• Home
  • Current News
  • Increased Carbon Dioxide Shown to Reduce Water Vapor in Earth’s Atmosphere

Increased Carbon Dioxide Shown to Reduce Water Vapor in Earth’s Atmosphere

Written by PSI Researcher, Myles & John O'Sullivan

Scientists have found that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) reduces transpiration and overall evapotranspiration in all biomass. As a consequence, the overall amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is reduced.  evapotranspiration

The findings are published in ‘CO2 and Temperature Effects of Evapotranspiration and Irrigated Agriculture,’ (Jorge A. Ramfrez and Bryce Finnerty). [1]

The authors found that the result of lowering atmospheric water vapour is to buffer the “positive feedback” of supposed global warming. Conventional climate science has for decades believed that rising atmospheric CO2 causes rises in global temperature. But global thermometer readings and satellite data proves no increase in temperatures for nearly twenty years despite a substantial increase in atmospheric CO2 levels during the same period.

Most climate scientists had believed that more CO2 in the climate system causes a positive feedback i.e. rises in temperature. Typically, their thesis is that:

“The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further-a positive feedback.” [2]

However, findings by independent scientists (outside the realms of politicized government climate science) and involved in researching plant evapotranspiration, supports earlier peer-reviewed scientific research from the 1980’s that flies the face of positive feedback meme. There is now a growing recognition of a body of evidence telling us that the global biomass of plants significantly impacts evapotranspiration and changes in planted environment directly impact climate.

In a 1983 study into vegetal species by Kimbal (1983) published in ‘Carbon Dioxide Fertilizing Effects on Plant Biomass production and Water-Use Efficiency’ showed that, “ A doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased biomass production by an average of 33% in the vegetal species.” [3]

While another study found that, “Both forest and agricultural species have been shown to double water use efficiency under a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. “(Rogers et al 1983.)

Moreover, “…. the reduction in transpiration caused by an increase in stomatal resistance results in a cumulative decrease in evapotranspiration.” (Morison and Gifford 1984.)

Meanwhile, the journal Nature reports on the Scott Jasechko paper which shows that 60% of atmospheric water normally comes from plants. Indeed this is shown to be the norm for atmospheric water everywhere. In the past century, while there has been about a 40+% increase in CO2, there appears to have been less transpiration – which is in the range of 10% – 20%.

On this basis it would seem that since plants contribute 60% of the moisture to the air “the present day high and rising CO2 has eliminated 6%-12% of the moisture being lost by dryland grasses,” say scientists. [4]

These findings are now being considered afresh by skeptics of the supposed ‘greenhouse gas theory’ that promotes the supposed CO2 global warming link. The ‘theory’ has been under increased attack in the scientific community for being overly simplistic, if not outright false. It now appears that previously unconsidered extraneous effects in our planet’s complex system that might otherwise lead to climate change are naturally being buffered by nature’s plant biomass.

************

[1] Ramírez, J. and Finnerty, B. (1996). ”CO 2 and Temperature Effects on Evapotranspiration and Irrigated Agriculture.” J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 122(3), 155–163.

[2] http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

[3] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01351.x/full

[4] http://russgeorge.net/2013/04/24/co2-promotes-ground-cover/

Comments (7)

  • Avatar

    Andrew Paczuski

    |

    Letter on Michael Mann Jan 15 2015, Andrew.paczuski
    The goodness of any trend regression is measured in the terms of r^2, the very criterium Michael MANN refuses to publish, even though he knows exactly what they are, as part of Excel regression every high schools student knows the value of. That simply says these r^2 numbers do not support his tenets, and the probability his derived trend equations are too low to disclose. There is a name for such behavior. The trouble with this whole MM fracas is this obvious deliberate omission has been widely bought not only be the public, but also found its way into governmental power at the highest level. Trofim Lysenko almost got away with it in the old Soviet Union, so there is a precedence our MM hero will continue to fool as many fools as they are everywhere.

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    [i]”This comment has been deleted by Administrator”[/i]

    John O’Sullivan is practising his anti- peer-review in open media …. by deleting valid criticism or comments on PSI articles. Just check out how many of my comments he has deleted on other threads.

    [b]I will keep exposing false physics wherever I see it.[/b] I have done so for other climate blogs at [url]http://whyitsnotco2.com[/url] and will add PSI to the list if this continues.

    [b]I will also post comments on numerous climate blogs pointing out errors in PSI articles that continue to promulgate the IPCC hoax that radiation alone determines planetary temperatures.[/b]

  • Avatar

    Mervyn

    |

    Shhssssshh!!!! Don’t tell the IPCC about this research.

    Apparently, the IPCC’s 2007 AR4 climate assessment report was “the gold standard in climate science” … and, apparently, someone decided that “the science is settled” … which was confirmed at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December 2009 by Gordon Brown during his desperate outbursts condemning sceptics.

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    My published study based on 30 years of temperature and precipitation data from there continents clearly shows that more moist regions have lower daily maximum and minimum temperatures than drier regions at similar latitudes and altitudes. Water vapor cools and has negative feedback for any natural warming.

  • Avatar

    WhyItsNotCO2.com

    |

    The article gives the wrong impression that most of all water vapor anywhere (including above oceans) is from transpiration. It is not. Read the source: “transpiration is by far the largest water flux from Earth’s continents …” Sloppy science writing!

  • Avatar

    WhyItsNotCO2.com

    |

    If water vapor is reduced that is indeed a warming effect because the evidence is that water vapor cools. But the warming will produce more water vapor, and thus stabilise temperatures.

    You don’t need to “wait for the science” because it’s already here …

    When you realize that The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be used to explain the energy flows which maintain planetary core and surface temperatures, then you are left with no uncertainty that the CO2 conjecture is the greatest scientific mistake in all history.

    See http://climate-change-theory.com

    • Avatar

      Mack

      |

      “But the warming will produce more water vapor”
      This is typical of the thing we call “climate science” eg. More ice will produce more albedo which will cause more cooling.
      More warming will produce more evapouration to cause more rain.
      More of this will cause less of that.
      More of that will cause less of this.
      No numbers measured scientifically up in a certain period of time.
      You wind up like Trenberth, blathering this stuff to a nodding gullible interviewer (like Peter Sinclair)at the same time as hoping his credentials carry him through and that the interview ends quickly.

Comments are closed