Quote of the Week

what a thing to say

“Water vapour in our stratosphere can act as a very powerful greenhouse gas… water is a by-product of methane breakdown… water vapour arising from high-flying aircraft may be an important source of stratospheric water.”

At Greenhouse Gas Online we find information on greenhouse gases which disregards water vapour in an approach unencumbered with scientific principles.

Water vapour in our stratosphere can act as a very powerful greenhouse gas. The amounts of water vapour in our stratosphere are mainly controlled by the earths overall climate. However, some other significant sources exist.

As described in the methane section, water is a by-product of methane breakdown in the atmosphere. Additionally, the water vapour arising from high flying aircraft may be an important source of stratospheric water, particularly in the future with increased global air travel.

Ah, so that’s it. First, water vapour can be a powerful greenhouse gas, but only in the stratosphere. We must beware of stratospheric water vapour, which is created from the breakdown of methane and by flying aircraft.

Kids, don’t bring your homework to this site.

Hockey sticks beware – dendro rulz!

A new study shows modern temperatures are not unprecedented and disproves an important part of Mann’s “hockey stick” paper of 1999.

Orbital forcing of tree-ring data, J. Esper et al., says:

“… large-scale near-surface air-temperature reconstructions [specifically the hockey stick] relying on tree-ring data may underestimate pre-instrumental temperatures including warmth during Medieval and Roman times.”

This is beautiful.

The CO2 wasn’t absorbing! Nek minute…

When the Herald reported that an “‘Abrupt increase’ in CO2 absorption slowed global warming” the first question it raised was what sort of increase was an extra “one billion tonnes of carbon per year”. It said:

The earth would have warmed faster in the last two decades had there not been an unexplained rise in the amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed on land, scientists believe.

Fortunately, Jo Nova and David Evans have commented. David describes the billion tonnes of carbon as insignificant. Jo mocks the implication that our selfish warming would have been worse without this previously unknown factor. Continue Reading →