A place for discussion.
5
1
vote
Article Rating
Open Thread
A place for discussion.
2 Comments
August 23, 2026 2:11 am
Negligible.
That is the word the EPA used properly in the 2009 “Endangerment Finding” to describe the potential influence of human emissions of water vapor to cause or contribute to harmful warming.
“Direct anthropogenic emissions of water vapor, in general, have a negligible effect and are thus not considered a primary driver of human-induced climate change.”
“Water produced as a byproduct of combustion at low altitudes has a negligible contribution to climate change. The residence time of water vapor is very short (days) and the water content of the air in the long term is a function of temperature and partial pressure, with emissions playing no role.”
What physical processes are involved in making the “residence time” of water vapor so short? Within the general circulation, rising air within low pressure weather systems promotes precipitation, as expansion cooling drives condensation. And localized convective weather, with its high rates of rainfall, demonstrates the power intensity with which water vapor is rejected back to the surface so readily.
In other words, it was recognized that the energy conversion performance of the atmosphere (i.e., as latent energy is converted to internal energy during precipitation events) makes it characteristically insensitive to human emissions of water vapor. Negligible risk of harm.
With the same energy conversion performance within the general circulation, the atmosphere must also be characteristically insensitive to the computed “warming” tendency from emissions of CO2 and the other “well mixed greenhouse gases.” But EPA nevertheless held emissions of these trace gases to cause or contribute to harmful trends. This is a fundamental contradiction, which I encourage skeptics of climate alarm to more fully appreciate.
This is why I keep posting about the “vertical integral of energy conversion” values from ERA5. The plots demonstrate the inconsistency of claiming that emissions of CO2 are capable of exerting a harmful influence on climate trends while emissions of H2O are considered harmless. Logically, both have negligible influence on the climate system, for the same primary physical reason – the energy conversion performance of the atmosphere as the compressible working fluid of its own circulation.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=drive_link
Thank you for your patient attention to this matter.
P.S. The claim that the “forcing” from emissions of CO2 must be expected to produce an amplifying water vapor “feedback” is also inconsistent for the same reason.
August 23, 2026 2:47 am
The EUSSR never accepted the Brexit vote and neither have the traitor Parliaments since 2016. This Parliament led by Labour is surreptitiously ‘increasingly aligning’ us with the EU – a member in the sense of being a rule taker, not a rule maker. Prior to Brexit we could at least make the rules. That’s how insanely wedded – desperate to be in it – they are.
One avenue back is the Erasmus+ scheme: “Erasmus+ is the EU’s programme for education, training, youth, and sport, designed to support international mobility and cooperation among students and staff across Europe.”
A controversial EU education programme could see British schoolchildren staging “climate walkouts” and studying woke rewrites of classic fairytales.
The lesson plans form part of the Erasmus+ student exchange scheme, which will cost the UK £570million in its first year alone. Labour is bringing Britain into the programme, which features revised versions of traditional stories – which have been stripped of “any gender assumptions, ageism, racism or disablism”.
The Department for Education points teachers and youth providers towards the plans but insists this does not amount to an endorsement. One Government-approved provider confirmed the programme, expected to launch in 2027, carries a “strong emphasis on inclusion and diversity”. – GBN
This does not bode well for science. Cambridge, post Arday debacle, refuses to accept the obvious and claim the media was the vicious assassin of a great and noble scholar.
Arday was a superhuman
..repeatedly described running 30 marathons in 35 days—some with a fractured leg—and covering 600 miles in six days or 300 miles in three days, claiming these efforts helped raise more than £5 million for charity.
…assertion that he was non-verbal until age 11 and learned to read only as a young adult was also challenged by some former schoolmates who recalled a chatty, joke-cracking child. Other details, including certain visiting professorships and a claimed book publication, were disputed or withdrawn. Arday maintained he was not inventing stories and that no one keeps receipts for every claim in life.
Professor Arday’s claim that he could not read or write until age 18 is contradicted by his own information that he passed two GCSE exams at school in PE and textiles. Now part of those examinations is practical work but there are also written papers.
So, he could joke and at least write his name. He could also string the egg-head intellectuals along, quite easily it seems and now they are falling back on the only card they have to play –
Cambridge chancellor criticises ‘racist feeding frenzy’ around Jason Arday – BBC
The dumbing down and infantilisation is proceeding – as they say – at great pace.
