Replies

Note in the graph below, the tremendous negative correlation of humidity with rising CO₂ the last years, most noticeable in the upper atmosphere. These articles (accepted for publication but not yet published) strongly suggest the reason: a strong negative correlation of CO₂ with humidity due to plant evapotranspiration, thus ameliorating positive feedback effects of CO₂ itself.

Now we know why the CO2 driven models have not been able to predict temperatures.

I consider this to be the DEATH KNELL for CO2 caused Global Warming.

additional article: http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/03/peer-reviewed-study-finds-that-co2-induced-warming-causes-atmosphere-to-hold-less-water-vapor.html

Peer-Reviewed Study Finds That CO2-Induced Warming Causes Atmosphere To Hold Less Water Vapor

Read here. IPCC Climategate science predicts that as CO2 increase in atmosphere, the resulting warming will increase the atmosphere's water vapor levels, which will cause more warming (a positive feedback).

Unfortunately for the IPCC, that major tenet of the AGW hypothesis has not worked so well, as the below atmospheric humidity chart from www.climate4you.com reveals. (click on image to enlarge)

Now a new study discovers why the water vapor levels have not increased as predicted. Lammertsma et al. determine that as CO2 levels rise, vegetation responds in two ways: one, by absorbing more CO2 for food production, and two, releasing less water vapor. The scientists calculate that with this vegetation response, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to 800ppm levels will cut in half the amount of atmospheric water vapor - that's called a major, natural, NEGATIVE feedback.

This negative feedback that will have a huge impact on the atmosphere's water vapor content is not included in any climate models that the IPCC, NASA and NOAA utilize. This may be a major reason why these models have continually failed in their predictions. Thus, current models' estimates of climate sensitivity evaporate, or if you prefer, transpire...or, is climate sensitivity kind of a climate model 'vaporware' chartacteristic.

"As carbon dioxide levels have risen during the last 150 years, the density of pores that allow plants to breathe has dwindled by 34 percent, restricting the amount of water vapor the plants release to the atmosphere, report scientists.....“The increase in carbon dioxide by about 100 parts per million has had a profound effect on the number of stomata and, to a lesser extent, the size of the stomata,” ...“Our analysis of that structural change shows there’s been a huge reduction in the release of water to the atmosphere.”...If there are fewer stomata, or the stomata are closed more of the day, gas exchange will be limited.....suggests that a doubling of today’s carbon dioxide levels — from 390 parts per million to 800 ppm — will halve the amount of water lost to the air, concluding in the second paper that “plant adaptation to rising CO2 is currently altering the hydrological cycle and climate..." [Emmy Lammertsma, Hugo de Boer, David Dilcher, Stefan Dekker, Andre Lotter, Friederike Wagner-Cremer, and Martin Wassen 2011: PNAS1 and PNAS2]

Additional CO2-water vapor, failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings.

March 04, 2011 at 05:21 AM | Permalink

Beam me to Planet Gore !

As carbon dioxide levels have risen during the last 150 years, the density of pores that allow plants to breathe has dwindled by 34 percent, restricting the amount of water vapor the plants release to the atmosphere...

And since water vapor contributes 95% of the atmospheric greenhouse effect...

Uh, are you out of your mind? Lest you forget: "If you look at the peer reviewed scientific literature, the debate is over." - Al Gore

I consider this to be the DEATH KNELL for CO2 caused Global Warming.

You are right, now we are gonna freeze becasue of CO2. Go figure!

Frankly, I can not see any way that less than one tenth of one percent of atmospheric gases (CO2) can cause any significant changes.

The sun is the primary driver of our climate.

Dilcher and his Dutch colleagues say that a drier atmosphere could mean less rainfall and therefore less movement of water through Florida’s watersheds.

No matter WHAT happens, these guys have to spin it as having potentially horrible consequences.

The bulk of Florida's rainfall comes from water that evaporated from the Gulf of Mexico, and has nothing to do wit any plants.

Less plant transpiration means that plants will be much more resistant to drought conditions. This means better harvests worldwide. Plants need CO2. The less they have to work in order to get enough CO2, means more energy for growth.

How can there be a + feedback loop is CO2 is linear and not exponential?

Wot?

Higher CO2 levels have a NEGATIVE effect on water vapor in the atmosphere?

Somebody is talking out their rectal orfices once again. Really COLD weather decreases the relative humidity of air, as well as the absolute amount of water vapor as a part of the atmosphere. But really cold weather also increases the uptake of CO2 by water, and holds the CO2 as carbonic acid, until warmed again.

Really hot weather INCREASES the relative humidity of the air, in the presence of an evaporative source, and also the capacity of the atmosphere to HOLD a much higher absolute quantity of water vapor. Simultaneously, the warmer water RELEASES its CO2 content, as carbonic acid disassociates, and as a released gas coming out of solution, evaporates from any body of water in which it has been held.

Now, if there is no evaporative source to carry water vapor into the atmosphere, the relative humidity falls to extremely low levels, as the absolute quantity of water vapor is reduced. Water vapor, as a gas, is LIGHTER than the mixture of N2 and O2 that makes some 98+% of the atmosphere, while CO2 is HEAVIER, and tends to settle in lower parts of the atmosphere. Why do plants get so stunted and sparse at high altitude? Not because of lack of water, but because of lack of a very basic building block for growth, CO2.

Somebody tell me what I have wrong here. And somebody please, PLEASE, why this pile of balderdash is supposed to change that previously held conception. Cause and effect seem to be entirely transposed, because the right questions are NOT being asked.

"100 parts per million"

If that is the increase in CO2 that is causing this, they better look for another cause. That is such an insignificant amount as to be laughable. Nothing above shows a clear cause and effect connection. The almost untraceable increase in CO2 is being correlated without any justification. This is science?

I used to not trust Lawyers, then politicians, then Doctors, now its scientists.

While individual plants produce less water vapor as a result of a rising CO2 level, the increased CO2 would also increase the size and number of plants (and leaves). So it may be a wash.

While it is well known that long-lived plants can adjust their number of stomata each season depending on growing conditions, little is known about the long-term structural changes in stomata number or size over periods of decades or centuries.

I am sure that one thing is known. They don't vary much. If they change from season to season there isn't much they can tell us about long term changes in growing conditions.

DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Neil Young on Caring for Planet Earth: ‘I Realize How Hypocritical I Am … I Do All These Things in Jets’

Chairmen Fred Upton & Ed Whitfield Introduce Energy Tax Prevention Act to Stop Job-Crushing EPA Regulations

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

Great post dude!

You know what this means....a worldwide campaign against GLOBAL DRYING!

I don’t really understand the altered title. The article doesn’t seem to provide the conclusion suggested by the altered title. And changes in one source don’t necessarily add up to the total for the hydrological cycle. Far from saying this evidence saves the day against global warming, the article suggests some ecosystems (like the Florida Everglades) may collapse as a result.