British scientists discovered that as it is warmer so it is more humid. Water vapor is a harmful GHG. If you are making a bundle, a living, or just taking the mickey with alarmism you don't want it to stop do you?
As we know, they got it wrong on ozone. In further support of that statement, this CO2Science article explains how the basis for the Montreal Protocol is very likely wrong.
The world is in crisis. Paris, Steven Chu et al, 'Lighting the Way: Toward A Sustainable Energy Future', a deeply dogmatic tome was announced. In it, worthies from several nations reaffirm their beliefs and show the direction to wave feathers. They ignore the fact that;
a) Global warming stopped.
b) C02 is insignificant to temperature, (expect research to be released indicating it may be a stabilizing or even a cooling influence).
c) There is NO viable alternative to coal, nat-gas or oil for the foreseeable future. Biofuel produces significantly more harmful GHGs than coal or oil.
Energy. A whole-world electricity grid would be useful. Future nuclear, say 90 years hence, may provide up to 20% but likely around 15% of needs due to population growth and difficulty in building, fueling and staffing reactors. Current level stands at around 5% of primary energy. Biofuels are proving increasingly disastrous both to climate and to the market. We have to work with what we have and it is a lot easier, cheaper and environmentally friendlier to clean combusted coal and oil fumes than to grow a cob of corn and turn it into fuel. More information on the negativity of ethanol can be found at this site, NCPA. Other forms, windfarms and so forth, are insignificant and have their own set of problems. The USA has more oil in shale than all of the Middle East put together. It is cheaper to extract it than to produce subsidized ethanol, but costlier than oil imports. They also have truly vast coal reserves, enough for 200-400 years.
Regardless of co2, global warming stopped in 1998, everybody, even the Hadley set, who eventually publicly announced it, admit it. The main contentions of the alarmists still don't bear up. Co2 does not drive warming. It has been proved. Co2 levels keep increasing while the temperature has doggedly refused to follow. Co2 is good for crops. Co2 is driving biomass recovery from the last cold spell.
The climate is not static, never has been, never will be. The hockey stick has been discredited and findings continue to support a continuously variable climate. My favorite study is from the Swiss Alps: "Taken over the last 10,000 years this means that, for more than half that period, the glaciers were shorter than they are today.“ In other words, since the last ice age our glaciers have rarely been as extended as they are today.
Moreover, Schlüchter draws another conclusion from the results: "Between 1900 and 2300 years ago the lower tips of the glaciers lay at least 300 metres higher than today." From Ethlife. Alarmists would not dream of funding similar research in the melting Glacier Park.
There are proofs around the world, cores, tree rings etc., from as far afield as New Zealand confirming the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. Climate Audit did a good job pointing this out to the IPCC scientists and continues to mock their deceptive efforts.
Our warmer climate is proving increasingly beneficial, just as in the MWP. Warming is not harmful. The policy advisers and makers and the media are keeping a very tight lid on good news but accidental slips occur like the rice news. Antarctica is stable. It is the main safety valve for temperature. The Arctic ice will vanish if the pleasantly warmer climate persists. It is irrelevant to humans in the timescales required to melt it. Greenland can already grow cauliflower again. Polar bears like cauliflower.
Via Yahoo, rice yields have increased in China according to the International Rice Research Institute. Burn coal, increase rice yields. The Chinese are inscrutable. They profit from burning coal. And we pay them to do it.
Quote: Oceans are losing their ability to absorb co2.
This twaddle, (data from a banana boat) may not be contested because it is another 'god exists, no he doesn't' argument. The oceans are dynamic, the currents circulate horizontally and vertically. What you have on top came from below, the round trip taking perhaps 1000 years. Carbon based life in the oceans is dependent on food supply. More co2 means more food. More fish. Coral reefs are made of calcium, the carbon element coming from co2. More co2 means more coral. 100 years from now, the land available to farming is highly likely to be greatly insufficient to feed the world. The sea is the next big food producer. It is from the sea that the food deficit will be met. Fertilizing it now with co2 in preparation for increased harvesting is a good move.
Footnote on energy: Solar panels fitted to homes may be harming the environment more than conventional sources of energy, according to a study by Greek scientists, reported by the Newscotsman in August.
A review of the book 'The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won’t Run the World' (second edition) by Howard C. Hayden is worth reading. Here.
Recommended to visit to understand a very real problem: oil shortage. Yet another case of the media letting us down, as has become the norm or perhaps they know something we don't? Not another oil scare.
And the latest from CO2 Science here.