “parameterization” empirical equations (rather than component GHG properties) and certainly do not contain strict mass or energy balances with the oceans, land, plants, etc. The standard deviation of the models is large (per chart) and many models are simply wrong. In any modeling work, when the input is incorrect, the model output will not match actual measurements.
Similar GCMs are also used in weather forecasting. Weather forecasts are not accurate 1 week out, much less forecasting decades out. Weather forecasting long-range accuracy is unreliable due to the many climate factors not included in the models: mountains, oceans, plants, man-made additions, evaporation, transpiration, etc. Plant evapotranspiration reduction (discussed later) is definitely not included in the GCMs.
These empirical models continue over estimating global warming because CO2 GHG is not the primary driver.
The earth’s climate system is almost impossible to model accurately and reliably due to the numerous interacting processes of the atmosphere, land, oceans, water, wind, etc. Even the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) rightly states in its Third Assessment Report: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible.”
Yet, that is exactly what the CO2 GHG advocates continue doing!
Their claim that just one variable (a relatively minor CO2 concentration in the atmosphere) is the major climate control knob is not logical, not scientifically supported, and unquantifiable. Other climate drivers definitely exist beyond the “simplistic” CO2 GHG theory (such as the following PER science) and are causing the observed CO2 model over estimates. The GCMs are modeling the wrong driver- CO2 GHG.
Problem 10- CO2 GHG net warming effect cannot be calculated on a small scale, much less a global scale.
Per the longest discussion thread in the AICHE blog, on “Sustainability and CO2”, with 375 replies, Brian Coats in reply 12 asked a simple question, upgraded slightly: “What is the infrared net absorption / radiance of 1 square meter of air at 75oF”, for example in units of watts / m3 air? The question cannot be answered by any climate scientists because the forcing and feedbacks are too difficult to calculate a net effect.
Our research could not find any calculation of the net CO2 GHG temperature effect on a small scale, only vague references to large scale models or generic MODTRAN software. Fact- Accurately modeling any complex system on a large scale is impossible if not calculated first on a small scale. These climate models instead employ “parameterization” empirical equations (rather than component GHG properties) and certainly do not contain strict mass or energy balances with the oceans, land, plants, mountains, changing land use, changing biomass, etc.
Since the GHG global warming cannot be calculated on a small scale (unquantifiable), the larger scale “GCM modeling” is inherently faulty. Conversely, PER science is easily quantified per below and is calculated to be major contributor to global warming.
Read the rest here: docdroid.net
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
Nothing on Earth (except volcanic activity) has anything do with “global warming”. It is a result of activity of the sun and the position the Earth. Both CO2 and water are cooling the surface of the Earth by absorbing heat, rising in the atmosphere and then releasing that heat to be radiated into space.
Plant growth (splitting CO2 and H20 molecules) is taking solar energy and storing it as chemical energy which is removing energy (heat) from the atmosphere. Deserts, with no vegetation, are hotter than the oasis where water and vegetation cool the air.
There is nothing correct about any theory that has normal activities, occurring on Earth adding heat to the planet, they are cooling it The higher the altitude, the greater the kinetic energy of the gas molecules (UGL) because the sun is what is providing the energy (heating) that creates the climate.
Reply
David R. Motes
| #
Herb, I agree with all your statements, no argument. I would clarify that “plant evapotranspiration reduction” can warm the earth surface by not cooling as much, transporting energy from the surface to high altitudes to be radiated to space. I encourage you to read the entire linked paper rather than just the PSI extract. Thanks! David, author.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi David,
I’ve been unable to read the pdf file because Flash drive will not download. I will try to explain my dispute with AGW and why I don’t believe it exists.
First: objects radiate energy not temperature and the thermometer does not give an accurate measurement of the energy of gas molecules. (See my article in PSI “The Thermometer Lies”) In order to get an accurate indication of the kinetic energy of gas molecules you must use the universal gas law The inverse of density (the volume of a constant number of molecules) times the temperature gives a comparison of the kinetic energy of molecules at different altitudes. (my PSI article “The Temperature of the Atmosphere”) which shows that the ke of molecules increases slowly in the troposphere then increases at exponential rate at higher altitudes (due to water absorbing heat).
This means the radiation and absorption of energy is done in the atmosphere with the flow of energy going from the atmosphere (due to the absorption of UV and X-ray radiation by O2 and N2) to the surface of the Earth and radiating into the Earth. This is why when there is little sun spot activity (which emits UV and X-ray) the Earth cools even though the sun’s output of visible light (absorbed by the Earth’s surface) does not vary significantly. The absorption and radiation of energy is done primarily by the molecules the upper atmosphere.
Second: Water vapor does not exist below the boiling point of water (phase chart). In order for a water molecule at 100C to be converted to a vapor molecule at 100C it must absorb another 540 calories/gram, which cannot happen in a liquid where molecules are in contact with each other and transferring energy by convection.Water in the atmosphere is a liquid crystal (see Dr Gerald Pollack’s experiments The Fourth Phase of Water) and as it absorbs heat the crystal portion and negative charge increase causing the water to rise in the atmosphere. At the top of the troposphere (before gaining the 540 calories/gram to convert it to a gas) the crystal melts releasing the stored electric energy and becoming rain.
The GHGT and AGW are based on premises that violate the laws of thermodynamics. All matter absorb radiated energy so the contention that because N2 and O2 do not absorb visible and infrared light they are being heated by the Earth’s surface is false.
The contention that “cold” cannot add energy to “hot” contradicts the conservation of momentum M1V1 + M2V2 = M1V3 + M2V4) where the object with greater velocity (energy) will transfer velocity (energy) to the object with less velocity regardless of mass. This means high velocity/low mass gas molecules can transfer energy to object with more mass even if they have a higher temperature (kinetic energy).
This is why I believe that nothing man does when converting internal energy (chemical bonds) to radiated energy will cause any climate change.
Herb
Reply
David R. Motes
| #
Herb, I obviously am convinced of AGW. I agree with all your statements except two.
1. “Water vapor does not exist below the boiling point of water (phase chart).” Steam tables show how much water vapor is in saturated air, including air <100oC.
2. “nothing man does when converting internal energy (chemical bonds) to radiated energy will cause any climate change.” One example- Increasing radiated energy to space will cool the earth. Evapotranspiration is one way to increase radiated energy to space.
I encourage you to read the entire linked paper rather than just the PSI extract. You should be able to access a pdf file with our w/o a flash drive, do not understand your explanation. Thanks! David, author.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi David,
Water in the atmosphere exist as nano droplets not a gas. That is how it can absorb so much heat, while a gas would follow the universal gas law. With a boiling tea kettle the water comes out as clear steam then condenses into water droplets. These droplets then disappear. Why would steam while cooling go from a gas phase, to a liquid phase, to a gas phase?
Since the gas molecules higher in the atmosphere contain more kinetic energy they are radiating more energy to the molecules lower in the atmosphere then they are absorbing so the cooling is occurring above the troposphere and water. The reason cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights is not because the -30C water droplets in the -30C air is reflecting heat back to the Earth. (Water is good at absorbing and poor at reflecting infrared radiation.) It is because the -30C temperature is not true and the greater number of molecules in the cloud (vs clear sky) are radiating more energy to the Earth’s surface keeping it warmer.
It’s not a flash driver but an update to Flash Player that I have been unable to get to work.Eventually I should be able to get it working.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi David and PSI Readers,
“Intuitive knowledge keep pace with accurate definition.” (Louis Elzevir)
David began: “Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is quantitatively driven by CO2 induced Plant Evapotranspiration Reduction (PER), not CO2 GreenHouse Gas (GHG).”
Evapotranspiration: n, the process by which water is transferred from the land to the atmosphere by evaporation from the soil and other surfaces and by transpiration from plants.” (Oxford Languages)
Hence, I do not read any further; for according to its definition— EVAPOTRANSPIRATION—has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
David R. Motes
| #
Jerry, I generally agree with your definitions and problem. However, higher CO2 concentrations increase plant water use efficiency which decreases plant evapotranspiration. I encourage you to read the entire linked paper (rather than just the PSI extract) which provides much more documentation on plant evapotranspiration reduction science. Thanks! David, author.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi David and hopefully PSI Readers,
Next David wrote: “Consensus science facts and diagrams from CO2 GHG proponent sites such as the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and the International Energy Agency are used to quantitatively prove the scientific fact that PER drives AGW, not CO2 GHG.to quantitatively prove the scientific fact that PER drives AGW, not CO2 GHG.” I had to read this several times to see that David is using CONSENSUS SCIENCE FACTS .to quantitatively prove the scientific fact that PER drives AGW, not CO2 GHG.
Evidently David has not read that it was a consensus science fact that the Earth Stood Still; or that bodies twice as heavy fall twice as fast at a constant velocity. I urge you PSI Readers to not waste you time reading beyond.this second paragraph. For these two proven absolutely wrong scientific ideas were the product of consensus science facts.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
David R. Motes
| #
Jerry, you appear to disagree without reading the paper or even the abstract. I do not understand where you disagree either. I can not argue against your opinion. I encourage open-minded readers to read the Abstract in the link and if interested the entire paper. Thanks! David.
Reply
Alan
| #
Temperature can only be increased in two ways, by adding thermal energy or by doing work. Carbon dioxide cannot do either. End of debate.
The discussion of modelling is interesting and accurate in my view but the rest adds nothing to the debate.
Reply
David R. Motes
| #
Alan, I generally agree with your statement. However, an insulator (such as GHG) can keep an object warmer at night, increasing the average temperature. Also, as you have observed, water evaporation can cool the earth surface by transferring that energy to the higher altitudes. I encourage you to read the entire linked paper rather than just the PSI extract. Thanks! David, author.
Reply
Carl
| #
This article is an example of what is called a “false dilemma” or a “false dichotomy”
The author asserts “Global warming is driven by plant evapotranspiration reduction because global warming is not driven by the “greenhouse effect.” The article then gives ten reasons why the “greenhouse effect” is false, but fails to even define “plant evapotranspiration reduction” much less explain how it can drive global warming visa vi actual empirical scientific data.
So let me ask:
What is “plant evapotranspiration reduction”?
How can it drive global warming?
What empirical scientific data do you have that supports your hypothesis?
Reply
David R. Motes
| #
Carl, I generally agree with your observation from reading only the PSI insert. I encourage you to read the entire linked paper rather than just the PSI extract. All 3 of your questions are answered in the linked paper in great detail with supporting documentation. I wrote a different introduction than the selected PSI excerpts and unfortunately had no input on those excerpts. Thanks! David, author.
Reply
Wojt
| #
Climate change needs what physics needs: A Theory of Everything. What I have read here and elsewhere makes it abundantly clear that there are many schools on climate change theory and none actually agree. There are arguments all the time over what the theory does and does not say. That’s okay in theoretical physics—no one is attempting to create world government and shut down capitalism with string theory. It’s very, very bad in climate change. Until someone can explain global warming in a way everyone agrees upon, we don’t need action. Trying to fix an undefined entity is just plain foolish.
Reply
David R. Motes
| #
Wojt, I agree with all your statements, no argument. As my paper states, we should be researching causes (including plant evapotranspiration reduction) prior to any actions. My paper is the first to clearly, simply quantify a cause. I encourage you to read the entire linked paper rather than just the PSI extract. Thanks! David, author.
Reply
TL Winslow
| #
[[However, an insulator (such as GHG) can keep an object warmer at night, increasing the average temperature.]]
Sorry, only the Sun’s radiation warms the Earth’s surface, and the atmosphere just cools it. If something hinders the cooling at night, that’s not global warming. By the next sunrise the surface is completely cooled to start another round. The maximum daily temperature is set during the daytime, not at night, and nobody but the lying IPCC thinks it can average the nighttime temperature in.
As to water, it is a pure cooling agent for the Earth, with many processes working in harmony. CO2 doesn’t have any physical way to heat the Earth’s surface hotter than the Sun did, and neither does H2O. Instead, both work to cool it. What happens way up in the sky has nothing to do with the surface because it contains heat already removed that will never return and either end up dissipated harmlesssly by entropy or vented to super-cold space. This includes the recent news about heat domes on the Pacific coast, which are areas of high pressure that trap heat at the surface, ultimately caused by a La Nina, which doesn’t stop the IPCC propaganda machine from citing nonexistent CO2-caused global warming as a possible cause.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/heat-dome.html
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-Pacific-Northwest-see-record-temperatures-Is-it-the-impact-of-global-warming/answer/TL-Winslow
Only I teach real climate science based on true physics unhijacked by the IPCC. If you aren’t one of my students you’re falling sadly behind.
http://www.historyscoper.com/climatescience101.html
Reply
David R. Motes
| #
TL, I agree with most of your statements and references. The Quara link receives an error message. My statement about insulators (such as GHG) possibly increasing the average temperature remains correct even though insulators are not the energy source. I agree with your statements on CO2 and water and liked your Climate Science 101 link. I obviously also believe the IPCC is unfortunately misleading the public. I encourage you to read the entire linked paper pdf rather than just the PSI extract. Thanks! David, author.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi David. Would you please put 2 or 3 attention grabbing explanatory paragraphs from your full article on this comments page. There is so little time so if you did that heavy lifting for us we could quickly get to the heart of your concepts.
Thank you Matt
Reply
David R. Motes
| #
Matt H, per your request, below is the abstract. I assume this causes you to want to understand the paper.
Abstract-
Anthropogenic (manmade) Global Warming (AGW) has many possible causes but is quantitatively driven by CO2 induced Plant Evapotranspiration Reduction (PER), not CO2 Green House Gas (GHG) effects. For example, the irrefutable correlation between global temperature and CO2 concentration for the last 800+ thousand years can only be explained by plant evapotranspiration increases / decreases and not by the prevailing CO2 GHG effects. The prevailing GHG theory cannot explain why CO2 increased or decreased or the carbon source prior to fossil fuel emissions, but PER does. Quantitative evidence for PER driving global warming follows:
1. Using a NASA carbon mass balance and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) climate sensitivity factor, the consensus 0.83%/year deforestation and land use change (causing the same plant evapotranspiration reduction of 0.83%/year) generates a calculated temperature rise 2.5 times the actual measured temperature rise. By scientific consensus, global development, deforestation, commercial farming, and commercial ranching have reduced plants (consequently evapotranspiration) since the 1960+ global industrial expansion.
2. Similarly, using a NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency) energy balance, the scientific consensus 0.70%/year plant water use efficiency increase (evapotranspiration reduction) caused by higher CO2 generates a calculated temperature rise 2.1 times the actual measured temperature rise.
3. In total, PER generates a 4.6 factor (above 2.5 + 2.1 = 4.6 factor) higher radiative energy imbalance (W/m2) than the IPCC proposed CO2 GHG radiative forcing hypothesis. Effectively, the GHG contribution to AGW is relatively insignificant (in comparison to PER) even if the IPCC theory is accurate (probably not). (Explaining the above 4.6 factor, the actual temperature increase was less because the IPCC Climate Sensitivity factor of 0.54 °C/(W/m2) should be a 4.6 factor lower sensitivity per this paper discussion and references.)
4. Using a NASA carbon mass balance, 2020 fossil fuel CO2 emissions are only 8% of annual photosynthesis carbon reduction.
5. Water vapor is 192 times stronger GHG than CO2 when you factor in both infrared absorbances and atmospheric concentrations. Consequently, CO2 GHG contributes only ~0.3% to AGW, balance driven by PER.
6. The PER impact on global warming is demonstrated in real life at many locations such as city centers proven 1-3 °C warmer than the surrounding suburbs or countryside. Secondly, the air is 3-4oC cooler in a forest vs under a shed over a concrete parking lot. Conversely, the CO2 GHG net effect on air temperature cannot be quantified on a small 1 km2 block of air, much less on a global scale, per Problems 9 & 10. Further, laboratory experiments have shown no measurable temperature increase resulting from a 270 ppm to 400 ppm CO2 GHG increase.
7. The consensus, steady drop in relative humidity (drives earth cooling and temperature modulation per Problem 8) since 1970 is further “proof” of PER driving AGW. AGW will be reversed only when the relative humidity decrease is reversed.
This PER theory provides an explanation for the undeniable AGW that fits all the scientific data (climate history, carbon sources, carbon mass balances, energy balances, GHG parameters, humidity data, etc.) as quantified and explained in this engineering study. The above PER quantifications are scientific fact, explaining the correlation between CO2 and temperature: both AGW since 1850 and the natural CO2 correlation prior to 1850. Granted, other factors also exist such as solar effects. Conversely, CO2 GHG theory remains an unquantifiable (Problems 9 and 10), problematic theory. By example, 10 CO2 GHG theory problems are quantified and graphically presented. The authors focused on engineering quantification versus hereto date presentation of GHG data and theories. The authors simply calculated the engineering conversions using existing consensus data and then summarized in a logical presentation. This engineering quantification is direly needed in the climate change debate as numbers do not lie.
Increasing plant life is less expensive and substantially more effective than just reducing annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions (contributes only 1% of existing atmospheric CO2). Quantified problems with the proposed CO2 annual emission reduction plans are:
1. Will certainly fail by focusing on the 1%/year contribution while illogically ignoring the 99% existing atmospheric CO2.
2. Focuses solely on reducing the 8% CO2 emissions driver, while ignoring the 92% plant life CO2 driver.
Prior to attempting to resolve the current global warming problem, we should identify, quantify, and confirm the root cause(s) and magnitudes. Then, solutions become clearer and more cost effective.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Have you heard about the greening of the earth seen from satellite images due to increased CO2? Have you noticed that quite a bit of the earth’s surface is (70%) is water? And, unlike your personal view….there are people who are not convinced CO2 is causing any warming. What was CO2 700,000 years ago? Anyone can make a chart going back millions of years showing CO2 and temp but how accurate…that’s the question? Related….the Guardian (guarding your climate future) sez go visit a forest…go visit a glacier…becuz Climate Change is going to take them away so you will not be able to see them in the future….scary, huh?
Reply
David R. Motes
| #
TCC, all your questions are answered in the linked pdf. CO2 fertilization is discussed in much detail. 71% of earth’s surface is water covered for photosynthesis as detailed. I agree that CO2 GHG is not causing any significant warming. I encourage you to read the linked paper pdf abstract and if interested the entire paper. My Challenge- If you take 2 hours to read and grasp the facts, you will also be convinced that PER drives AGW, not CO2 GHG. Thanks! David, author.
Reply