New Climate Blog?
The idea of starting a new climate blog was introduced by bender on ‘Unthreaded 26″ at Climate Audit”.
One of the nice things about Climate Audit is the rapid discussion and the mild amount of editing. At the same time, Steve M likes many discussions to stay on topic, so as to focus on the actual scientific and statistical arguments being made in climate change.
This post is to solicit ideas for what people might want in such a climate blog. So far, on Climate Audit I’ve read that people want a place to discuss:
- Thermodynamics of climate.
- Policy implications.
- Go off on political tangents.
- Some way to permit odd ball comments to be sent to a timeout thread instead of being deleted. (This would require programming.)
I have no idea what some of these things mean, but it’s probably possible to get something going that complements existing blogs.
But, what I’m thinking is that I could invite 2-3 co-bloggers, and get some discussion started.
Consider yourself invited to speak!
Previous Post:
« Calculating Annual Average Temperatures: Conditional Averages
Next Post:
Can GCMs Predict Annual Mean Global Temperature? »
569 Responses to “New Climate Blog?”
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Pat Keating December 3rd, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Thanks, lucia.
1. There seems to a strong demand for two-sided discussions of atmospheric ‘thermodynamics’.
2. Similarly, there is a lot of interest in climate models. However, the knowledge of these models is pretty limited for most of the folks on CA, so the bilateral discussion may not be very symmetric.
Pat Keating December 3rd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
By the way, I am assuming that the comments here are not publicly posted. I don’t want to hurt anyones feelings.
lucia December 3rd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
The comments are public. I can make a private blog, but that would require having everyone log in and only be able to view comments only after logging in. Then, I can’t let a zillion folks read though.
I also have the power to edit.
I would want to have a few co-bloggers. Possibly people who would write a short conversation provoking post once a week, and step into comments. People who accept a rather broad range of points of view would be good. You seem like a good one to me, but other people could be good too.
As for some commenters, Kim suggested a “time out” thread– I could write a Wordpress plug to make it easy to transfer some topics to a time out thread, or a particular thread. I sort of like that idea because it make a record of the comment, but takes it out of a full conversation when it’s distracting.
MarkR December 3rd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Hi Lucia
Thanks for sparing the time to set this up.
I would suggest:
1 A political aspect area.
2A CO2 debate.
MarkR December 3rd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
….when you hit the tab ket or backspace it posts??????
3 A thermodynamics debate.
Hope this is helpful
MarkR
lucia December 3rd, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Hmm… I wasnt aware of the tab feature. Let me try it. Mine didn’t post when I hit tab or backspace. I’ll fiddle and see if I can find other issues with this theme.
CoolThoughts December 3rd, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Some things I think the “global warmers” should know for a fact:
1. “Global temperature” is not meaningful. It doesn’t exist. Saying you can measure it or model it is stupid. Anyone who thinks it is meaningful doesn’t know the first thing about thermodynamics.
2. People who think climate is a time average are clueless. It’s a spatial average. Global climate change refers to changes over the whole globe. Any moron should be able to understand this.
3. The so-called “precautionary principle” is totally false logic.
4. The so-called “positive feedbacks” in the climate models (GCMs) are in reality all negative feedbakcs. Clouds are water, which is a negative feedback that keeps the planet cool. That’s why deserts are hot and coastal areas are not.
lucia December 3rd, 2007 at 6:15 pm
CoolThoughts,
Right now, I want to discuss how we might want a blog to run:
Number of authors? Topics? Moderation policy? Etc.
I know I will be wanting to avoid words like “moron”.
_Jim (26 comments.) December 3rd, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Could - could something really, really sinister like what the SFGate had going be worked up?
To wit:
This has the effect of passifying the ‘crank’ poster, while it seems that the body of the rest of the site are ignoring him (her?) at the same time … TRULY sinister!
lucia December 3rd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Yes. That could be done. It would rely on cookies. I’ll see if a plugin already exists.
lucia December 3rd, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Another thing that could be done is individual visitors can be given an “ignore” option. If you click it, all comments by a particular poster would be hidden.
The only difficulty with this feature is I might need to figure out how to do it while still being able to use the cacheing feature to save CPU.
This may require thought. . .
_Jim (26 comments.) December 3rd, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Ah yes, sometimes termed ‘Bozo’ filters; they are nice for keeping the S/N ratio high when one doesn’t have the time to pore over everything, and of course, they can be turned off to allow reading all comments in a thread.
Maybe it should be termed something other than ignore though; perhaps termed a ‘level of Q’ control; Q as in the ‘Q’ factor (where Q denotes quality) as in qualifying the ‘Q’ of a coil (or resonenat circuit), something the EE and Physics types can appreciate.
_Jim (26 comments.) December 3rd, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Oh, and one more thing: how about a hidden rating system whereby posts can be uprated - but the results would be known only to *the system* and then the ‘level of Q’ could be set (adjusted individually, in decentralized fashion via cookie values) until the desired ‘Q’ (and corresponding higher S/N ratio) is reached?
Just thoughts; I’ve been on sites where posts could be down or uprated, and the values are public, but sometimes it seemed to be a blatant popularity contest … the idea here would be a low key S/N ratio improvement system for those times when one doesn’t have a lot of time to pour through everything.
lucia December 3rd, 2007 at 8:28 pm
I’ll see what I can find in the way of plugins. But guess what? You can help. If you see a feature at a Wordpress blog, give me that blog URL. Then, I can drop a question at the blog and find the plugin!
I can write plugins, but it’s always easiest if they already exists and I just install.
Spence_UK December 4th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Oooh ooooh ooh!
Don’t forget my hobbyhorses that I make Steve suffer regularly
Chaos
Self-similarity/Long term memory in climate statistics
If you’re willing to wait 5-10 years I can write up some nonsense on these topics.
lucia December 4th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Chaos is a popular topic that seems to be bandied about regularly.
I know little about chaos and even less about climate and chaos. However, if you suggest a some article that is easily accessible that discusses this topic (from either pro-AGW or anti-AGW points of view) I would read it.
Ideally, I would want to read both, and possible give my reflections and then invite comment.
agn December 4th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Hi Lucia,
I’m an avid lurker at CA, but rarely post, mostly because I can’t add anything to the scientific debate. I do have quite a range of ideas on the policy side though, but as we know, Steve Mc isn’t too keen on those…
Can I suggest that one important policy area which does need discussion is this: how do we provide a face-saving solution which allows AGW proponents to climb down safely from the worst excesses of catastrophism? I think that, regardless of your view of the scientific issues involved, the more far-flung predictions of melting ice-sheets, temperature increase of 6 degrees and so forth are not helpful. And furthermore, if it turns out that temperatures now start falling over the next few years, what with PDO changes, solar minima and other interesting phenomena, there is a big danger that the general public deems all climate studies, or worse - all science - complete rubbish. And that I think would not be a good scenario.
So - is it possible to construct a climate policy/theory/agenda which would be acceptable to the AGW’ers, while allowing the rest of us (that is, our taxes) to get on with solving problems that really need solving, like malaria, malnutrition, clean water supplies and so on - rather than chasing after an impossible goal of “climate control”?
That, I think, would be a worthwhile field of debate.
AGN
CoolThoughts December 4th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Olive branch not possible as long as opposing views are this entrenched. Look at Middle East. Be realistic. Long road home. Worth discussing though.
Larry Bolz December 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
CoolThoughts:
1. Agreed, there is no such thing as a “global temperature”. We can only sample various locations at a moment in time.
2. Incorrect. It is both spatial and temporal, it’s not an either or. The accepted definition of climate is the average condition of the weather at a place over a period of years.
3. Immaterial. Doing expensive things “just in case” as the only reason is bad policy, but doesn’t preclude doing something if it makes sense anyway. What is illogical about foresight planning, risk prevention, and cost effectivness in the context of policy decisions in the face of a lack of certainty?
4. Too simplistic to say all things considered positive feedbacks are negative ones. Clouds can reflect sunlight or let it through, hold in mositure or let it out, create rain that absorbs heat during the process or doesn’t. And why an area is cool or not depends a lot upon the amount of moisture in the air, not just clouds (or lack thereof).
GeorgeM December 4th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I would like to have a category titled “Financial Implications”, wherein two main threads would be: What is this hysterical AGM going to cost me personally out of my wallet?, and: How hysterical do you have to be to maintain funding for your pet research projects? Maybe they could be called “Financial Cost of Climate Hysteria”.
lucia December 4th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
All good thoughts. Can anyone suggest people who might like to address financial implications?
I’d really rather not use tendencions terms like “hysteria” for many reasons. In any case, there are costs associated with mistakes made in either the pro-AGW or anti-AGW direction.
On the face saving issue…. I don’t think there really is one. In climate, temperature data comes in one day at a time. This is slow compared to the political time scale.
In politics the overwhelming majority of people just remember themselves as having always been right. With regard to climate change, this will be easy.
agn December 5th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Hi Lucia,
I think you’re wrong - there ought to be a backlash of biblical proportions when the public works out that all the carbon taxes, additional costs of carbon permit trading etc etc was all for a fiction - but I fear you may be right…
AGN
CoolThoughts December 5th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Here’s you olive branch:
Let policy follow science: Tie a carbon tax to actual warming
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/.....-coop.html
GeorgeM December 6th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Here’s a question which I do not recall being asked anywhere: If the AGW science is all settled according to the climate researchers, how can those very same climate researchers (you know who) continue to justify applying for further funding? Shouldn’t they be returning money about now?
_Jim (26 comments.) December 6th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Who’d a thunk it:
Kevin Rudd recoils from climate change pledge
Peter Jean
December 07, 2007 12:00am
PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd last night did an about-face on deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, days after Australia’s delegation backed the plan at the climate talks in Bali.
A government representative at the talks this week said Australia backed a 25-40 per cent cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020.
But after warnings it would lead to huge rises in electricity prices, Mr Rudd said the Government would not support the target.
The repudiation of the delegate’s position represents the first stumble by the new Government’s in its approach to climate change.
Just DAYS ago the news reports were “Australia signs Kyoto agreement”
terry(tpguydk) December 21st, 2007 at 9:26 am
Hi lucia,
thanks for creating this thread (even though I’m finding it several weeks later through a link at Climate Audit). I think an area for people to discuss the things Steve M wants to stay away from is also useful. I am however, going to promise to stay away from political threads as I admit I’m one of the few (although I suspect there’s a lot more like me) liberals who have become skeptics of this whole thing. As Steve noted once: It’s not just a Left/Right thing.
lucia December 21st, 2007 at 9:35 am
Hi Terry. We don’t have much of a group yet, but, at least for now, I want to see what topics people want to discuss.
Ray S December 21st, 2007 at 10:08 am
Good initiative Lucia. Lets go! Start some new threads on the topic suggested above, and it will (like CA) sort itself out.
jae December 21st, 2007 at 10:18 am
OK, I gotta ask my question here, also, since nobody at RC or CA has answered it, in my opinion.
Water vapor is the most important “greenhouse gas.” I believe that the “settled science” statistic is that it accounts for 80 % of GHG effects.
There’s at least 4 times as much water vapor in the air over water at the Equator than in the air in Iraq in the summer.
According to the settled science, GHGs help warm the planet by emitting IR to the surface.
Then why is the MINIMUM temperature at low elevations in Iraq in the summer about the same as the MAXIMUM temperature over water at the Equator?