"a major discrepancy between observation-based and climate model-based historical trends in near-surface atmospheric water vapor in arid and semi-arid regions.” Models are not even close to predicting reality. AGW is an artifact of unfit models, lets plan our whole society on a fever dream!
I was expecting this to be about water vapor being a lifting gas. With two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, a water molecule weight 1+1+16 = 18. But for nitrogen the calculation is 14+14 = 28 and for oxygen 16+16 = 32.
To see the implications, picture a hot air balloon with the air heated to 200°C. If it were steam instead of air, the gas would weigh about half as much and the balloon would generate much more lift.
Now worry about humidity and wet bulb temperatures and whether people will die when the heat and humidity get too much. The neglected issue is the water vapor is lighter than air and tends to rise, so the feared problem of high humidity at ground level goes away, literally up into the sky.
I've read stuff about climate models being wrong because they ignore water vapor being a lifting gas. This strange article doesn't mention water vapor being a lifting gas, but the issue it discusses is humidity failing to increase like the models say it should, which is exactly what you expect to see if the models ignore that the water vapor is rising up and away from where humidity is being measured.
A new study published in PNAS has demonstrated, once again, that climate models fail to simulate what happens in the real world with regard to fundamental climate change variables like water vapor."
It's handy when they can start from a conclusion of what government policies they want to see implemented and which direction they want to influence public opinion and then just work backwards from there.
Then it doesn't matter WHAT the "data" says. They'll just lie about it anway, cherry-pick and/or "adjust" the dataset to support them and keep right on going.
Trying to inform the public of the truth and arguing the facts just gets you on a DHS watchlist for "disinformation" or "misinformation" which is now equated with terrorism.
Pointing out the globohomopedo's fallacies is the same as blowing up buildings and killing children.
Unless you're israel. Then it's okay. Because holohoax.
[ + ] happytoes
[ - ] happytoes 0 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2024 11:17:12 ago (+0/-0)
To see the implications, picture a hot air balloon with the air heated to 200°C. If it were steam instead of air, the gas would weigh about half as much and the balloon would generate much more lift.
Now worry about humidity and wet bulb temperatures and whether people will die when the heat and humidity get too much. The neglected issue is the water vapor is lighter than air and tends to rise, so the feared problem of high humidity at ground level goes away, literally up into the sky.
I've read stuff about climate models being wrong because they ignore water vapor being a lifting gas. This strange article doesn't mention water vapor being a lifting gas, but the issue it discusses is humidity failing to increase like the models say it should, which is exactly what you expect to see if the models ignore that the water vapor is rising up and away from where humidity is being measured.
[ + ] BulletStopper
[ - ] BulletStopper 0 points 2 monthsFeb 19, 2024 23:21:18 ago (+0/-0)*
It's handy when they can start from a conclusion of what government policies they want to see implemented and which direction they want to influence public opinion and then just work backwards from there.
Then it doesn't matter WHAT the "data" says. They'll just lie about it anway, cherry-pick and/or "adjust" the dataset to support them and keep right on going.
Trying to inform the public of the truth and arguing the facts just gets you on a DHS watchlist for "disinformation" or "misinformation" which is now equated with terrorism.
Pointing out the globohomopedo's fallacies is the same as blowing up buildings and killing children.
Unless you're israel. Then it's okay. Because holohoax.