Solution: Increase Ocean Evaporation (<4% of CO2 Reduction Cost)
Guest poet by David R. Motes, November 10, 2022
Climate change is real and cycles over Earth’s geologic history. We are in a global warming trend for the past 140+ years. Contrary to prevailing climate theory, this man-made warming trend is primarily driven by a CO2 induced Evaporation Reduction (ER), not CO2 Green House Gas (GHG). The CO2 driven ER is irrefutably an 11 factor larger Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW) driver than CO2 GHG. AGW is indeed driven by CO2, just not CO2 GHG as theorized, but rather CO2 ER. Per the chart below, the tropospheric relative humidity steadily decreased 0.13%/year since 1970, requiring a similar precipitation and ER, which generated the measured temperature increase. The proposed ocean evaporation solution (shown in photo below) costs <4% of current GHG solutions and only ~2.4% of the US federal budget. This paper only uses consensus scientific data, facts, and diagrams provided by various CO2 GHG proponent sites such as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), NASA, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency), and the IEA (International Energy Agency) to make the calculations presented.
Global relative humidity has fallen steadily across the troposphere since prior to 1970. The photo on the right is a proposed floating ocean evaporator.
The full 33-page paper pdf including all calculations, discussions, details, explanations, figures, references, a 2-page abstractand David’s email may be viewed or downloaded at docdroid.com. The 5 main quantified facts along with a proposed new cost-effective solution follow:
1. Warming will reverse only when the above relative humidity decrease is reversed.
Relative humidity drives precipitation and evaporation which is responsible for absorption of 24% of the solar energy reaching the earth’s surface per the NOAA solar energy balance below. Evaporation transports this energy to the upper troposphere for radiation to space. 1. This ER radiative energy imbalance (watts/m2) from the above 0.13%/year relative humidity decline is calculated to be an 11 factor higher than the IPCC CO2 GHG energy imbalance. Thus, the CO2 GHG energy imbalance is relatively small in comparison. 2. Even the fossil fuel energy release (watts/m2) is a 3.2 factor higher. 3. This same ER generates a calculated temperature rise 4.0 times more than the actual measured temperature rise using the IPCC Climate Sensitivity factor. These quantitative comparisons between ER science and CO2 GHG theory are this paper’s most convincing calculations.
2. Above Evaporation Reduction is 81% generated by a CO2 induced 0.70%/year plant Water Use Efficiency (WUE) increase.
In the photosynthesis reaction, higher CO2 concentration allows plants to use less water (WUE increase), causing less evapotranspiration. Per the Hydrologic Balance above, a significant 15% of evaporation is from plant evapotranspiration. Man generated the atmospheric CO2 increase, causing the WUE increase, yielding less evaporation, resulting in our global warming.
3. Plant biomass increases / decreases caused by solar elliptical cycles drove the below irrefutable 800k year geologic correlation between CO2 and temperature, not CO2 GHG. Temperature increases decreased plant biomass which increased CO2. As calculated in the linked paper, the solar elliptical cycles increased temperatures by 10oC, which caused a 46% humidity decrease, which reasonably caused the 33% plant biomass decrease, causing the measured CO2 increase from 180 to 280ppm. Conversely, per the IPCC’s max factor, CO2 GHG contributed at most 17% of that 10oC temperature rise, and CO2 GHG theory has no plausible source for that CO2 increase.
4. Water vapor is 192 times stronger GHG than CO2 when you factor in both infrared absorbances and atmospheric concentrations. Yet, CO2 GHG proponents continue pushing CO2 causation rather than water vapor
5. Calculated energy and temperature impacts from CO2 GHG are much smaller than CO2 ER. An insignificant 123 ppm CO2 GHG increase did not increase temperatures by a significant 1.5 °C since the 1880 fossil fuel expansion. However, that same CO2 increase from 292 to 416 ppm (42% CO2 increase since 1880) did greatly increase photosynthesis and plant WUE which quantitatively drove the measured 1.5 °C AGW.
Moreover, CO2 GHG theory is a rather simplistic, unquantified, problematic theory that does not fit CO2 / temperature historical correlations and cannot be modeled directly using GHG infrared absorbances. In the linked paper, 9 CO2 GHG theory problems are graphically presented and discussed in detail, all resolved by ER science.
The implementation advantages of our proposed ocean evaporation above over the prevailing CO2 emission reduction plans follow:
- Ocean evaporation uses proven, reliable technology that is substantially more cost effective: <4% of the current CO2 GHG solutions and only ~2.4% of the US federal budget. This cost comparison is this paper’s second most convincing calculation.
- Other advantages- Higher success probability, simpler, uses existing technology, no detrimental side effects, and more environmentally friendly.
- CO2 Emission reduction will certainly fail by focusing on the 1%/year annual contribution while completely ignoring the 99% existing atmospheric CO2, per the Carbon Mass Balance below.
Our paper focuses on engineering calculations, versus the hereto date presentation of GHG data and theories. The authors calculated and quantified the many impacts using peer-reviewed consensus scientific data and then summarized these facts in a logical explanation in the link provided below. This fresh chemical engineering perspective from a high-altitude sheds new quantified insights on the old climate change subject. These engineering calculations identify the new root cause of AGW, revealing a much more cost-effective and greener solution (a paradigm shift). Again, click the 33-page paper pdf at docdroid.com for all the details.
David Motes is a 44-year professional chemical engineer residing in Houston, TX.
Donate – choose an amount
November 11, 2022 at 11:09AM