Photosynthesis: The Unaccounted Climate Factor
Let us recall Al Gore’s famous graph showing the correlation between CO2 & global temperature (shown above). See: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Temperature Change vs Carbon Dioxide, depicting 800,000 years ago until 2006. The graph was prominent in Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth”.
1. Problem in Correlation from 1960+ CO2 Spike: Temperature Change vs Carbon Dioxide extended, same graph now carried to 2020. The recent CO2 spike from 280ppm to 410ppm is not reflected in the temperature rise yet. Hence, the prevailing CO2 GHG (Green House Gas) theory appears to have a possible data disconnect.
2.Problems in Correlation from 1955+ Climate4you.com Global temperatures and CO2, from 1955 to April, 2020. The first graph below shows a negative correlation from 1955 to 1975, but a positive correlation from 1975 to 2006, with a weaker correlation from 2006 to present day. The second graph uses many different temperature sources and also shows a weaker correlation since 2006.
Misleading Scales The relative scales (ppm / oC) for the prior 800k yr graph were increased by a factor of 10.2 for the below 60 yr graph to show the desired correlation between CO2 and oC. Changing relative scales to fit time periods misleads the relationship between CO2 and temperature.
3.Problem with Lagging CO2 on falling temperature and CO2 ppm – Skeptical Science, CO2 lags temperature by 600 – 1000 years as shown in graph below. Another pro CO2 cause Real Climate.org, states: CO2 lag could be as low as 200 years or as high as 1000 years. The lag is only on falling temperature and CO2 ppm as shown in graph below, not on rising temperature or CO2 ppm.
Prevailing CO2 Theory – tells us CO2, as a Green House Gas, causes global warming. If that were the case, then CO2 should lead temperature, not lag it, especially not by 200 – 1000 years – if the theory is correct. The prevailing hypothesis that CO2 leads upon rising temperature and lags upon falling temperatures is too “convenient” and not supported by any CO2 GHG models. Maybe CO2 should not be their claimed only cause of global warming?
Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles primarily drive Earth’s Climate on 100,000 year cycles, not man’s actions. Per chart above for past 400k years (and first 2 charts for 800k years), 3-4 periods have been warmer than present. The geologic consensus is that Earth should be moving to a cooling cycle, which may be partially offset by anthropogenic (man made) warming.
4.Problem- Water Vapor Is a 3-5 Times Stronger GHG Than CO2
The Greenhouse Effect comparison varies widely depending on sources. However, consensus is that water vapor has 3-5 times stronger GHG effect than CO2:
- Wikipedia, Greenhouse Gas– Neutral Source- Water Vapor accounts for 36 – 72%, CO2 only 9 – 26%, per table below. Also, “Water vapor accounts for 66 – 85% of the greenhouse effect when including clouds.”
- Digging in the Clay– Water Vapor accounts for 95%, CO2 only 3.6%, per first chart below.
- GeoCraft.com, “Water Vapor accounts for 95%, CO2 only 0.12%.”
- Yale, Climate Connections– CO2 proponent- “Water vapor and clouds account for 66 – 85% of the greenhouse effect.”
- ClimateData.Info- CO2 proponent- Water Vapor accounts for 60%, CO2 26%, per last chart below.
Prevailing Explanation Is Questionable? – Water vapor condenses whereas CO2 requires much longer to be removed from the atmosphere. True, however, water vapor is constantly being added also. The reductions and additions are accounted in the “GHG Effect” calculations using the global average water vapor concentration. The 85 – 95% magnitude of water vapor vs CO2 appears to discount the prevailing theory that CO2 GHG alone causes global warming. Maybe a different “anthropogenic cause” is increasing water vapor concentration?
A 200ppm CO2 increase likely did not completely cause the temperature spike. The vast majority of earth’s heat absorption eventually results in vaporizing water. As an example, we have all observed how much more temperature varies between night and day in a dry desert vs a humid ocean beach. We should instead investigate the causes of higher Water Vapor content in the atmosphere.
Prevailing explanation – Anthropogenic emissions of CO2, methane, and other gases are warming the Earth. Rising average temperature increases water evaporation rates, which increases water vapor concentrations, which results in additional warming. Offsetting- more water vapor produces more clouds which reflect more sun energy which decreases temperatures. The net effect is not quantified in models because the earth’s climate system is too complex to model.
5.Problem- Climate Models Overestimate Temperature Rise– Model validity is only demonstrated by accurate projections. Per Real Climate.org graph below, of the >102 climate models, almost all have predicted more rise than observed over the last 15 years. The earth’s climate system is almost impossible to model completely due to the complexity of interacting parameters. Possibly other factors exist beyond “simplistic” CO2 GHG alone?
Alternative Theory
Anthropogenic photosynthesis reduction is also causing global warming?
Photosynthesis Defined – Photosynthesis chemical reaction is commonly written as:
6CO2 + 6H2O + light energy → C6H12O6 + 6O2.
This means that the reactants, six carbon dioxide molecules and six water molecules, are converted by light energy captured by chlorophyll (implied by the arrow) into a sugar molecule and six oxygen molecules, the products.
Effectively, man and animals generate CO2 emissions by consuming O2 for energy release. Alternatively, plant life generates O2 by consuming CO2 and water and absorbing light energy.
Photosynthesis reduces warming in 3 ways:
- Absorbing light energy, also creates less water vaporization
- Sequestering CO2
- Reducing water vapor (the primary GHG) by absorbing sun’s rays.
Phytoplankton is the Primary Photosynthesis Driver- Scientists estimate Phytoplankton contribute 50 – 85% of O2 in the atmosphere and consequently contribute 50– 85% of CO2 reduction. Other plants and trees contribute the remaining 15 – 50% CO2 reduction. The below 2010 graphs from Nature publication shows a >60% decline in global phytoplankton since 1960 (commensurate with the global temperature increase). The X-scale is at bottom right, years 1900 – 2010.
The global temperature rise is partially caused by a decrease in ocean phytoplankton over the last 60 years (modern era with less vibrant oceans, less forests, and industrial fishing and farming). No earlier or longer period graphs exist of Earth phytoplankton because data is difficult to obtain for global oceans and waters. However, data difficulty does not make the photosynthesis theory less valid…probably more valid, should be researched more.
Decrease in phytoplankton Generalized Additive Model estimates of yearly average Chlorophyll as discrete points or smooth function lines is presented for each region. For the initial year of each graph, the arithmetic average is presented, rather than mean. Data availability is displayed as tick-marks on the x axis.
Carbon Balance Validates & Quantifies Photosynthesis Theory Below chart is from Oak Ridge National Laboratories (units in gigatons of carbon annually, 1980 estimates, admittedly needs updating). Prior to man’s fossil fuel consumption, photosynthesis maintained the atmospheric CO2 balance for millions of years through the chemical reaction above. Per chart below:
- Only 4.8% Photosynthesis reduction is equivalent to all CO2 emissions, per chart (5.3 /110 = 4.8%). Botanist consensus is that >4.8% reduction since 1980 is almost definite. CO2 emissions have increased since 1980, but so has photosynthesis reduction. Theory remains valid.
- 110 tons from photosynthesis * (50%+85% / 2) photosynthesis from phytoplankton * 60% phytoplankton reduction = 6 gigatons carbon reduction loss from 60% phytoplankton reduction….7.6 times larger than the 5.9 gigatons from fossil fuel emissions per chart. Conclusion- Photosynthesis reduction yields more atmospheric CO2 than anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Photosynthesis Theory Fits Historical Data Unlike the CO2 GHG Theory
- Geologic History Fit The temperature graph on page 1 showed the planet has been warmer 4 times over the past 800,000 years. Man’s CO2 emissions do not explain these 4 temperature spikes. Probable explanation- Natural photosynthesis reduction contributed to the 4 spikes as shown in the higher CO2 which consequently means less plant life / photosynthesis. Conclusion- Natural photosynthesis reduction definitely contributed to geologic warming periods more than anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
- Time Lag Fit The photosynthesis theory better fits the lagging CO2 data since the loss of plants eventually yields a lagging increase in atmospheric CO2 per the CO2 balance above. The oceans contain 85% of planetary surface carbon per Figure 6 of a 1990 scientific paper, University of Miami. Dead phytoplankton sink to ocean bottoms sequestering carbon for hundreds of years, creating the atmospheric CO2 time lag in the huge ocean reservoir. Secondly, the lack of lag on increasing temperature and CO2 ppm fits only with photosynthesis reduction. This no time lag during increasing temperatures followed by time lag during decreasing temperatures is specific to the photosynthesis theory only. No other AGW theory fits this geologic data.
- Water vapor (primary GHG, not CO2) Fit By absorbing the sun’s rays (less water vaporization) and consuming water, photosynthesis reduction has a bigger GHG effect.
Conclusion
This proposed photosynthesis theory rectifies the five problems detailed above with the prevailing CO2 GHG theory and fits historical records and available data. Consequently, photosynthesis reduction theory is worthy of serious consideration.
CO2 is a Net Benefit CO2 works with photosynthesis to green and cool the planet per calculations from Dr Pierre R Latour, 2014. Higher CO2 yields global greening (plant fertilization) per a 2017 Nature journal article. A positive trend in vegetation greenness over global dry lands is probably caused by this higher CO2 effect on plant water savings, yielding soil water increases per a 2016 Nature journal article.
A United Nations (UN) climate scientist, Dr Indur Goklany, in a 2014 article, agrees that the rising CO2 is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere by fertilizing plants and increasing crop yields by 10 – 15%. Rising CO2 emissions prevent the worst parts of global warming per researchers from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the University of California, Irvine. US Navy submarines limit CO2 < 8000 ppm because it displaces O2. Breathing into a paper bag yields even higher ppms, not harmful. Conclusion- CO2 is a harmless green plant food, not a pollutant to be regulated.
Proposed Solution General agreement is that we need a “Greener” planet. More phytoplankton and other plants are needed to consume CO2, absorb the sun’s rays and reduce water vapor. Photosynthesis will increase and may reduce global temperatures and consume CO2 emissions. We would be smarter to spend the trillions of dollars on ‘climate change’ for the purpose of Greening the Earth, not reducing CO2 emissions.
Multiple Causes Require Multiple Solutions The supposed climate problem is complex with many variables, many contributory factors and not all the data is available. While a lot of data is contradictory there is no compelling case for merely eliminating CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. This proposed “anthropogenic photosynthesis theory”is a novel concept not identified by this author elsewhere. The only loosely related claim is that higher temperatures may reduce photosynthesis.
Proposal Globally, we should:
- Concentrate on a “Greener Planet”, not blindly reducing CO2 emissions
- Reduce ocean and surface water pollution to increase photosynthesis, particularly overseas
- Research options such as iron fertilization of oceans to increase phytoplankton: 1. Live Science 2012. 2. Science 2008. Potential negative side effects: 1. Stimulates toxic algae blooms (red tides). 2. Causes the production of nitrogen oxides, a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. 3. Sucks oxygen out of the water as the algae decompose creating dead zones.
- Research photosynthesis acceleration for higher yields. Example A University of Sheffield study (November 2019) in the journal Nature reveals the structure of cytochrome b6f – the protein complex that significantly influences plant growth via photosynthesis. This protein could be modified for higher crop and phytoplankton yields.
- Increase green power sources (windmills, solar, nuclear, etc).
Summary The above is a simple outline of an alternative theory while the prevailing CO2 GHG theory is being increasingly disputed and abandoned. Alternative theories must now be considered and money spent on failed greenhouse gas models would be better spent testing alternative models (including the above photosynthesis theory) notwithstanding consensus obsession with focusing on CO2 emissions reduction.
- Acknowledgments Tom Crosier, Dwayne Stewart, Shep Barnum, Steve Fantazia, Rick Garnett, Rudy Dismuke, and David Watts.
- Online profile: David Motes LinkedIn
About the author: David Motes PE is an Oil & Gas Process / Facilities Engineer from Houston, Texas now retired after a career at Exxon Mobil. He also holds an MBA from the University of New Orleans.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi David,
There is no greenhouse effect (no ceiling for the atmosphere) and the theory violates the laws of thermodynamics. Man can do nothing to change the climate since it is determined by the sun and position of the Earth. For those who are worried about global warming there is good news, we have entered a grand solar minimum and they are going to have their asses frozen off.
Herb
Reply
David Motes
| #
Herb, thanks for the 2 comments and agree with both points to an extent: 1. One of the compelling arguments for photosynthesis reduction causing global warming is the reduction in solar energy absorption. My theory is not dependent on CO2 GHG theory. 2. My paper discusses Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles primarily driving Earth’s Climate on 100,000 year cycles, not man’s actions. The geologic consensus is that Earth should be moving to a cooling cycle, which may be partially offset by anthropogenic (man made) warming. Man can be driving global warming while the geologic cycle cools yielding a net effect. Since 1980, consensus data supports global warming. Only time will tell whether global warming will continue. I generally learn from and appreciate alternative views. David, author.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi David,
The GHGT is based on a false premise that because the N2 and O2 in the atmosphere do not absorb visible light they do not get energy from the sun and are heated by the Earth’s surface. This is balderdash as all objects absorb radiated energy and the shorter x-ray and uv wavelengths absorbed by these gases have more energy than visible light. There is no man made warming and if you go to my PSI article “On the Physics of Climate Change” it proves that the laws of thermodynamics make the theories impossible.
Herb
Reply
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
DAVID
Respectfully disagree that MAN has any impact. My critical thinking skills and the 27 years of studying the issue is that the theory advanced in 2014 by KAMIS et. al puts the wooden stake in all others:
http://www.plateclimatology.com/
Segments of this theory have been posted on this website. The geological forces at work make the “Atmospheric Bias” Theories puny by comparison.
Reply
David Motes
| #
Bigfoot, I agree that tectonic and geologic activity effect is potentially orders of magnitude larger than anthropogenic CO2 emissions or photosynthesis reduction. However, the graphical correlations of temperature and CO2 from photosynthesis reduction should not be dismissed. The beautiful point is that photosynthesis can be more easily increased than manipulating tectonic plates. I respectfully disagree on your assertion that man can have no impact on climate. Thanks for the good insights. David, author.
Reply
David Motes
| #
Herb, I do not disagree with your statements and conclusion, good PSI paper. I do want to emphasize my prior point: One of the compelling arguments for photosynthesis reduction causing global warming is the reduction in solar energy absorption. The theory is not dependent on CO2 GHGT theory. Photosynthesis reduction is a potential cause for global warming. Concensus exists for warming since 1980. David, author.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi again David,
Photosynthesis is one of the ways solar energy is stored on Earth (The primary way is absorption by water). There is, however, an equilibrium between the storage of energy and. CO2 and the release of stored energy and CO2 When the temperature rises plants grow faster but dead organic matter also decays faster. Cooling causes both processes to slow. Then there is the question does the slowing of one form of energy storage result in increase in an alternate method?
The amount of heat also changes the amount of water being released into the air by plants and the water cycle where evaporating water transports energy to the stratosphere to be radiated. Nature has evolved to balance with the energy provided and man may alter the equilibrium point slightly but it is a temporary change without affecting long term change. When we cut down mature trees that are no longer growing and storing CO2 and then plant young growing trees it is a minor shift of a natural process previously done by fire. By changing the rate of energy absorption and release are we changing anything long term?
When a volcano erupts how much geothermal energy is added to the surface of the Earth? How long does it take to radiate that excess energy into space and re-establish equilibrium?
We have been in a warm interglacial period for tens of thousands of years. During this warm period we have cycles of cooling (the little ice age) and cycles of warming (the roman warm era). Was the warming since the 80s just a rebound adjustment for the cooling of the 70s? I don’t think it is possible to decipher the long term trend from short-term observations.
It seems to me that the complexity if the inter relationship between different processes makes it hard to assign cause from an effect. This is especially true when there are multiple variables as in plant growth over long time spans.
Herb
Reply
David Motes
| #
Herb, I agree with all your points. The biologic and water vapor effects on global warming are complex and multifaceted with few definite drivers.
My paper primarily compares the geologic and GHG data support for the prevailing CO2 GHG theory vs my photosynthesis reduction theory (big winner).
We need much more research on alternative theories beyond GHGT which we all agree is not well founded. I respect and appreciate your insights. David, author.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Guys,
Experts??? I just made a comment to another article relative to plant growth which ignored the significance of water (precipitation). In a NPR article about the melting of the permafrost at high latitudes I just read: “Douglas explains, “When you remove vegetation, that’s like leaving the lid open on your cooler on a summer day. It allows heat and water to get down in the permafrost pretty rapidly.””
The issues was two record summers of precipitation near Fairbanks, Alaska. Some how this expert expects increased precipitation to produce less vegetation. .
Sometime ago I read an article about how increased vegetation during the winter insulates the ground from cold winter atmosphere so that the permafrost that thaws during the summer does not refreeze during the winter.
A good scientist cannot have tunnel vision.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry
| #
Where is the experimental evidence that quantifies co2 atmospheric sensitivity? It does not exist so asserting co2 impacts the climate is questionable.
The cmip5 temperature graph is totally inaccurate because the data has been manipulated.
Anyone who claims renewable energy sources are a solution are ignorant to the economics.
We don’t need to spend trillions addressing a nonexistent threat.
Reply
David Motes
| #
Jerry, thanks for the comments and agree with most.
1. One of the compelling arguments for photosynthesis reduction causing global warming is the reduction in solar energy absorption. My theory does not depend on CO2 GHG theory.
2. The cmip5 temperature graph shows a poor model prediction even when data is manipulated for convergence.
3. I listed 4 actions much higher than any renewable resources. I agree the impact is relatively minor.
4. Most data and scientists suggest that global warming is a threat to be addressed. This is the only assertion to which I disagree.
I have upgraded my paper based on some of the good insights above. Thanks! David, author.
Reply