Government Announces Money For Green Jobs, Training From Stimulus Package

DENVER — Vice President Joe Biden and two Cabinet secretaries unveiled a national program Tuesday to train workers for "green jobs" that will make public housing more energy-efficient.

Biden, Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis announced the plan in Denver at a meeting of President Barack Obama's task force on the middle class.

Donovan said some of the $4 billion from Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus plan that was budgeted to renovate public housing will be spent to create jobs for making the dwellings more energy efficient.

Solis, another task force member, said $500 million will be distributed as grants for training workers. That sum includes $50 million for communities battered by job losses and restructuring in the auto industry.

Investing in public housing will improve its quality, reduce energy costs for residents and the government and create jobs for people who live in the units and their neighbors, Donovan said. Some of the stimulus money also will be used for basic repairs and maintenance.

The energy, education and labor departments also announced a partnership to help link the unemployed with jobs, training and education opportunities.

Led by Biden, the task force has been working since January on policies to help America's middle class. A report it released in February said green jobs pay up to 20 percent more than other jobs and can't easily be transferred overseas.

Obama has argued that putting an environmental focus on the economy _ reducing dependence on foreign fuel, developing domestic energy alternatives and addressing climate change _ can help pull the U.S. out of its worst downturn since the Depression.

Story continues below

advertisement

"How could we possibly lead in the 21st century without a fundamental change in our energy policy?" Biden said Tuesday.

"It necessitates the jobs that will get us there," he added. "Green jobs are good jobs."

___

Associated Press writer Darlene Superville in Washington contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

Middle Class Task Force: http://www.astrongermiddleclass.gov

Comments

[martinfrosa]

Are these the same type of green jobs they developed in Spain where each "green job" cost two regular jobs according to a university study? How does this "help" our economy. Just asking.

[tiredofthesameoldstuff]

Ah that wasn't a university study. It was a paid for study by oil companies that has since been debunked for not using accurate info as well as flawed methodoly.

It not only didn't offer the real number of jobs created as well as that unemployment was reduced as well as goverment revenue drastically increased but how it said jobs were destroyed wasn't detailed nor was there any proof that jobs were actually lost.

Other studies show hundreds of thousands of new jobs created without any jobs being lost. http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/study-forecasts-297000-green-jobs/ this study takes into account such things as manufacturing, equipment, installation, and maintenance, while the Spanish study did not.

Also other studies showed that the green energy program in spain created 188,000 jobs while that study you are citing says only 50,000 were. Those studies counted indirect jobs created so there is an actual net gain.

Also other studies show that by 2025 green jobs could number in the tens of millions say 40 million which is far more then the number of jobs that exist in the world today.

[absolutetruth09]

I don't want to fight ,but I have to know.If the Global Warming debate is unproven each way,why is so important that we can't let the Free Market take care of it,and free our tax money

[mioffe]

Mr. Picken are writing about peak oil production (2005), huge price for oil - $700 billion dollars this year.
Solutions: wind power for electricity, Natural Gas Vehicles for transportation.
Will it work? Of course it will it is working right now in small scale. If we will put billions in these directions it will work in huge scale as huge monuments all around our country for our stupidity and misunderstanding of global warming.

Let look how Picken plan correlates with global warming?

Mr. Picken as many others very famous persons in the world and mass media did not understand role of wind to cool the air. Wind energy evaporates a lot of water from any surfaces of rivers, lakes, seas, and oceans. It evaporates water from the grass, bushes and trees. Any uses of wind energy will reduce these cooling effects of wind.
Kinetic energy of the wind in the atmosphere send hot air from the land or water surface to the high level of atmosphere where it is easy for heat to escape to the space.
Kinetic energy of the wind met the small droplets of water in fog, clouds, and all green vegetables, especially in leaves of trees around all atmospheres on the Earth.

[mioffe]

These processes produce water vapor that invisible greenhouse gas, which always go up to cloud level and cool the Earth better than anything else.
Mr. Picken think that wind power did not produce pollution. It is not true. Production of millions wind turbines, batteries need energy. Electricity from these turbines is also pollutant –heat pollutant. In case when others processes in human activity will add greenhouse gases in the atmosphere any heat sources- wind, or nuclear, or geothermal and many others will increase amount of heat that will heat air and will be reason for global warming.
Any our attempt to produce source of energy without production additional sources of water vapor will heat the atmosphere and increase risk of global warming.

Let look how Picken plan uses energy sources?

Natural Gas Vehicles for transportation need huge investment to change our cars, where real efficiency in most cases will be less than 1%.
We need destroy all power plants and their distribution lines, which right now produce electricity-using energy of natural gas.
If windmills produce electricity we are loosing around 50% of wind energy on resistance of batteries, when we charge them. When we use batteries around 50% of their energy will be loosing when power from batteries will go to customers. Efficiency of this process around 25% in best case.

[mioffe]

If properties of water actually cool the air all green sources of energy (wind, solar cells, geothermal, nuclear) are disaster for environment as heat polluters. Al Gore and scientists who support him gave to Government wrong solutions.

Water vapor is lighter than almost all gases and always going up to clouds level and above where heat more easy escape to space.
It takes 339 kcal of energy to evaporate 1 kg of water.
Water vapor actually cools the air by evaporation of water on ground level, water droplets in atmosphere and by cloud formation.
Droplet of rain will solve GHG and clean the air better than any conservation attempt to reduce emission.
“Why in Hawaii, which close to equator temperature is 70-85º F, while in Texas in summer time 85- 110º F?” Around Hawaii we have a lot of water evaporation.
“Since the Northern Hemisphere contains the greatest proportion of landmass and land heats more than oceans the Northern Hemisphere summer season causes significant increase in the global mean temperature,” It is true because there lack of water, to cool air.
If you will look on this dynamic picture of water vapor droplet of water you will the same as me ignore GHG and more carefully look at properties of water, winds and their role in evaporation, convection forces, changing of reflection of land by human activities (tilling, growing crops for food, building roads etc)

[rf-hawaii]

This is nonsense. Where are your sources?

More likely, just the opposite is true.

[mioffe]

- + rf-hawaii:
“This is nonsense. Where are your sources? More likely, just the opposite is true.”
Dear - + rf-hawaii, I have BS in Physics and read everything about GW.
"Why in Hawaii, which close to equator temperature is 70-85� F, while in Texas in summer 85- 110� F?" Around Hawaii we have a lot of water evaporation.
"Since the Northern Hemisphere contains the greatest proportion of landmass and land heats more than oceans the Northern Hemisphere summer season causes significant increase in the global mean temperature," It is true because there lack of water, to cool air.
Please show me on these examples that “just the opposite is true.”

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

because hawaii island and surronded by relatively cool water, whereas texas has land around 50% of it.

land mass absorbs more heat energy than water. Water more than ice. This is not because there is more cooling water vapor, which by the way also absorbs heat energy and reradiates it back out. Water Vapor has a cooling affect when it first is evaporated, when it condenses the same amount of energy is need and is returned to the surrounding area.

see refrigeration cycle for how we harness this process of evaporation and condensation to regulate our bldg temperatures.

[mioffe]

Dear OneVoiceInACrowd, “Solar energy reflected back into space by thick clouds – 75-90%, thin clouds – 30-50%, water – 10%, grassy field - 10-30%, fresh snow – 75-95%.”
Water absorbs more sun energy, than land.
“The atmosphere consists mostly of gases, but also contains water, ice, dust and others particles. In dry air we have 78% of Nitrogen, 21% of Oxygen, almost 1% of Argon. In air we have traces of another gases: Neon, Helium, Krypton, Xenon, Hydrogen, Ozone, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Methane. Molecular mass of N2 = 28, O2 = 32, H2O = 18.”
It takes1 kcal to heat 1 kg of water on 1º C, 339 kcal to evaporate 1 kg of water, 80 kcal to melt 1kg of ice (0º C).
“Water Vapor has a cooling affect when it first is evaporated, when it condenses the same amount of energy is need and is returned to the surrounding area.” It is correct, but as lighter gas it has tendency to go up on cloud level, where energy will go to space more easily.
Lack of water on continents reduces these properties of water and because of that increase temperature.
Water vapor actually cools the air by evaporation of water on ground level, water droplets in atmosphere and by cloud formation.
Droplet of rain will solve GHG and clean the air better than any conservation attempt to reduce emission.
Al Gore are wrong. We are going in wrong direction!

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

precipitation will increase in a warmer world as water vapor will be increasing as the ability of the air to hold the water goes up.

We have very little ability to control this directly as it is primarily a function of pressure and temperature.

Water vapor can go high, but it can also stay close to the ground, see fog banks, again, its behaviour is dependable.

the water cycle appears to be a dependent of climate, while other greenhouse gases are not dependent.

Water vapor also has a much shorter cycle. The CO2 in the atmosphere cycle is thousands of years long. What is being put up there now will continue to have an effect far into the future. Limiting emissions now, and for the future, is the right direction. Water vapor is not controllable as CO2 is.

The IPCC and climate models do take into account an increase of cloud coverage due to a warming climate. They may not be perfect, but as to our understanding now, they are reasonable. One only need to look at Venus, which is completely covered with a thick cloud layer, and understand that clouds do not reflect all the energy back to space.

[Greenguy25]

Whether you believe in this program or not, really does not matter. The money is going out and we are already seeing the positive effects it can have.

We are enlisting new auditors nationwide to handle the coming workload and for us, the future could not be brighter.

http://www.greensceneems.com

[absolutetruth09]

I disagree,but I'm listening.I heard the stats show that for every Green Job created 2-3 other jobs are lost.While I believe Global Warming is BS(Democrats love to create a Crisis,because they think taxes,taxe­s,taxes),b­ut I think we can advance our country with Green Tech....My worry is simple....The Government is a terrible business manager. The Free Market can work 1000 times Quicker,and cheaper than the government.Green Tech is still a unprofitable market(Even in Spain where they lead the charge).Investors would work way better than our Tax Money,especially during a recession.

[tiredofthesameoldstuff]

Funny how the only study that showed that was shortly debunked by revealing not only it's flawed methodology as well as not putting in accurate job creation numbers but that it was bankrolled by fossil fuel companies.

Numerous studies shown that green jobs create four or five jobs per every one lost for a fossil fuel company.

[absolutetruth09]

Waste of my money

[crease]

What is also neded here is huge tax credits for tax payer for putting up solar panels,wind turbines, energy savinf lite bulbs, etc to help get us moving in the right direction or even very very low interest rate loans from the gov`t to do this.We have been down and out before there is now reason wahtsoever that we can`t reopen shuttered facility`s and green them up and then start making green products, this can be the New New Deal for a green economy that will be waht this country does the best,manufacturing because we are tops in productivity and ingenuity.We did this same thing in WWII so there is no reason we can`t do it again, unfortunately are opposition is the RE-PUKES and their "Audacity o Nope".We need to show these ignorant people on the right that this is what 98 percent of us want and what this country needs.

[absolutetruth09]

The New Deal set this country back.Every statist social program created is a mess,and 98% of the population is way off.Not even half believe in Global Warming.The Free Market would work 1000 times more efficient than the Statist.

[rf-hawaii]

That's not what history shows. Please post references.

[sourcenergy]

Ask GM if the status quo is acceptable anymore. The green revolution is coming so climb on board or get left behind.

http://solarglobalgreen.com/pg/bookmarks/justin/read/459/the-caucus-testing-the-resolve-of-obama-on-energy-nytimescom#

[absolutetruth09]

For every Green Job created 2-3 other jobs are lost....Global Warming is BS (My Opinion),but I do favor Green Tech for other reasons. The way Obama is going about it will not work.

[Soulsurfer]

WOW. Half a billion of 787 billion! They're REALLY committed to this green energy thing.....­..........­.........

[lastpost]

I can’t help feeling that tricks (and opportunities), are being missed here. If someone suggested that I spent thousands putting solar collectors on my roof, I’d show them the door. If someone suggested that they would fit solar collectors on my roof, and that I could pay for them as I would using the existing energy supply. I’d ask them when they could start.

[Soulsurfer]

There are companies doing that. The homeowner pays a $2K down payment, the company pays for the solar system, installs a meter, and the homeowner gets their electricity for a flat rate that doesn't change for 15-20 years, with an option to buy the system every 5 years.

[tiredofthesameoldstuff]

Even with the solar panels in three years paying for themselves and then the energy company paying you for the electricity created.

Know what an attic fan is? In a year or two by reducing the energy bill they pay for themselves since they lower the heating and air conditioning bill by 25 bucks a month.

[maddie0001]

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/405135_green15.html?source=rss

Schools built to the energy efficiency standard of 2005's state "High Performance Buildings" law cost about 6 percent more than other new schools, but: "In virtually every school district, there was at least one non-green school that used less energy per square foot than buildings that met the standards passed four years ago," wrote Todd Myers, director of the Center for the Environment at the Washington Policy Center.

"In Tacoma, where supporters touted the energy savings of Giaudrone Middle School, the building has consistently used about 30 percent more energy per square foot than another Tacoma middle school built the same year but without mandated green standards," he wrote. "In Spokane, none of the three 'green' elementary schools are as energy efficient as Browne Elementary, built in 2002, prior to passage of the 'High Performance Buildings' law. This is the pattern elsewhere as well."

Even in schools that do save energy, he wrote, "the energy savings are too small to cover the higher initial construction cost."

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

From the first part of the article:

"Some people have thought this idea was 'pie in the sky' and unachievable," Jason McLennan, chief executive of the Cascadia council and the author of the Living Building Challenge, said in a news release. "But the study clearly demonstrates that we can increase green jobs, greatly enhance our energy security, and most effectively utilize federal stimulus money by constructing Living Buildings, especially for those in the public sector where taxpayers are going to own and operate a building for the long-term."

Additionally, discounted in the later half of the article - they do not take into account the value of the best affordable technologies that are more environmentally sound (not to say that they do not cost more or definitively have the ability to pay for themselves).

[RedneckDem]

Sounds like someone shortcutted the process to save money. In my neck of the woods several schools were built using advanced "green" techniques and it is paying off handsomely. Additionaly, existing city buildings have also been greened and have had significant savings in energy costs well withn the touted return on investment numbers.

[sb250guy]

I cringe just thinking about how badly this will be managed and inefficiently implemented but it is the kind of thing I wish we had started long ago. I'm sure they will find a way to get as little bang for the buck as possible. At the very least though, some of this kind of government spending finds its way into the pockets of contractors and the homes built / renovated aren't for the wealthy. If 'we the people' are taking out these huge loans, we might as well get some of the benefit. The banks already got WAAAYYY more than their share.

[flossophy]

This is a band-aid on climate change... done purely for PR.

[Rickfors]

Are you an expert on the subject?

[chocolatecity]

What??? That is the most ignorant statement I have heard. Any expert will tell you that conservation is the absolute key to reducing our carbon footprint.

[jboswel2]

Experts are not certain that reducing our (the US's) carbon footprint will actually have any effect on global climate change.

[mioffe]

We could solve all our economy problems, our dependency from foreign fuel if we will stop stupid recommendation provided by scientists, who advised Al Gore about global warming. Wind, solar cell, geothermal, nuclear power are disaster for environment.
Mr. President, fire Steven Chu and others supporters of Al Gore recommendation in Government.
As Democrat, as Republican for some reason make from science of global warming circus for debate.
If Democrat seeing only carbon dioxide as reason, Republican arguing about the same carbon dioxide. Republican is only diminishing role of mankind in producing carbon dioxide.
Please stop nonsense!

[devanate]

Say what? Try making some sense. Maybe go back to school before you reproduce.

[mioffe]

devanate: “Say what? Try making some sense. Maybe go back to school before you reproduce"
Please read my others comment in this post. I have BS in Physics, 2 children and 4 grandchildren.
Please reread Earth in the balance, 1992, An inconveniant truth, 2006 as I did and if after that you will believe Al Gore laughable recommendation ask my help.

[eatyourveggies]

Yes, please stop your nonsense!

Try writing complete sentences.

You're proof that, by definition, 50% of people are below average.

[mioffe]

eatyourveggies"
“Yes, please stop your nonsense!
Try writing complete sentences.
You're proof that, by definition, 50% of people are below average.”
You are right, English is not my native language. Your desire to improve your knowledge of Physics is significantly lower. Think, please, twice before beliving Al Gore recommendation, even if they writing on perfect English!

[mioffe]

DearOneVoi­ceInACrowd­, amid many other reason they name: "The energy balance is also affected by the lack of vegetation in urban areas, which inhibits cooling by evapotrans­piration."
This exactly what I am talking about.
Human activities (tilling, growing and gathering crops for food, road construction etc), changed not only GHG but also reflection, evaporation and cloud formation, wind power and their directions, convection forces and not only in urban area, but in every place of human activities.
Common effects of these activities bigger, than effect of GHG.
If this is true recomendation to reduce GHG by any price are wrong. Our government is going in wrong very expensive direction.

[mioffe]

From Earth Science, Baron’s Educational Series, Inc, 2001 “Solar radiation reaches the upper atmosphere at a fairly constant rate of about 200 kilocalories per minute/square meter. About 1/3 of this radiation is reflected back into space mostly by clouds. Ozone, carbon dioxide, and water vapor in the atmosphere absorb or reflect most of Earth’s infrared radiation; the rest go through the atmosphere and out into space. Solar energy reflected back into space by thick clouds – 75-90%, thin clouds – 30-50%, water – 10%, grassy field - 10-30%, fresh snow – 75-95%, forest – 3-10%… The atmosphere consists mostly of gases, but also contains water, ice, dust and others particles. In dry air we have 78% of Nitrogen, 21% of Oxygen, almost 1% of Argon. In air we have traces of another gases: Neon, Helium, Krypton, Xenon, Hydrogen, Ozone, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Methane. Molecular mass of N2 = 28, of O2 = 32, of H2O = 18. Since the lighter water molecules displace heavier air pressure decreases as humidity increases. HUMIDITY UP, AIR PRESSURE DOWN, HUMIDITY DOWN, AIR PRESSURE UP Wind blow from region of high air pressure to region of low air pressure as in sea breeze, land breeze. Climate influences: a REGION’S NATURAL VEGETATION”, tilling of land which changed reflection, water vapor actualy cool the air. GHG do not main player in nature! Al Gore is wrong and offer to Government wrong direction!

[eatyourveggies]

Why do you insist on proving a cliche?

As in: "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Light that reaches the earth -- whether soil, forest or the ocean -- is absorbed and re-radiated at a lower frequency, called infrared. While GHGs are transparent to radiation in the visible light range -- they let sunlight pass -- theses gases reflect infrared back toward earth. Thus the term "greenhouse" effect.

This is not a matter of dispute, unlike for example, the existence of Jesus, God or the green monster that lives under your bed.

[mioffe]

"Light that reaches the earth -- whether soil, forest or the ocean -- is absorbed and re-radiated at a lower frequency, called infrared."
You are wrong. Direct sun radiation partially reflected back to space. If human activities (tilling land, growing crops, building roads, etc) will change % of reflection it will change temperature of land and by convection forces heat the air.
The same human activities changed evaporation of water by vegetation.
Molecular weight of water vapor is 18, nitrogen-28, oxigen-32, carbon dioxide-44. Water vapor is lighter than almost all gases and always going up to clouds level and above.
It takes 339 kcal of energy to evaporate 1 kg of water. It takes one kcal to heat one kg of water on 1º C.
In atmosphere we have water vapor, small droplet of fog, clouds and droplets of rain.
If you will look in dynamic water vapor actually cool the air by evaporation of water on ground level, evaporation of water droplets in atmosphere and by cloud formation.
Droplet of rain will solve carbon dioxide and others GHG and clean the air better than any conservation attempt to reduce emission.
“Why in Hawaii, which close to equator temperature is 70-85º F, while in Texas in summer time 85- 110º F?” It is only because around Hawaii we have a lot of water evaporation.
No need to be "Jesus, God or the green monster" to understand CO2 is not main player in Nature!

[mioffe]

Dear NoMoFearNoMoHate, thank you very much. You sent it to me before and I read this information.
CO2 does not have to be the "main player". It repeat Al Gore suggestion: “But as a percentage of the total atmosphere, CO2 represents only about .03 percent of the molecules that make up the air, or 355 per million. Even so, it has always played a critical role in the greenhouse gas that triggers enough warming to increase amount of water vapor that evaporates from the oceans into the atmosphere. This extra water vapor, in turn, traps nearly 90 percent of the infrared rays radiated from the surface of the earth back toward space, retaining them long enough to maintain the earth’s temperature in rough equilibrium.”
Please reread what I am writing about water properties, which actually cool the air despite water vapor is GHG, also please Google Richard Lindzen

[mioffe]

Dear NoMoFearNoMoHate, yes “The problem is real.”
The same as you I read a lot about global warming. As I can understand from all computers modeling they looking at water vapor as static element in air, calculate average annual amount in air and absorption of IR radiation.
Water vapor is lighter than almost all gases and always going up to clouds level and above where heat more easy escape to space.
It takes 339 kcal of energy to evaporate 1 kg of water.
Water vapor actually cools the air by evaporation of water on ground level, water droplets in atmosphere and by cloud formation.
Droplet of rain will solve GHG and clean the air better than any conservation attempt to reduce emission.
“Why in Hawaii, which close to equator temperature is 70-85º F, while in Texas in summer time 85- 110º F?” Around Hawaii we have a lot of water evaporation.
“Since the Northern Hemisphere contains the greatest proportion of landmass and land heats more than oceans the Northern Hemisphere summer season causes significant increase in the global mean temperature,” It is true because there lack of water, to cool air.
If you will look on this dynamic picture of water vapor droplet of water you will the same as me ignore GHG and more carefully look at properties of water, winds and their role in evaporation, convection forces, changing of reflection of land by human activities (tilling, growing crops for food, building roads etc)

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

You're saying it yourself - the water-cooling effect is regional and low to the surface where the evaporation takes place.

Otherwise more water vapor just means more warming and the CO2 would still hold in the heat.

Evaporation will not stop the warming in your explanation - QED.

[mioffe]

Dear NoMoFearNoMoHate: "Water vapor actually cools the air by evaporation of water on ground level, water droplets in atmosphere and by cloud formation.
Droplet of rain will solve GHG and clean the air better than any conservation attempt to reduce emission."
In all atmosphere we have not only water vapor, but also and water droplets-fog, clouds.
Evaporation of water droplet also need energy and water vapor as ligter gas go up, release energy in place, where CONDENSATION occurs on higher level and this process will repeat itself while water vapor will be upper than cloud level, where latent heat of condensation more easely escape to space.
Property of water the best coolant of air, despite itis also one of GHG.

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

Water vapor and water droplets hold heat in.

It is simple fact.

Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas. If there is more of it there will be more warming.

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

Additionally, clouds form relatively low in the atmosphere as 99.9% of all water vapor is found in the troposphere and we know by measurement that the stratosphere is cooling in concordance with global warming, enhanced greenhouse effect modeling.

As well, water vapor mixing ratio HAS increased year over year. Showing that more water vapor in the stratosphere trends with global warming. This increase in stratospheric water vapor also leads to a depletion in ozone.

[mioffe]

Dear - + NoMoFearNoMoHate, please do not combine water vapor and water droplet.
Water vapor is invisible gas and because of that transparent for direct sun radiation, while water droplet in cloud and fog reflect sun radiation and decrease energy which heat air.
Molecular weight of water vapors is-18, nitrogen-28, oxigen-32, CO2-44. As lighter gas it must to go up.
In clouds we have almost 100% of humidity, where we have constant process of evaporation and condensation, but always water vapor inside clouds has tendency to go up.
If water vapor will trapp infrared radiation it energy will evaporate at least one molecule in closest water droplet. THIS PROCESS NEED ENERGY AND BECAUSE NEW WATER VAPOR MOLECULE GO UP IT ENERGY WILL GO TO SPACE MORE EASELY THAN ON LOWER LAYER OF ATMOSPHERE.
“Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas.” I AGREE WITH YOU. Please try agreeing with me that because water droplet reflect direct sun radiation and molecule of water vapor go up and release energy on upper level it actually cool the air.
Total annual evapotranspiration amounts 505,000 km3 of water, 434,000 km3 of which evaporates from the oceans (85. 94%)
Surface area of earth 510,072,000 km².
148,940,000 km² land (29.2 %)
361,132,000 km² water (70.8 %)
These data show that evaporation from unit of area in water (mostly oceans) is bigger, because of lack of water in continents.
The source of energy for evaporation is primarily solar radiation.

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

No.

Both hold in heat as it is a well known fact that nightly cloud cover helps maintain surface warmth.

And water vapor will not continue to rise as it is too cold and the pressure too low to support water vapor except at the lowest levels of the stratosphere which is why 99.9% of the water vapor is found in the troposphere and most of it in the lower reaches of the troposphere as very little water vapor can exist when temperatures fall below 0 C.

Water vapor saturation and particulate matter are limiting factors of cloud cover. If you're trying to rely on cloud cover, which has increased over the past 100 years, to offset global warming through the enhanced greenhouse effect then you are sorely mistaken.

[mioffe]

Water vapor is lighter than almost all gases and always going up to clouds level and above where heat more easy escape to space.
It takes 339 kcal of energy to evaporate 1 kg of water.
Water vapor actually cools the air by evaporation of water on ground level, water droplets in atmosphere and by cloud formation.
Droplet of rain will solve GHG and clean the air better than any conservation attempt to reduce emission.
"Why in Hawaii, which close to equator temperature is 70-85� F, while in Texas in summer time 85- 110� F?" It is only because around Hawaii we have a lot of water evaporation.
"Since the Northern Hemisphere contains the greatest proportion of landmass and land heats more than oceans the Northern Hemisphere summer season causes significant increase in the global mean temperature," It is true because there lack of water, to cool air.
I respect Al Gore, He is a good writer, not scientist. He brings attention to global warming better than anybody else does. He and his advisers-scientists have right to make their parts of mistakes. I am as reader has right on my own opinion about any subject. I am not a denial. I am agreed with Al Gore demand keep "Earth in the balance," 1992.
I am disagreeing with him that GHG are the main players in Nature. I disagree with him how to reduce GHG if they are problem.
Please check information and do not believe famous persons!

[mioffe]

dynwitch
Mioffe: “In our society, you need to publish your ideas and data in a peer-reviewed academic journal before anyone will believe you. If you think you know better than the scientists who have been through this process, then you need to take them on in the academic journals.”
Dear dynwitch, in our society we need to have credentials to be published. I tried many magazines, newspapers, etc. They prefer write about GW opinion of Tony Blair, Pac ki-moon, Robert Redford, Tomas Friedman and many others, which are not scientists and repeat Al Gore mistakes.
“Your other path to success is to sign up with a rightwing think tank funded by the big oil, car, and gas industries, and then you have a blank check to go around spouting whatever stupid lies you want.”
I always tried to be out of politic, because there ideas mean less than opinion of bosses.
I am retired and solved all problems with GW 4 years ago.
Please try my ideas, not my credential. Show me where I am wrong, except English, which is not my native language.
If you will found mistakes of Al Gore and scientists which support him, as I did, you will understand that they solutions gave our Government wrong directions, which will bring to nature more damage, than good things. It is very dangerous.
That is reason why I respond on many articles.
I hope that somebody will pay attention on reasoning, not credential.