‘wasted wind’)

Sd is temperature, it's the same units as the data. . sd is sqrt variance . sd was actually 1 degC I misread. 2C is +/- 1 sigma.

The average is over 92 days== summer.. The sd is therefore about 9.5C assuming 1 measurement per day . The numbers sort of tie up except the distribution is skewed upwards ; it's not Gaussian. Otherwise there would be the same chance of getting frost as it getting above 30C.

Fun eh ?

Brian

I did a bit of digging a few weeks ago, and I discovered that the global warming claim for CO2 is because it blocks certain wavelengths of infrared from escaping into space. The same source of information also pointed out that water vapour also blocks a range of wavelengths of infrared, spanning and a bit wider than the range that CO2 blocks. There is many times as much water vapour than there is CO2 in the atmosphere. It varies by location from almost zero across the polar ice to maxima over rain forests, but the global average is at least 10 times as much as CO2. So even if the amount of CO2 doubles it would make only an insignificant contribution to global warming yet it would considerably improve crop yields.

The reason why CO2 was made the villain is because humans can do nothing about water vapour but they can be blamed for CO2; and that power allows governments to impose "green" taxes or legislate controls on behaviour and have the mugs who pay for it happy to do so to save the planet.

The initial trigger was a mathematical model which got named the hockey stick graph because it predicted runaway temperature increases in the future and that prediction section looked similar to a hockey stick. The other (attempted to be suppressed by the IPCC but it had been leaked) thing I found out was a doubtful scientist who managed to get some research time on the model discovered that there was a fault in the calculation process and it didn't matter what data he fed in, even different sets of completely random numbers, the output was always exactly the same. The whole global warming fiasco has been based on faulty arithmetic. The IPCC timescale was the change since the Industrial Revolution, so about 200 years or so, which is far too short to recognise that climate changes recur to a pattern. I found a scientific report from 1995, updating previous research in 1969, which shows that the pattern of change since the Industrial Revolution is almost identical to the pattern of change from 8000 years earlier. This is roughly the time when humans migrated from hunter gatherers to a crop growing agrarian existence, so they can't be blamed for global warming.

The reason why we have expensive electricity is because this country bases the cost per unit of electricity on the cost per kilowatt of natural gas on the open market. Until they change that link, the actual cost of generating the electricity will remain irrelevant.

I have been reading "The politically incorrect book on climate change" and the author's observations include that if you want to write something that provides some endorsement of the AGW cause of climate change there are grants to be had, and if you want to write something that denies the AGW contribution, you not only won't receive funding but you won't get your output published in any recognised way.

I agree that publishing against *that* grain would be more difficult. IM(limited)E you won't see academics using the term AGW. It's more likely to be climate 'change' than warming, and the anthropogenic bit is more equivocal, as a necessary but not sufficient part of the equation explaining climate change.

In other words, academics can publish what they find while sitting on the fence in terms of an absolute position on AGW. Very little research gives yes/no conclusions. Most of the time it's 'more research needed'.

On that book, take a look at the 3 star Amazon reviews. A similar book I've read selectively:

As mentioned in another post, it's climate change and the impact of fossil fuels and other human activity. And it's not just CO2.

I gather elsewhere in this thread that climate science can be reduced to extrapolating from select data and basic calculations most children could perform. No knowledge of climate science is needed. The whole discussion is pretty much context free, much as you present it. And as suggested elsewhere, I don't agree. For example:

Indeed. As I say, a market driven and fossil-oriented system which needs to change.

That is not correct. The cost of gas is about 1/4 the price of renewable energy

Indeed. Our plant is absolutely regulated somewhat between the freezing point of water and the boiling point of water by the massive amounts of latent heat involved in the phase transitions. Models try and take water vapours into account but modelling clouds is all but impossible. So the 'parametrise' cloud cover and assume it stays constant.

Of course then the one thing they claim that AGW will do is affect atmospheric moisture and rainfall.

And multiply the effect of any CO2 involvement.

Whether CO2 is causing global warming or not remains in doubt, but one thing is certain The models are complete and utter bollocks.

Indeed, Man made global warming turned out to be a most convenient lie.

Absolutely.

Academics who disagree, keep their mouths shut if they want to keep their jobs.

Judith Curry, lost her job Ralph Lindzen is in a hard place.

Not according to this:

Again/as usual, do you have anything to back up your figures? Or is it generated from your own special maths? Or your 2012 figures (when admittedly you'd have been ballpark correct)?

Itrs written at te bottom of my electricity bills.

Cost of natural gas - around 4p/kWh Cost of electricity generated by natural gas at 60% efficiency - around

Cost of renewable electricity on my bill 20p/kWh. Plus green taxes and subsidy costs.

Renewables are, like Nuclear , utterly dependent on the cost of capital to build them. Government subsidised 3% lending rates halve the cost compared to a commercial bond for nuclear at 7.5%. Seen as a far higher risk because governments can and has shut them down without warning on a political whim.

That page contains this: “Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, but because the warming ocean increases the amount of it in our atmosphere, it is not a direct cause of climate change”.

So the increases in the dominant greenhouse gas are “not a direct cause of climate change”, but increased levels of a trace gas are, so we are told, catastrophic for the planet.

Apart from this unexplained phenomenon, also unexplained is the claim that increasing temperatures causes increasing levels of atmospheric water-vapour from the oceans, but that that isn’t a direct cause of climate change.

Unless there is further explanation somewhere, the statement quoted above is scientifically incorrect.

Perhaps you could explain this.

I read a paper -a pretty good paper - in which they used the emissions of ash and aerosols from IIRC mt Pinatubo to accurately show that the difference in insolation used to calculate man made climate change corresponded to the Mt Pinatubo data.

Ignoring any 'positive feedback' They then *applied* the 'positive feedback' to the man made data to justify the scaryShit™

As massive a piece of straight DoubleThink as I have ever seen.,

Oh well yes, even I know that. The question was related to costs of generation.

The answer AIUI is that water vapour doesn't trap warmth anything like as much as methane, CO2, NO, or CFCs. Water vapour is still a contributory factor, though. It is still a greenhouse effect gas.

You can read more about it in the context of CO2 (not the most malign), here:

I think you will find that that is manifestly incorrect

According to AI, I am (for once) spot on:

Hypothesis: water vapour doesn't trap warmth anything like as much as methane, CO2, NO, or CFCs

You're absolutely right that water vapor has a much lower warming potential per molecule compared to those other greenhouse gases. The key differences are:

Molecular absorption strength: Methane is about 25-30 times more potent than CO2 over a 100-year period, while nitrous oxide (N2O) is roughly 300 times more potent, and some CFCs can be thousands of times more effective at trapping heat than CO2 on a per-molecule basis.

Atmospheric behavior: Water vapor also behaves very differently - it cycles through the atmosphere in days to weeks through evaporation and precipitation, while CO2 can persist for centuries, methane for about a decade, and some CFCs for decades to over a century.

Feedback vs. forcing: Water vapor acts more as a feedback mechanism - warmer air holds more moisture, which then amplifies warming. The other gases you mentioned are considered "forcing agents" that directly drive temperature changes through human activities.

Spectral absorption: While water vapor does absorb infrared radiation, it has some gaps in its absorption spectrum where other greenhouse gases are particularly effective, especially in the atmospheric "window" regions.

So while water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas by volume, you're correct that these other gases punch well above their weight in terms of their warming effect per molecule and their role in driving climate change.

That’s a statement that has no scientific meaning, as you are using undefined terms.

I want to know why increases in atmospheric water vapour, the dominant greenhouse gas, do not result in climate change. Your NASA quote says this is so.

As you have advanced NASA’s statement, would you kindly explain it.

Let’s get the NASA claim about increases in water vapour not causing increases in climate change out of the way. After all, you asked “Is there anything on that page which is incorrect?” and I have put forward one major concern, and it is now up to you to respond appropriately.

OFFS.

The concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is about 100x that of CO2.

If it was only 10% as effective as an absorber as your favourite bête noir, it would still have TEN TIMES THE EFFECT.

You’ve been deceived by a simple sleight of hand.

ICBA to pick holes in the rest of the AI claptrap.

Between about 6 and 10, actually.

Depends which you think my favourite is, I suppose. But only if you get the basic understanding correct in the first place.

You seem to think you understand climate science pretty much completely. It would have been far better if you'd revealed that fact at the beginning of this thread. rather than saying it's 'basic maths'.

Of course, far too much effort.