The 'consensus' narrative starts off with statements like this by the BBC:
Solar energy radiating back to space from the Earth's surface is absorbed by greenhouse gases and re-emitted in all directions. This heats both the lower atmosphere and the surface of the planet. Without this effect, the Earth would be about 30C colder and hostile to life.
There is - on average - fifty times as much H2O in the atmosphere, and H2O re-emits infra red at many more frequencies than CO2. Nonetheless, the consensus is that CO2 contributes about one-tenth of the total 30C 'greenhouse effect' = 3C. Therefore, most of the rest, is due to H2O = 27C.
We can't magic away all the CO2 to see how much temperatures would fall, but H2O levels vary a lot. So we could take two cities at the same latitude (so they get the same amount of sun), one with high average relative humidity and one with low average relative humidity and compare average day and night time temperatures.
If the consensus narrative is correct, you would expect the humid city to be a bit warmer in the day time and a lot warmer in the night time. That's easily testable - I looked up the relevant figures for Bangkok (72% average relative humidity) and Khartoum (29% average relative humidity).
To my surprise, average day and night time temperatures are more or less the same in both - daytime highs +/-34C and nighttime lows +/- 24C.
Ho hum. So where's the evidence of the missing 27C? Somebody? Anybody?
Debate Magazine
