Veteran Chemical Engineer: Recent Warming Likely Caused By Relative Humidity Decrease, Not CO2 GHG

Share this...

Global Warming Driven by Relative Humidity Decrease, Not CO2 GHG! Solution: More Ocean Evaporation

By David R. Motes

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is quantitatively driven by a steady relative humidity decrease of 0.13%/year throughout the troposphere since 1970 per the chart below, and not CO2 GHG (Green House Gas).  The resulting evaporation reduction is a 3 factor larger AGW driver than CO2 GHG theory.  These quantitative facts are based on calculations using consensus scientific data and diagrams from CO2 GHG proponent sites such as the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and the International Energy Agency. The main points of the linked 29-page paper pdf follow:

Global relative humidity throughout the troposphere has fallen steadily since 1970. 

Warming will reverse only when the relative humidity decrease is reversed. 

Relative humidity drives precipitation and evaporation which is responsible for absorption and dispersion of 24% of the solar energy reaching the earth’s surface per the below NOAA solar energy balance.  Evaporation transports this energy to the upper troposphere for radiation to space.  1. This evaporation reduction (ER) radiative energy imbalance (watts/m2) from the above 0.13%/year relative humidity decline is calculated to be a 3 factor higher than the IPCC CO2 GHG energy imbalance.  2. This same ER generates a calculated temperature rise 2.6 times more than the actual measured temperature rise since 1975 using the IPCC Climate Sensitivity factor.

Above evaporation reduction is driven by CO2 induced plant water use efficiency (WUE) increase. 

81% of the above ER radiative energy imbalance is generated by a CO2 induced 0.70%/year plant water use efficiency (WUE) increase.  In the photosynthesis reaction, higher CO2 allows plants to transpire less water.  The WUE increase and resulting ER decrease are anthropogenic since man generated the atmospheric CO2.  This better explains the correlation between CO2 and temperature since 1900 than CO2 GHG.

Only evaporation reduction fits all the scientific data, not CO2 GHG theory. 

This novel ER science provides an explanation for the undeniable AGW since 1900 that fits all the scientific data as explained in the paper: temperature / CO2 historic correlations, the relative humidity decrease above, solar energy balance above, hydrologic balance above, carbon mass balance below, carbon source for CO2, GHG parameters, etc.  All the ER quantifications are scientific fact and explain the 2 different historic correlations between CO2 and temperature: 1. 1900+ anthropogenic correlation 2. the prior million-year plant biomass correlation.  Engineering quantifications were performed using existing consensus data.  Granted, other climate drivers also exist such as solar effects.

Conversely, CO2 GHG theory remains a largely unquantifiable, problematic theory. By example, eleven CO2 GHG theory problems are quantified and graphically presented (all resolved by ER science).  Our focus was on engineering quantification versus the hereto date presentation of GHG data and theories.

Increasing ocean evaporation is less expensive and more effective than simply reducing annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

Quantified problems with the proposed CO2 annual emission reduction plans are:

  1. Focuses on the 1%/year annual contribution and illogically ignores the 99% existing atmospheric CO2.
  2. Focuses solely on reducing the 8% CO2 emissions driver, while ignoring the 92% plant life CO2 driver.

This fresh chemical engineering perspective from a high-altitude sheds new light on an old subject. The above hydrologic balance, above energy balance, below carbon balance, and other calculations detailed in this study have not previously been quantified and summarized as presented.  Again, the full 29-page paper pdf may be viewed or downloaded at docudroid.com which includes a 2-page Abstract of the key points.   All calculations, details, explanations, references and contacts are contained in the linked pdf

================================

David Motes is a 43-year professional chemical engineer residing in Houston, Texas.    




Share this...

22 responses to “Veteran Chemical Engineer: Recent Warming Likely Caused By Relative Humidity Decrease, Not CO2 GHG”

  1. + “Wildfires Supercharged By Climate Change” – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort

    […] Related: Veteran Chemical Engineer: Recent Warming Likely Caused By Relative Humidity Decrease, Not CO2 GHG […]

  2. Petit_Barde

    It seems not to be the relative humidity reduction, but the reduction of the creation of aerosols on which water vapor can condensate to create clouds, that could induce a decrease in clouds formation during the last decades.

    The relative humidity reduction could merely be the consequence of temperature increase, all other things being equal, as basic physics show us.

    According to the Svensmark hypothesis, this aerosol creation reduction seems to be related to cosmic rays which enhance the formation of aerosols in the atmosphere.

    This hypothesis has been validated – at least in a lab – by the CLOUD experiment (CERN, Kirkby) :
    “Although most aerosol particle formation requires sulphuric acid, CLOUD has shown that aerosols can form purely from biogenic vapours emitted by trees, and that their formation rate is enhanced by cosmic rays by up to a factor 100.”

    https://home.cern/news/news/experiments/cosmic-rays-clouds

    1. Senex

      Could the measurable and observable reduction over recent decades in sulphur dioxide and particulate emissions in major industrial countries (through air pollution abatement laws) account for part of the reduction in cloud cover?

      1. Harry Davidson

        I too have long wondered whether the underlying cause might be the worldwide reduction in SO2 emissions. However the global emissions data,
        https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14537.pdf
        does not obviously support such a theory. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but it’s certainly not obviously right.
        But then, I am no shape of an expert in this field.

    2. David Motes

      I am the author. Cloud formation is distinct from relative humidity which does drive cloud formation. Yes, aerosol reduction does reduce cloud formation. The fact remains that relative humidity reducion (evaporation reduction) is a larger AGW driver than CO2 GHG which is one of the paper’s main points. David.

  3. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

    As per some of the comments above, I’m a little confused by this.

    First, the good news is that it’s very obvious to anyone with real scientific knowledge that the main driver of “the atmosphere” is water and water vapor (due to the extraordinarily-large heat capacity of water), not CO2 (that’s a religious cult). Joe Bastardi in particular has been tireless in pointing this out.

    Where I wonder, though, is in regard to the effect that more moisture/humidity/water-vapor has. In a lab, if you take a sample of air and take some of the water (water vapor) out of it, you can get a larger temperature increase under the addition of the same amount of energy to that air.

    But the larger-scale atmosphere is more complicated. As Joe B. has pointed out, more water vapor causes warming – by causing low temperatures to be higher than they would be with less water vapor in the air (it’s the heat capacity stuff again).

    It’s also notable that in the long-term climate record, warmer correlates with wetter, and colder correlates with drier. The usual assumption is that moisture is the cause and temperature is the effect, but methinks that on the scale (of both space and time) it’s the moisture that’s the cause and the temperature that’s the effect. With less moisture, it becomes possible (in the polar regions) to make air MUCH colder – and that colder air is able to spread out across the planet. On the other hand, with more moisture, the air in the polar regions can’t be made as cold, and the overall climate is warmer.

    I’m glad to see that we’re all at least on the right scientific track (that the real driver is water/water-vapor, not CO2). And that we can have a rational scientific discussion about the moisture/temperature cause/effect relationship.

    1. David Motes

      Snowman, I am the author. Your statements are true. However, the main point of the paper remains that relative humidity reduction (less evaporation) is a larger AGW driver than CO2 GHG. Undoubtably, increasing ocean evaporation will definitely reduce global temperatures. David.

  4. pochas94

    I really do not understand the arguments in this paper. My preconception is that decreased relative humidity should lower the equivalent emissions height and cause surface cooling. Increased CO2 does cause plant life to decrease transpiration, and in my limited understanding this would be one of the factors providing a negative feedback on whatever it is that has been causing whatever warming has in fact taken place. I certainly couldn’t support spraying water in the air based on this.

    1. David R. Motes

      Pochas, I am the author. Decreased relative humidity, resulting in decreased surface evaporation actually increases (not decreases) surface temperatures.
      Evaporation is how 24% of sun energy is transported to the upper atmosphere for radiation to space. The main point of the paper remains that relative humidity reduction (less evaporation) is a larger AGW driver than CO2 GHG. Undoubtably, increasing ocean evaporation will definitely reduce global temperatures. I agree and stated that the concept needs further research. I hope this helps. David.

  5. E. Schaffer

    Pan evaporation declines as well, despite falling relative humidity. Obviously the reason for less evoporation and sinking humidity is something different..

    1. pochas94

      There are a number of proposals about potential causes for increased precipitation efficiency which would lower relative humidity:

      https://home.cern/science/experiments/cloud

      Also particulates and electrical phenomena associated with the solar wind and other solar activity, dust storms, volcanism, etc, and of course human activity.

      1. David Motes

        Pochas, I am the author. Agree with your statements. We could develop many speculations for humidity reduction which is why my paper focused on quantification of theories. Regardless of the driver for relative humidity reduction, the fact remains that the relative humidity reduction (evaporation reduction) is a larger driver of AGW than CO2 GHG. David.

        1. dm

          Mr. Motes, your paper is thought provoking, and perhaps you have scored twice with one article. The first score is, of course, your main point.

          The second is challenging the concept that atmospheric water content necessarily rises with atmospheric CO2 levels. Most scientists agree CO2 levels have risen since the 1970s. Your data shows water content has fallen.

  6. Paul Hadley

    Followed link to download 29 page pdf . On article page, the download button sent the adware ‘BookLot’ was downloaded. Also the server docudroid.com does not exist.

    1. David Motes

      Paul, I am the author. >564 people have successfully viewed the document with >65 downloads from the docdroid link. I have never seen the adware Booklot or heard other complaints. The server is actually docdroid, not docudroid, my apology. I can not help your individual problem with your views on docdroid. David.

    2. David R. Motes

      Paul, I am the author. >574 people have successfully viewed the 29 page pdf and >65 downloaded it. Yours is the only complaint for an adware. The server is docdroid, not docudroid, my apology. I am sorry that I can not fix your specific link problem. I hope this helps. Thanks! David.

  7. David Motes

    Pochas, I am the author. Decreased evaporation (driven by humidity reduction) actually increases surface air temperatures by reducing that 24% of sun energy used in evaporation, more used the heat surface air. Increased CO2 (reduced transpiration) drove 81% of that evaporation reduction. David.

  8. TL Winslow

    [[But the larger-scale atmosphere is more complicated. As Joe B. has pointed out, more water vapor causes warming – by causing low temperatures to be higher than they would be with less water vapor in the air (it’s the heat capacity stuff again).]]

    The U.N. IPCC lie that never dies is alive and well here.

    Water vapor can’t warm the Earth’s surface. At most at night it can slow cooling by backing up convection to the ground. The rest of the time it’s a pure cooling agent, starting with removing lots of surface heat via evaporation, then later dropping frigid precipitation from on high. Higher low temperatures aren’t global warming, period. The IPCC has messed up your heads.

    https://www.quora.com/If-burning-methane-makes-CO-2-is-burning-natgas-good-for-the-environment/answer/TL-Winslow

    1. David Motes

      TL, I am the author. Agree with your statements. However, a reduction in relative humidity (consequently evaporation) does warm the earth surface by reducing evaporation as you discussed. The main point of the paper remains that relative humidity reduction (less evaporation) is a larger AGW driver than CO2 GHG. Undoubtably, increasing ocean evaporation will definitely reduce global temperatures. David.

    2. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

      “The U.N. IPCC lie that never dies is alive and well here.”

      No, you are mistaken about what the IPCC lie involving water vapor is.

      The above has nothing to do with that, and is basic physics. To repeat, the data show that, e.g., “warming” in the Arctic is solely due to “warmer” temperatures during the winter while summer temperatures remain unchanged. This is consistent with the presence of more water vapor in the air – as air cannot be made as cold when it has more moisture in it (more moisture amounts to a higher dewpoint, and basically you cannot cool air to less than its dewpoint). The same seems to hold with “warming” in the temperate regions – due to higher dewpoints, it is the overnight lows that are “warming up,” not the daytime highs.

      The IPCC lie is something totally different. As even when they torture their models to the max, they can’t get CO2 to cause much (or, if you prefer the political demands, “enough”) warming – so they simply made up (out of nothing) a positive feedback mechanism in which increasing CO2 triggers a positive feedback process with water vapor that causes extra warming. This “mechanism” has never been observed (let alone measured) in nature, plus anyone who knows anything about complex systems and the natural world knows that long-term feedback mechanisms simple do not exist in nature – since they are destabilizing, and eventually (and relatively quickly) burn themselves out. A thunderstorm is actually a good example of positive-feedback mechanism that can run wild for a brief period of time, but then burns out.

  9. Dimitris Poulos
  10. David Motes

    Dimitris, I am the author. Agree with your statement. However,the climate has many drivers including solar winds, relative humidity (evaporation) reduction, plant biomass, etc. David.

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close