Global warming theory fails again
It is a tenet of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory (CAGW) that our carbon dioxide emissions are the major cause of recent global warming. Although carbon dioxide is a very weak greenhouse gas, CAGW theory holds that it is enough to start the warming process which, in turn, evaporates water, and water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas. CAGW proponents ignore the fact that more water vapor in the air produces clouds which block the sun (more on that below).
It follows from CAGW doctrine that more carbon dioxide emissions should increase the humidity of the air, thus establishing an enhanced greenhouse effect. Is that happening?
A new paper, Trends in U.S. surface humidity, 1930 – 2010, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, finds just the opposite: “Average long-term trends (1930 – 2010) indicate that temperature has warmed, but little change has occurred in dewpoint and specific humidity.” In other words, the mechanism for CAGW’s enhanced greenhouse effect is not happening according to observational data.
How, then, do we account for warming in the 20th Century? Back in 2005, Dr. Roy Spencer published a book: “The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists” (see my review here). In that book Spencer proposed that “The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.” Could such a small change in cloud cover be significant?
A new paper just published in the Journal of Climate finds that global cloudiness has decreased over the past 39 years from between 0.9 to 2.8% by continent. See graphs and a discussion of the paper at WUWT here.
The first paper falsifies the major CAGW tenet; carbon dioxide has been increasing but there has been no increase in humidity. The second paper provides confirmation of a natural control of global temperatures.
For a more detailed discussion of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide see here. “Examination of Earth’s climate sensitivity by varied derivation reveals climate to be remarkably insensitive to changes in forcing from enhanced greenhouse effect.” “Evaluation of Earth’s natural greenhouse effect reveals forcing response to be considerably less than line by line spectral radiance evaluation would suggest. Net feedbacks are found to be negative.”

Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.

Comments
Quote:
― Richard P. Feynman
There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. All allegations thereof are based on mere supposition. Never once has any proof been proferred which actually points out the presumed greenhouse effect.
Look up the thermal infrared spectrography curves of all the supposed reenhouse gases as well as nitrogen, oxygen and argon. They are virtually identical while water vapor is conspicuously opaque. The only logical conclusion therefrom is that either all constituent gases of the atmosphere are greenhouse gases or only water vapor is.
Greenhouse gasses are supposed to trap the heat from sunlight. Yet daytime temps are higher in the dry deserts.
From the National Academy of Sciences: The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7%.
As you can see this "harmless trace gas, CO2, packs quite a wallop.
They could always take a page from the Hockey Stick teams playbook and graft on some "Real" temperatures to "Hide the Decline". Mike's Nature Hat Trick!
The IPCC Claim is pure BS.
Do you have any idea what you are trying to show?
What it does SHOW is your claim that there is was a fraudulent adjustment to solar irradiance by Lean and Fröhlich.
This lead to the BS claim that the sun cannot explain observations, or as you claim that. "That is when the lines begin to diverge (temperature continues to climb as the sun goes into a quiet cycle)." The sun never went into a quiet cycle, the data was "Adjusted" to look like it did.
When the correct solar data is used there is no divergance as you know full well Comrade drewski. www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKOvszg8PXc www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp0Bjxensd0&feature=related
Simply read the letters of protest posted here and stop lying. www.klimaskeptik.cz/news/judithgate-ipcc-consensus-was-only-one-physicist/
I show you information from the highest scientific body in the US (arguably the world) and it is my mind is closed and I am the one with "religion"?!?
The Japanese have a word for your condition, unfortunately, I can't post the characters for it.
Regarding the carbon tax: It is a tax on the 400 odd largest polluters in Australia where they pay a price for being inefficient -- become efficient and you don't have to pay. Since anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 of all power is lost through inefficiency, sounds reasonable to me. BTW, isn't it amazing how few controversies have arisen re: the Carbon Tax in the 2 months it has been in practice? It appears the Coalition Party's scare tactics were just wishful dreaming on their part.
Really?
Oh yeah. Wait. Wikipedia is better.
Read what they say about CO2 and learn.
Could there be something happening in the world today that is even more threatening to life and liberty than Islam and its jihad?
There could be, there is, and its name is Agenda 21.
It emanates from that powerhouse of evil, the United Nations. It was initiated and is driven by votaries of a dark mysticism."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
You say that there is no proof that petroleum is a fossil fuel and the green house effect doesn't exist?
I think you will fit right in with Joker and Gator.