Big woe! The heat's not in the oceans either

The deep ocean may not be hiding heat after all, raising new questions about why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years, said the US space agency on Monday.

Scientists have noticed that while greenhouse gases have continued to mount in the first part of the 21st century, global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising along with them, said Nasa.

Some studies have suggested that heat is being absorbed temporarily by the deep seas, and that this so-called global warming hiatus is a temporary trend.

But latest data from satellite and direct ocean temperature measurements from 2005 to 2013 "found the ocean abyss below 1 995m has not warmed measurably," Nasa said in a statement.

The findings present a new puzzle to scientists, but co-author Josh Willis of Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) said the reality of climate change is not being thrown into doubt.  "The sea level is still rising," said Willis.  "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."

A separate study in August in the journal Science said the apparent slowdown in the Earth's surface warming in the last 15 years could be due to that heat being trapped in the deep Atlantic and Southern Ocean.

But the Nasa researchers said their approach, described in the journal Nature Climate Change, is the first to test the idea using satellite observations, as well as direct temperature measurements of the upper ocean.

"The deep parts of the ocean are harder to measure," said researcher William Llovel of Nasa JPL.  "The combination of satellite and direct temperature data gives us a glimpse of how much sea level rise is due to deep warming. The answer is - not much."

SOURCE





Antarctic sea ice hits record levels as it reaches 20 MILLION square kilometers for first time since records began in 1979

But ice is caused by warming, as any Warmist will tell you -- in one of the amazing mental gymnastics that Leftists specialize in.  A bit of light fisking below
 
Sea ice surrounding Antarctica has reached a new record high.  Nasa says it now covers more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s.

They say that even though Antarctic sea ice has been increasing, 'the planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming.'  [They lie.  There is no warming going on]

Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km).

On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

The single-day maximum extent this year was reached on Sept. 20, according to NSIDC data, when the sea ice covered 7.78 million square miles (20.14 million square kilometers).

The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

The new Antarctic sea ice record reflects the diversity and complexity of Earth's environments, said NASA researchers.

Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, has referred to changes in sea ice coverage as a microcosm of global climate change.

Just as the temperatures in some regions of the planet are colder than average, even in our warming world, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and bucking the overall trend of ice loss.

'The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming.

'Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,' Parkinson said.

Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km).  [But sea ice extent in the Arctic was 1.65 million square kilometers (637,000 square miles) ABOVE the record low monthly average for September that occurred in 2012].

A warming climate changes weather patterns, said Walt Meier, a research scientist at Goddard. Sometimes those weather patterns will bring cooler air to some areas.

 And in the Antarctic, where sea ice circles the continent and covers such a large area, it doesn't take that much additional ice extent to set a new record.

'Part of it is just the geography and geometry. With no northern barrier around the whole perimeter of the ice, the ice can easily expand if conditions are favorable,' he said.

Researchers are investigating a number of other possible explanations as well.  One clue, Parkinson said, could be found around the Antarctic Peninsula – a finger of land stretching up toward South America.

There, the temperatures are warming, and in the Bellingshausen Sea just to the west of the peninsula the sea ice is shrinking. [Due to volcanic activity]

Beyond the Bellingshausen Sea and past the Amundsen Sea, lies the Ross Sea – where much of the sea ice growth is occurring.

That suggests that a low-pressure system centered in the Amundsen Sea could be intensifying or becoming more frequent in the area, she said – changing the wind patterns and circulating warm air over the peninsula, while sweeping cold air from the Antarctic continent over the Ross Sea.

This, and other wind and lower atmospheric pattern changes, could be influenced by the ozone hole higher up in the atmosphere – a possibility that has received scientific attention in the past several years, Parkinson said.

'The winds really play a big role,' Meier said.

Melting ice on the edges of the Antarctic continent could also be leading to more fresh, just-above-freezing water, which makes refreezing into sea ice easier, Parkinson said.

Or changes in water circulation patterns, bringing colder waters up to the surface around the landmass, could help grow more ice.

Snowfall could be a factor as well, Meier said.

Snow landing on thin ice can actually push the thin ice below the water, which then allows cold ocean water to seep up through the ice and flood the snow – leading to a slushy mixture that freezes in the cold atmosphere and adds to the thickness of the ice. This new, thicker ice would be more resilient to melting.

'There hasn't been one explanation yet that I'd say has become a consensus, where people say, 'We've nailed it, this is why it's happening,' Parkinson said.

For Antarctica, key variables include the atmospheric and oceanic conditions, as well as the effects of an icy land surface, changing atmospheric chemistry, the ozone hole, months of darkness and more.

'Its really not surprising to people in the climate field that not every location on the face of Earth is acting as expected – it would be amazing if everything did,' Parkinson said.

'The Antarctic sea ice is one of those areas where things have not gone entirely as expected.  [Understatement] 'So it's natural for scientists to ask, 'OK, this isn't what we expected, now how can we explain it?'

SOURCE





UN temperature target is a poor guide - study

An amusing admission from a died-in-the-wool Warmist highlighted below

 A temperature goal set by almost 200 governments as the limit for global warming is a poor guide to the planet's health and should be ditched, a study said on Wednesday.

The world's environment ministers agreed in 2010 to cap a rise in average surface temperatures at 2°C above pre-industrial times as the yardstick to avoid more floods, heat waves, droughts and rising sea levels.

"Politically and scientifically, the 2°C goal is wrong-headed", David Victor and Charles Kennel, both professors at the University of California in San Diego, wrote in the Nature article entitled "Ditch the 2°C Warming Goal".

Among objections, they said the goal was "effectively unachievable" because of rising greenhouse gas emissions, led in recent years by China's strong economic growth.

And they said the target was out of line with recent trends. Temperatures have risen about 0.85°C since about 1900 but have been virtually flat since about 1998 despite higher emissions from factories, power plants and cars.

They said that blood pressure, heart rate or body mass were all vital signs of health for a person, not just temperature. "A similar strategy is now needed for the planet", they wrote.

The study urged a shift to other yardsticks to gauge the planet's health, such as concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or changes in the heat content of the oceans.

Some other scientists said the 2°C target was still the best goal to guide UN talks on a deal to limit climate change, due to be agreed by governments in late 2015 at a summit in Paris.

"Their arguments don't hold water", said Stefan Rahmstorf, a scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

He said that a shift to tracking carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, for instance, would not help because no one knows exactly how far rising carbon concentrations affect temperatures.

And he said that 1998 was an exceptionally hot year, warmed by a powerful El Nino event in the Pacific Ocean. The period since then was not typical of long-term trends.

A German group of experts, climate analytics, also defended the 2°C goal. "Whilst no one is in doubt about the difficulty of limiting warming below 2°C, it is incorrect to claim that achieving this goal is infeasible", they wrote.

The UN's panel of climate experts said in March that it was still possible to keep temperatures below 2°C at a moderate annual cost of about 0.06 percent of economic output.

The panel says it is at least 95% probable that man-made greenhouse gas emissions, rather than natural swings in the climate system, are the main cause of global warming since 1950.

SOURCE





Greenie fraud was  powered by lies, bribes and deceit

How unsurprising

The Broadway critics are raving over “Love Letters,” starring Mia Farrow and Brian Dennehy — particularly over Farrow. The New York Times says her “remarkable performance . . . casts a heartbreaking spell.”

Several thousand miles away, however, people in Ecuador are raving about another Mia Farrow performance this year — one they found “heartbreaking,” but not in a good way.

And Farrow is trying desperately to ignore these reviews.

This Farrow role was billed as a trip to “show her support for indigenous people” in a massive lawsuit that accused the US oil company Chevron of polluting the jungle and poisoning locals.

The highlight of the dramatic visit featured Farrow reaching into the ground and, with world media present, holding up a dirty, oil-drenched hand.

The Farrow visit was part of a campaign centered on an Ecuadorian court ruling that found against Chevron and ordered it to pay more than $9 billion in compensation, the largest civil penalty in history.

But, as Farrow knows from her other performances, there is often a final twist that can turn the story on its head. And so it is with her Ecuadorian jaunt and the Chevron suit.

A few months ago, a New York court found the Chevron judgment was obtained by fraud and bribery — mostly masterminded by Manhattan-based attorney Steven Donziger. The fraud was so outrageous that the judge found the Ecuadorian lawsuit was the equivalent of organized crime extorting money from Chevron.

The RICO laws, normally used against organized crime, are now being applied to Donziger and his associates.

The case was so corrupt, it’s impossible to list here all the outrages.

Basically the court found that the plaintiffs had bribed everyone in Ecuador from “independent” experts to the judges, and also corrupted or lied to US lawyers and scientific groups. (You can read all the inglorious details in Paul Barrett’s recent book, “Law of the Jungle.”)

But none of this sleaze had rubbed off on Mia Farrow. At worst, she seemed a naïve pawn — an artist who’d been altruistically trying to help peasants against the rich and powerful.

That is, until news broke that the Ecuadorian government had secretly paid her $188,000 to go there and hype the case against Chevron. Her “oily hand seen around the world” may have been the most lucrative gig of her acting career.

The truth leaked after the US company that acted as the conduit for the payment was forced (under fear of prosecution) to disclose that it had been secretly working for the Ecuadorian state.

The average salary in Ecuador is around $300 a month; Farrow’s $188,000 payday is an absolute fortune there. So the response from journalists and citizens on social media has been excoriating.

SOURCE





Union Miners Rally At EPA To Protest New Emissions Standards

The United Mine Workers of America came to Washington on Tuesday with a message for the Obama administration: We will not be forgotten.

The union miners, who came by bus from Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, held a rally outside the Environmental Protection Agency's headquarters in protest of new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that the agency proposed in June. The rules are part of the Obama administration's plan to curb the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the planet to heat up.

Members of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers also attended the rally.

"We are fighting for our livelihood," James Gibbs, an at-large vice president at UMWA, told the crowd. "We have to let the president know, we need to let both parties know that we will support candidates that support us."

Organizers said about 700 people made it to Washington for the protest, and another 50 or so were on a bus that arrived late. They carried signs that read "EPA Rules Destroy Good Jobs" and "EPA Rules Put Seniors At Risk," and some wore shirts that said "Stop The War On Coal." UMWA leaders expressed frustration that the union had worked on behalf of progressive causes like improved labor laws and fair wages, and had committed money and manpower to elect Obama in 2008. (The group did not endorse either candidate in 2012.)

"We fought for those progressive causes, and there are people today in the progressive movement who have forgotten us," Daniel Kane, UMWA's secretary-treasurer, told the gathered crowd. "If you try to foist this devastation on Appalachia, on our brothers and sisters, we will remember."

UMWA President Cecil Roberts accused the EPA of essentially passing a new "law" without the approval of Congress. "What's going on now is the EPA is passing laws, and we all have to abide by them," said Roberts. "These rules could not pass a vote in the United States Congress."

"These are the best jobs in Appalachia," said Roberts. "No bureaucrat has the right to do this." He also argued that the U.S. should not go forward with emissions regulations while countries like China don't have similar limits in place.

Roberts is probably right that Congress, as it is currently constituted, could not pass a new law to deal specifically with greenhouse gas emissions. The House passed such a law in 2009, when Democrats were in control, but it never passed in the Senate.

Instead, the new rules were issued under the Clean Air Act of 1970 in response to a Supreme Court ruling in 2007 that determined that EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the existing law. Under the draft rules, the EPA would set an emissions limit for each state based on its energy mix, and each state would develop its own plan to meet those standards.

While the number of coal-mining jobs has declined steeply in recent decades, those trends were underway before the EPA drafted its new regulations. Mechanization of mining operations and the shift from underground to surface mining operations have been major factors, as has the lower price of natural gas. A recent report from the liberal Center for American Progress looked at the economic factors affecting coal jobs, beyond EPA's new rules.

But many of the miners at Tuesday's rally blamed the EPA rules for continued job losses. "They have too much power, that's what I think," Tom Powell, a 59-year-old retired underground miner from Crooksville, Ohio, told The Huffington Post.

Mike Mallernee, a 69-year-old retired miner from the UMWA's Local 1188 in Zanesville, Ohio, left home at 3 a.m. to attend the rally. He said he was there to support the union, and because he felt the EPA rules were "too strict." "If you shut down all the coal-fired power plants now, what would you use for electricity in the U.S.?" said Mallernee.

The EPA defended its new rules Tuesday, arguing that coal will not be eliminated from the U.S. electricity sector. "Coal will remain a critical part of America's energy mix for the foreseeable future. In 2030, it will represent a third of our nations' energy mix," said EPA press secretary Liz Purchia in a statement to HuffPost. "EPA's carbon pollution proposal provides each state with enormous flexibility in determining how to meet its pollution reduction goals, and does not mandate the retirement of any coal plants."

Purchia said that many retirements for coal-fired power plants are already happening, not because of the new rules, but "because of ongoing economics -- regardless of this plan, largely as a result of aging equipment and market forces, including greater energy efficiency and cheap natural gas." She added that the average U.S. coal plant is 42 years old, and plants have adapted to pollution limits in the past by finding "new ways to innovate."

The EPA said it has already received more than 1 million comments on the proposed rules, and recently pushed back the deadline for comments to Dec. 1 in order to give parties more time to weigh in.

SOURCE





“Greenhouse Gases” DO Have A Profound Effect On The Climate

The article below by Carl Brehmer is very comprehensive so is rather long.  Carl makes all his points very well however so I have reproduced it in full

“Greenhouse gases” have a profound effect on the climate as can be seen in every climate system that has a high concentration of water vapor (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2)—the two “most potent ‘greenhouse gases’”. Here are some photos:



The climate change that water vapor brings, far from being catastrophic, is quite the opposite. Water vapor brings an otherwise dead biosphere to life and makes it lush and green and, as we will see, even cools it down somewhat. What about carbon dioxide? Take a look:


 It is such a scientific certainty that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide promote robust plant growth that commercial gardeners pump carbon dioxide into their greenhouses up to levels > 3 times higher than is currently present in the open atmosphere.

“In general, carbon dioxide supplementation of 1,000 ppm during the day when vents are closed is recommended [to bring the total concentration up to 1,300.]”Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

If we were to look at pictures that compare the Arabian Desert to Bangladesh or the Nairobi Desert to the Congo the result would be the same. It is incontrovertible that water vapor and carbon dioxide bring life into a climate system as can be seen in the lush eco-systems of New Zealand, Bangladesh and the Congo compared to the deserts in Nevada, Saudi Arabia and Nairobi and it is no mystery as to why.

Water vapor in high enough concentrations condenses into clouds, which produce rain that drenches the soil. Plants, using the sun’s energy, pull carbon dioxide out of the air and water out of the soil to create carbohydrates and oxygen—the food that animals eat and the air that they breathe.

Photosynthesis:

6CO2 + 6H2O +(Sun)light energy -----> C6H12O6 + 6O2

Where: CO2 = carbon dioxide

H2O = water

C6H12O6 = carbohydrate

O2 = oxygen

The “carbo” in carbohydrate comes from the word “carbon”—the base element of the food chain. That is why the flora and fauna of the eco-system of which we are a part are called “carbon-based” life forms. In Mass. vs. EPA (2007) the US Supreme Court bizarrely decided to call carbon dioxide—the foundation of all organic life—a pollutant!

The fact is, what makes a desert devoid of abundant life is not its temperature; rather it is a lack of a sufficient quantity of water vapor—referred to by the IPCC in its AR5 report as “the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.” Without sufficient water vapor in the air clouds cannot form and without clouds there is no rain.

Here is a picture of the Raven Golf Course in Phoenix, Arizona. To compensate for the Arizona desert’s lack of the “greenhouse gas” called water vapor and the consequent inadequate rainfall, the golf course installed an elaborate sprinkler system. As you can see, with adequate water available the temperature becomes irrelevant and the desert comes alive.



Of course you already know all of this because you learned about photosynthesis in elementary school and you have experience the life-giving affect of humidity within your own climate system.

You already know that without sufficient water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the entire land-based Eco-system of the Earth would die—without water vapor and carbon dioxide all plant life would die and without plant produced carbohydrates to eat and plant produced oxygen to breathe all animal life would die as well.

In the face of the incontrovertible truth that these two potent “greenhouse gases” bring profoundly beneficial changes to climate systems worldwide, one is puzzled by the conclusion drawn by the IPCC in its recent AR5 report.

On the IPCC web site there is a video called Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis and in this video Thomas Stocker, a climate modeler and Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I, makes this odd statement, “ . . . continued ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions cause further climate change . . . Therefore we conclude limiting climate change requires substantial and sustained reductions in “greenhouse gas” emissions.” Based on the actual “climate change” that water vapor and carbon dioxide cause in the real world what he is actually saying is, “ . . . continued ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions cause further [proliferation of plant and animal life] . . . Therefore we conclude limiting [this proliferation] requires substantial and sustained reductions in [the] emission [of the airborne plant fertilizer carbon dioxide in the hopes that this will reduce the amount of water vapor that is available for photosynthesis].”

Why on Earth would anyone want to limit the proliferation of plant and animal life? How can the IPCC on the one hand claim to be concerned about the Earth’s biosphere yet on the other hand intend to limit the concentration of the two gases that give it life, i.e., carbon dioxide and water vapor?

If you dig into the AR5 report you find that the premise upon which this life-destroying policy recommendation is based is the notion that these “greenhouse gases” threaten to cause catastrophic global warming of which 66-75% is projected to come from water vapor. “Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. The contribution of water vapour to the natural greenhouse effect relative to that of carbon dioxide (CO2) depends on the accounting method, but can be considered to be approximately two to three times greater.” (AR5 chapter 8, FAQ 8.1)

There is simply no way around the fact that all of the IPCC’s prophecies of doom about the coming climate catastrophe are dependent upon the warming that they expect to happen because of an increase in global humidity, because of what they call “positive water vapor feedback”. So, when you hear a prediction that the Earth’s temperature might be 4 °C warmer by the end of the 21st century, know that 3 °C of that projected warming is expected to be the doing of humidity, i.e., water vapor. They are quite literally asserting that higher levels of global humidity will cause irreparable damage to the Earth’s ecosystems along with “substantial species extinction!” “Global climate change risks are high to very high . . . and include . . . substantial species extinction.” IPCC, AR5

Can one conceive of any notion that is more disconnected from reality than the idea that an increase in global humidity will cause “substantial species extinction” when one can see with ones own eyes that those climate systems that are the most humid are also the climate systems that have the most abundant and diverse life?

Let’s take a look at the effect that humidity actually has on the global climate systems:



 This is a picture of the correlation that exists between high humidity and abundant life within the various climate systems around the globe. Where ever the humidity is high life flourishes in abundant diversity. Wherever the humidity is low life struggles to exist. The IPCC would have you not believe your own eyes, but rather believe them when they tell you that higher global humidity levels, “the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere,” threatens to kill almost everything unless we do what they say.

And what is it that they say we must do? Primarily abandon using fire as an energy source, i.e. stop “burning” hydrocarbons, because doing so produces the potent airborne plant fertilizer called carbon dioxide. They have issued this global command even though they acknowledge “there is a wide range of possible adverse side-effects . . . from climate policy that have not been well-quantified.” IPCC, AR5

Imagine that!

* Your impoverishment is just a “side-effect” of their climate policy.

* Your loss of dependable, low cost electricity is just a “side-effect” of their climate policy.

* Your loss of independent travel in a private vehicle is just a “side-effect” of their climate policy.

* Your loss of plentiful food to eat is just a “side-effect” of their climate policy (most agricultural production in the world today requires the use of hydrocarbon energy; beyond that enough food is currently being converted to biofuels to feed tens of millions of people each year.)

* Your inability to continue heating your home in the winter and air-conditioning it in the summer is just a “side-effect” of their climate policy.

* Your loss of dependable modern health care is just a “side-effect” of their climate policy (modern hospitals are dependant upon the stable electrical grid that burning hydrocarbons provide.)

* Therefore, the likelihood that you will die younger is just a “side-effect” of their climate policy.

This, of course, would be just all right with some of the leading advocates of the IPCC’s “climate policy”.

Ted Turner, ”There are too many people; that's why we have global warming.”

     David Rockefeller laments the 20th century drop in the infant mortality rate and the increase in life expectancy because these have resulted in “over population”. ”The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary eco-systems is becoming appallingly evident.”

     David Attenborough, ”Today we are living in an era where the biggest threat to human well being, to other species and to the earth as we know it might well be ourselves . . . Human population density is [at the root] of every environmental problem that I have encountered [including] the relentless increase in atmospheric pollution [i.e., carbon dioxide].”

    In the paper Too Many People: Earth’s Population Problem the group Population Matters wrote, ”At a 1990 per capita emission rate of about four tones of carbon dioxide per person per year, the world's theoretically environmentally optimum population level would not be much higher than two billion, living at an average 1990 lifestyle, in order to stabilize carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.”  ”to reduce climate impacts it helps to reduce the number of climate changers.”

So there you have it.

In the eyes of the advocates of the IPCC’s “climate policy” your children and grandchildren are no longer “human beings”; they are just little “climate changers” and it would have been better for the Earth if they had not been born.  What is most unsettling is that your little “climate changers” only have less than a 30% chance of surviving the population reduction that needs to occur to ”stabilize carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere!”

The truly strange thing about the superstitious belief that water vapor causes global warming is that it is contrary to observed reality. Not only do higher levels of humidity bring more abundant and more diverse life to the biosphere, the mean temperature in very humid climates is predictably lower than it is in very arid climates along the same latitude. It is an observed phenomenon that when nature takes the moisture out of the air, either in a desert or during a drought, the mean air temperature goes up—not down! As such “heat waves” are most often associated with droughts rather than with periods of high humidity.

1) The Great North American heatwave of 1936 was brought on by the “Dust Bowl” drought that “came in three waves, 1934, 1936, and 1939–40, but some regions of the High Plains experienced drought conditions for as many as eight years.” “Drought: A Paleo Perspective – 20th Century Drought”, National Climatic Data Center

2) Marble Bar heatwave, 1923-24: “In the summer of 1923-1924 the monsoon stayed further north and no cyclones occurred anywhere in Australia that year, a truly unusual year. During its record-breaking heat wave only 79 mm of rain fell on Marble Bar in the form of 2 brief storms, and only 12 mm of rain fell before the next wet season began in December of 1924. The tropical section of Western Australia experienced a severe drought in 1924, with no cloud cover to relieve the seemingly endless days of extreme heat.” Australia: The Land Where Time Began

All that one has to do to observe this reality is to go outside and take a look at actual, real-world temperature vs. humidity readings:



All of the above graphs were produced by simply looking at publicly available temperature and humidity readings and as you can see the presence of water within a climate system cools it down via well-established and thoroughly studied processes such as latent heat transfer, increased albedo from the increased cloud cover, enhanced intra-atmospheric radiative heat transfer, the cooling affect of precipitation, a lowering of the lapse rate, etc.

For example, northern Arizona where I live has a dry season and a wet season. In June when the humidity is very low the temperature is very high. In July when the “Monsoons” come the humidity goes up sharply. Not only does this result in a marked drop in daily mean temperatures, it also causes the countryside to turn green—a welcome climate change indeed!

Let’s be clear, it is not that water vapor doesn’t cause as much warming of surface-level air temperatures as the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis predicts—it causes zero warming of surface level air temperatures and is actually associated with lower temperatures and quite literally causes deserts to bloom! Why on Earth would the IPCC want to demonize this “water of life” by suggesting that if global humidity levels rise irreparable damage will be done to the biosphere?

The fact is, the only places where water vapor causes a 22-25 °C temperature increase in the global surface-level air temperatures by causing a “greenhouse effect” is within the imagination of certain people, within computer models, within certain peer-reviewed scientific papers and within IPCC Assessment Reports.

In the real world, no such water vapor mediated warming exists (very high confidence).

SOURCE

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

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

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