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!
Comments
Pat Keating (Comment#8) 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 (Comment#9) 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 (Comment#10) 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 (Comment#11) 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 (Comment#12) 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 (Comment#13) 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 (Comment#14) 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 (Comment#15) December 3rd, 2007 at 6:30 pm
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
Could - could something really, really sinister like what the SFGate had going be worked up?
To wit:
“If you make a comment on an article posted at SFGate, and if the site moderators then subsequently delete your comment for whatever reason, it will only appear as deleted to the other readers. HOWEVER, your comment will NOT appear to be deleted if viewed from your own computer! The Chronicle’s goal is to trick deleted commenters [sic] into not knowing their comments were in fact deleted,”
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 (Comment#16) 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 (Comment#17) 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 (Comment#18) December 3rd, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Another thing that could be done is individual visitors can be given an “ignore” option.
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 (Comment#19) 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 (Comment#20) 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 (Comment#21) 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 (Comment#24) 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 (Comment#25) 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 (Comment#26) 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 (Comment#27) 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 (Comment#30) 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 (Comment#31) 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 (Comment#32) 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 (Comment#33) 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 (Comment#34) 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 (Comment#35) 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) (Comment#51) 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 (Comment#52) 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 (Comment#53) 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 (Comment#54) 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?
terry(tpguydk) (Comment#55) December 21st, 2007 at 10:18 am
I’d like to suggest a topic: History and Climate Change. I’ve been reading about the Norse in Greenland as an example of what not to do if your climate shifts drastically.
lucia (Comment#56) December 21st, 2007 at 10:56 am
@jae:
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?
Jae,
I’m not a climatoligists, but generally speaking the following factors are important when comparing temperatures over water vs land at the equator and in the northern hemisphere in the summer:
1) Water in the upper layers of a body of water mix and water has a large effective thermal mass. In contrast, land does not mix, and can only tranfer heat downward by conduction. Only the very few upper feet of the earth experience noticable temperature swing, but given the same 12 year cycle and same with the same amplitude in forcing, temperatures do not swing as much as much over the ocean as over land.
So, if you had picked Iraq and a point at similar latitude but over the ocean, this factor would tend to explain why the land over Iraq was hotter than over the ocean during the summer.
2) During the summer, the sun shifts toward the north. Near Jun 20/21, it shines directly over the tropic of Cancer, at a latitude of 23 degrees. Here a map. Bagdad is near 33 degrees; the equator is at 0 degrees. I think (though I am not sure) this means that near the solstice, Baghdad receive more hours of sun than the equator.
3) Some of the low lying regions in Iraq are either flanked or surrounded by mountains and the weather patterns often cause the air to travel over mountains before arriving in the hot desert in Iraq.
There are some other factors associated with a tendency for air temperature to rise over all as it flows up over mountains and then flows back down to lower eleavation.
The increase in temperature — and drop in absolute humidity– both arise because when air rises to climb mountaints, the temperature drops. (Thermal energy converts to potential energy.) When the temperature drops,water rains out, and for a short while, thermal energy is lost at constant temperature. The condensed water is left in the mountains, and the air temperature drops less than it would have if it has been dry. Then when the now dry air travels down the mountain, the potential energy is converted to thermal energy. But, since no water was evaporated into it, the air temperature is higher than it was before it went over the mountains.
So, mountain ranges often have “hot/dry” “cold/wet” sides, with the dry side on the downwind side of the mountain.
So, those are three reasons I can think of why the low lying, no-mountains regions in Iraq are warmer during summer.
Of course, I could be incorrect, but I know each of these three mechanisms are observed in other places. They would seem to apply to Iraq.
jae (Comment#57) December 21st, 2007 at 11:36 am
Lucia: forget about the over water and the latitude. I used the highest temperature for the entire year at the Equator and compared it to the summer in Iraq. Rather than over water, consider any wet area on land near the Equator. The MINIMUM temperature in Iraq in the summer is still about as hot as the MAXIMUM temperature in the tropics ANY time of year. I’m trying to find the most humid hot spot I can (highest level of GHGs) to compare it with very dry spots (lowest level of GHGs). The question is this: if GHGs heat the planet by radiation, why aren’t the humid areas (very high amounts of GHG) MUCH hotter than the dry ones (low amounts of GHGs)? They are actually much cooler. Does negative water feedback completely overwhelm the radiative effects of the water vapor in humid areas? Or is this radiative explanation for GHG warming a crock?
lucia (Comment#58) December 21st, 2007 at 11:58 am
Jae– What do you mean “forget about latitude”? Aren’t you comparing Iraq and the equator precisely because the equator is at a different latitude than the equator?
I suspect the number of daylight hours during June-July is greater in Iraq than on the equator. The temperature of the earth lags a bit, but basically all other things being equal, more daylight hours leads to more heating.
It’s fine to keep asking your question, but have you looked at the explanation involving air masses traveling over mountains at all?
That theory explains why, at similar latitudes, hot & dry are strongly correlated. It’s the similar principle involved in designing dehumidifiers, and so seem widely applicable. It also explains why it rains on rainy sides of mountains etc.
Maybe you should examine the conventional explanations first and make sure they don’t explain what you see?
Pat Keating (Comment#59) December 21st, 2007 at 12:01 pm
jae
The three primary reasons, in order of importance are, in my opinion:
1. Cloud cover. There is much less cloud cover over a sizable dry region, and any humid air that comes into the region evaporates before clouds can form. Clouds provide the best ’sunshade’ available.
2. Rain originating in the colder levels of the troposphere. Humid and warm regions see precipitation, often every day in the afternoon. There is quite lot of ‘cold capacity’ in raindrops vs. air. In dry areas like Iraq, or Arizona, it rains only rarely.
3. Humid areas see a lot of evaporation, which sucks up quite a bit of sensible heat as latent heat of evaporation. Dry areas see much less.
jae (Comment#63) December 21st, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I guess I’m not getting my point across here. That seems to be my chronic problem on this subject. What I am interested in is an empirical demonstration of the “greenhouse effect”(i.e., radiative heating caused by those molecules which can absorb and emit IR). If the “greenhouse effect” works, then why can’t we see it working more in extremely humid areas, since there is such a large amount of “greenhouse gas” (water vapor)? Shouldn’t those areas with the most “greenhouse gases” be HOTTER, not colder, than areas with low volumes of such gases? Where is the empirical evidence of this radiative heating effect? Do clouds overcome it?
lucia (Comment#64) December 21st, 2007 at 2:02 pm
jae– Three questions ending with:
Shouldn’t those areas with the most “greenhouse gases” be HOTTER, not colder, than areas with low volumes of such gases?
Are those rhetorical?
I think the answer to this question is “no”.
If you have a theory for why it should be “yes”, I’m afraid you will need to explain it in some detail. This will probably require you to present a rather formal coherent analysis. Posting in comments will never suffice.
You will, at a minimum, need to start yourself a blog where you can post a series of articles with a minimum of 4 page long posts discussing the various steps in demonstrating why the answer should be “yes”.
No you are not getting your point across. Asking people what appear to be obscure rhetorical questions in blog comments will neither communicate your theory (or point) nor prove that theory or point. It will certainly never cause anyone to understand what the theory or point might be.
Setting up a blog is easy. You can set up a free one at Wordpress. After you do so, you can organize a bunch of posts that might better let people understand whatever theory you are trying to explain.
Pat Keating (Comment#65) December 21st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
jae.
If the “greenhouse effect” works, then why can’t we see it working more in extremely humid areas, since there is such a large amount of “greenhouse gas” (water vapor)?
I think we have been over this before…
At lower levels (up to the cloud-tops), the GHG effect is short-circuited by the water-vapor latent-heat cycle.
The GHG effect, if it exists, operates at altitudes near the tropopause, far above the surface levels you can characterize as “dry” and “humid”. The fact is that it is extremely dry at the tropopause, whether you are over Biloxi MS or Tucson AZ.
jae (Comment#66) December 21st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Lucia: I’m not forming a theory; I’m looking for an empirical demonstration of an established theory–the “greenhouse effect.” If it exists, it seems to me that the answer should be yes. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. What are greenhouse gases supposed to do? Keep us warmer than we would be without them. How do they do that? The conventional answer is that they radiate IR back toward the surface. If this is how it works, why aren’t they (water vapor) irradiating more back to the surface in soggy Guam than in arid Bakersfield CA? I would be warmer in Bakersfield which has almost no greenhouse gas in the air in the summer than I would be in Guam, with so much water vapor in the air that it’s almost raining all the time. Why? CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” and IPCC tells us that doubling it will result in an additional 3.7 w/m^2 radiation at the surface. It’s only 0.03 % of air, whereas water vapor in the air over Guam is at least 50 times that much. Why doesn’t the water vapor add 3.7*50 = 185 w/m^2 more energy in Guam than in Bakersfield?
lucia (Comment#67) December 21st, 2007 at 2:53 pm
jae–
If it exists, it seems to me that the answer should be yes.
Those who propose and believe in the theory do not claim the feature you suggest.
Maybe you wish they would make this claim so you could prove them wrong, but they don’t make this claim.
To prove AGW wrong, you must disprove things the theory actually predicts.
If you want to understand why Guam has Guam weather and Bakersfield has Bakersfield weather, you should enroll in class on meteorology. After that, when you understand why Seattle, WA has moderate rainter weather, and Yakima, Wa is dryer and and Pasco, Wa is quite dry and a local hot spot, you might be able to understand this whole hot/dry cold/warm thing. (You’ll also learn about clouds in the tropics, and large scale phenomena like the intertropical convergence zones.)
jae (Comment#68) December 21st, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Pat: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect. “Given the temperature at the emission level of the infrared flux escaping to space, one then computes the surface temperature by increasing temperature at the rate of 6.5 °C per kilometer, the environmental lapse rate, until one reaches the surface. ” The emission level they are talking about is about 5 km in the models. That is the average level at which more radiation supposedly leaves to space than goes toward the surface. Why doesn’t the addition of water to the atmosphere increase IR opacity and do the same thing?
Pat Keating (Comment#69) December 21st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
jae
Yes, if you believe that, there may be an issue.
However, if you look at the IR spectra from Earth, it appears that the CO2 15u radiation is emitted at about 225K, which is -48C. The tropopause is at about -50C, so it seems to be coming from a lot higher than 5km.
The rest of the IR tends to be from water vapor at surface-type temperatures. There are 3 plots, from over the Sahara, over the Mediterranean, and over the Antarctic. The plots are about the same around 15u, but the water vapor emissions are from about 35C higher from the Sahara than from the Med. The Antarctic has much lower water-vapor emission temperatures, as you would expect.
In summary, the IR spectra don’t agree with the wiki 5 km claim.
Why doesn’t the addition of water to the atmosphere increase IR opacity and do the same thing?I’m not sure waht you mean by “do the same thing”.
jae (Comment#70) December 21st, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Pat: “Why doesn’t the addition of water to the atmosphere increase IR opacity and do the same thing?I’m not sure waht you mean by “do the same thing””.
What I mean is that HOH is also a greenhouse gas. So why wouldn’t it be acting just like CO2, relative to “forcing.” In fact, it should be acting 50 times stronger in humid areas, due to its concentration there. But it is not; otherwise very humid places would be much hotter than very dry places. The reverse is true; the dryer places with little GHGs in the air are much hotter than the humid places with great amounts of GHGs in the air (same latitude, elevation). Either I’m really dense, or the radiative theory of greenhouse gases is flat out wrong. But if I AM that dense, I would sure like to know where I am erring.
Pat Keating (Comment#71) December 21st, 2007 at 8:32 pm
jae, this is my opinion, not necessarily consensus. I just got back from a dinner party, so don’t hold me to it.
The reason they are not equivalent is that GHGs operate (if at all) at very high altitudes, because at lower levels, the higher-frequency IR radiation is absorbed and thermalized before it can get out of the atmosphere, anyway. Water vapor, however, is absent from the air at these altitudes.
As I said in my previous post, at the high altitudes necessary for radiation to escape, the humidity at the surface has all been frozen out (something which doesn’t happen to CO2).
Your error is that you are thinking “humidity” as it exists near the surface where we live, whereas the GHG effect occurs at around 12-15km and -50C where conditions are totally different — there is close to zero water because it has been frozen out of the air, irrespective of whether it’s above Biloxi or Tucson.
Pat Keating (Comment#72) December 21st, 2007 at 8:58 pm
To remove an ambiguity in the last post, the one sentence should read:
Water vapor, however, is absent from the air at the high altitudes near the tropopause.
jae (Comment#73) December 22nd, 2007 at 6:33 am
Pat: there are two things wrong with what you said. First, the models use an average height of 5 km as the level at which the bulk of the radiation either goes to space or goes down. Second, water would not even be acting as a greenhouse gas (as it is defined by the consensus) under your scenario. Ironically, though, I think your picture is more accurate than IPCCs!
_Jim (Comment#74) December 22nd, 2007 at 7:08 am
Por favor - could we get wider text/comments block please?
I’m getting/feeling a little claustrophobia, lucia, by being ‘hemmed in’ by the narrow column structure!
(On further thinking … maybe it’s just me. Using Opera 8.5.x here, ’cause I like some of the built-in features that enable power-surfing without requiring a lot of down-loaded addins like the other freeware browser …)
PS - Is it possible to post images/graphics here? (Haven’t tried, thought I would ask since I’m here asking other things.)
Pat Keating (Comment#75) December 22nd, 2007 at 8:03 am
jae
As I said, I thought that it may not be the consensus position.
It hinges, I think, on the interpretation of the IR spectral intensity data as truly representing the temperature of the emitter. If that is so, then it seems clear that the 15u emission is coming from the tropopause where there is almost zero H2O. There are other arguments, based on expected residual IR absorption at 15u from water vapor, that support that. The linewidth seems to be in agreement with it, also (though I haven’t looked at it in detail).
I have to admit that I am a bit of a skeptic regarding the GHG effect. Like Steve M, I would like to see a clear analysis of even the ‘bare’ CO2 effect, never mind about the effect ‘dressed’ with H2O positive feedback. Perhaps there is one somewhere, but I haven’t seen it.
If anyone knows of such, I’d appreciate a link.
jae (Comment#76) December 22nd, 2007 at 8:19 am
Pat: In my opinion, the reason this gets so “cloudy” is that the radiation shown by MODTRAN, HIGHTRAN, etc. clearly does exist. The molecules are surely “trading” radiation. But I think that radiation is just an inherent property of the gases at a given temperature and that it doesn’t “add” heat somehow, causing a “greenhouse effect.” Maybe it could if the air were absolutely stationary, but convective forces are so strong that I think the wash away any of these effects. I wish I could prove this beyond doubt, but I can’t. I keep trying…If that earns me the title of “crackpot” by the elitists at CA, so be it.
Pat Keating (Comment#77) December 22nd, 2007 at 9:20 am
There is no doubt that the final transfer of energy from Earth has to be radiative.
You have to note that (a) the convective effects (b) ‘humidity’ have both pretty much disappeared by the time you get up to where the radiative effects begin to dominate. The convection takes thermal energy up to the cloud-tops, but that’s not where the radiative effects that involve the GHG effect are. Your refusal to accept this is why you get “blown off”.
It’s good to be persistent — up to a point. But, taken too far, it becomes just hard-headedness.
jae (Comment#78) December 22nd, 2007 at 9:40 am
?? No convective effects?? Think about being in an airplane at 5 km when clouds are present. It doesn’t get smooth late in the day, in general, until you get more than twice that high. I agree that there is no doubt that the final transfer of energy has to be via radiation, and I agree that, on average, that begins at about 5 km. I just cannot see how radiation causes a greenhouse effect. If it does, well, we are back to my first posts about the difference between deserts and humid areas, and why it is colder in the humid areas, despite the tremendous quantity of ghgs there. I guess we’ve reached a stalemate here. Thanks for your interest and patience, though.
_Jim (Comment#79) December 22nd, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Yikes!
Did my wish come true (w-i-d-e-r text/text box - thanks Lucia)?
Let’s try posting an image, using the usual anchor tags:
paragraph on causes of glaciation per TEXTBOOK OF GEOLOGY, Longwell, Knopf and Flint 1932
_Jim (Comment#80) December 22nd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Slight oops … show just the image this time:
Paragraph from “TEXTBOOK OF GEOLOGY, Longwell, Knopf and Flint 1932″, titled the “causes of glaciation”.
(validating two functions: 1. the use of tinypic facilities and 2. posting images here)
lucia (Comment#81) December 22nd, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Jim… I think I need to do something to make images show. I’ll do it… later. (It’s the holidays. for now, I can manually make them show. 
)
lucia (Comment#82) December 22nd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Hmmm.. that’s not the right anchor text for images. I need to edit this template, but first I wanted to see if the overall template is suitable for this type of blog. (My knitting blog gets accessed by load of people with slow connections etc. So, the prefect template really does depend on topic!)
I’ll be modifying this, but I think this general template is better than the previous selection.
_Jim (Comment#83) December 22nd, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Well … that didn’t seem to fly. Diagnostic info - the <img src= … > code doesn’t show up the html ’source’ file (served up from the server, transferred via HTTP and finally arriving on my PC) either.
Another try, and based on what appeared a couple of posts ago this simple link to the image should work:
Paragraph on causes of glaciation per TEXTBOOK OF GEOLOGY Longwell, Knopf and Flint 1932.
_Jim (Comment#84) December 22nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
blockquoted text:
Jim… I think I need to do something to make images show. I’ll do it… later. (It’s the holidays. for now, I can manually make them show. )
Ah - no rush! I see you posted while I was composing! (Sorry - all this testing is the engineer in me showing through! Test enough times with different parms and we eventually find what works!)
lucia (Comment#85) December 22nd, 2007 at 3:56 pm
I have a Ph.D. in ME. I understand…. The testing is great for a variety of reasons. That said, the solution to the issue raised will occurr…. later.
BTW. I can infer some of the issues. We want:
a) images,
b) wider and bigger text boxes.
& etc.
So, test away! It’s a good thing because some of the solutions required either a) installing plugins (by me) or b) communication(by me.)
I just need to know which things people want!
_Jim (Comment#86) December 22nd, 2007 at 8:15 pm
I have a Ph.D. in ME. I understand…
So that accounts for your grasp of, and attention to, detail!
You learned well, grasshopper.
_Jim (Comment#87) December 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Anybody know why ukweatherworld is unreachable?
http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk
I tried pings (etc) locally and through a remote proxy - all I can determine is: “It’s dead Jim”!
(HTTP access attempts get a connection refused message.)
lucia (Comment#88) December 23rd, 2007 at 2:45 pm
It seems to be back!
jae (Comment#89) December 23rd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Comment 346 on Unthreaded at CA:
“The LOWS in low-lying cities in Iraq are nearly as high as the HIGHS anywhere in the humid tropics. If the greenhouse effect works, why isn’t it the other way around?
Well, clearly, it’s a puzzle~
Why are low lying cities hot? Why aren’t cities in the mountains hot? And why does it tend to rain in the mountains? (Recall, you rejected the whole “some desserts are hot because air traveling up over mountains and then back down gets hot and dry idea.”)
And why aren’t cities in the Southern hemisphere hot in june-aug? (After all, you previously waved away the “there are more hours of sun in the north during the summer and the sun is over the tropic of cancer in June” bit with a “forget about latitude” issue.)
And of course, why do deserts even exist? And why are there so many at ±30 degrees latitude? (After all, the Hadley cell is known to exist, and the down coming leg happens to dump hot dry air on Iraq, which is near 30 degrees. But, evidently, you’ve rejected this as a contributing factor to the hot weather in Iraq in summer. )
People have been describing mechanisms to you over and over. Yet, somehow you wave every possibility without even considering whether it might be true.
Here’s my question for you Jae: You keep saying this “mystery” of hot summers days in low lying areas in Iraq is a problem for the theory of AGW.
Now, I’ve got to ask this: If the greenhouse does NOT work, why are low lying cities in Iraq hotter than the equator in summer?
To make sure we truly understand why this happens if water does not act as a GHG please explain the other linked mysteries things.
For example sure to explain
1) why are cities in the mountains cooler than low lying cities at similar latitudes on the dry side of mountains?
2) why does it rain a lot in the tropics?
3) why do deserts tend to form at ±30degrees latitude? (That is: near Iraq.)
4) Why is Iraq hotter in jun-aug than in dec-feb. (And why it’s low-lying areas hotter than the equator only in the summer, but not in the winter. )
After you’ve explained each separate thing– the high/low, the 30 degrees, the summer/winter issues, then explain
1) why low lying cities in Iraq are warmer than the equator in summer without any effect of GHG’s.
2) And then why the action of GHG’s would change all this.
Since SteveM, doesn’t want you to discuss your own theories here, I think you should:
* create a blog. (Free ones available at Wordpress.org)
* document your explanation in some detail (figures showing effects of heat flux, convection etc.) Math. Equations.
* when you are finished, drop the link to the explanation so we can read it.”
WOW.
1.) I haven’t rejected most of the ideas you presented here. Many of them undoubtedly play a role, and maybe they explain it all. But C02 accounts for about 0.03 % of air. Water vapor in humid areas accounts for about 2.5 % of the air, or 83 times as much as CO2. Assume for now that HOH vapor is just as good a greenhouse gas as CO2. If CO2 can “exert” a greenhouse gas heating of 1 w/m^2, why doesn’t water vapor exert a ghg heating effect of 83 w/m^2 (which would be 20 percent as powerful as the sun)?
“Now, I’ve got to ask this: If the greenhouse does NOT work, why are low lying cities in Iraq hotter than the equator in summer?”
I don’t know. There are very few greenhouse gases in Iraq in the summer, so how can the heat be the result of GHGs?
“* when you are finished, drop the link to the explanation so we can read it.”
Much of this is here. http://www.esnips.com/web/climate
Rick Ballard (Comment#90) December 23rd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Lucia,
Thanks for taking the time to give this a try. It might be a reasonable idea to snip comments here and use them to create trial posts and threads.
JAE,
Could you consolidate your theory into a 2-3 pager and see if Lucia would put it up as a post? Every time I believe that I understand your points they seem to drift away in followup comments.
steven mosher (Comment#91) December 23rd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
how come the oceans are not in the air?
_Jim (Comment#92) December 23rd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
It seems to be back!
Indeed it is; the traceroute seems to end IIRC at the same place where it exits an alter.net node and enters a server ‘cloud’ (beyond which things disaapear without showing the IP I was tracing) .. so I reckon they had server farm issues with that domain name.
jae (Comment#93) December 23rd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Rick: I’m not pushing a theory with this stuff. I’m just wondering why some things don’t seem to mesh with the “radiative-convective” theory that the climate scientists use to explain how CO2 increases the warmth of the atmosphere. Just questions, that’s all, at this point. I do have an alternative theory, but I would be very hard-pressed to convince anyone, since I can’t even get many to seriously consider the questions above. Lucia has a very good point about the Hadley Cells and the position of the great deserts. That explains well WHY the deserts are there, and it partially, at least, explains the high temperatures (compression and drying). However, it doesn’t explain why it is hotter in Scottsbluff Nebraska in July than at more humid areas further east at the same latitude and elevation. And it doesn’t explain why temperatures are not higher in the tropics, due to the “greenhouse effect.”
jae (Comment#94) December 23rd, 2007 at 4:35 pm
mosher, since the air is an ocean, of sorts, they are.
_Jim (Comment#95) December 23rd, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Can we speak of Wien’s Law yet, of spectral curves and all, along with the transmission, absorption *and/or* reflection properties-
-yes, where the atmosphere is not transmissive it must, in part, be absorptive or reflective, just as electrical filters, filters can be relective (S11=magnitude 1 at rejection frequency) or absorptive (S21=magnitude 0), in the various bands/wavelengths that gases ‘block’ or become interactive-
of this gas cloud that surrounds the earth?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Can we start from the very beginning and consider:
(1) a planet (or moon) with *no* atmosphere and desribe the thermal environment (temperature) of the surface (or any objects suspended above it)
(2) add in the atmosphere with varying constituent gasses; this is where MODTRAN and HITRAN can be of use, since these describe the ‘openings’ in the spectra from microwave frews through far and near IR to visiable spectra and how quickly energy from a given black body (say, the surface of our test planet) allows electromagnetic energy (near and far IR, microwave, etc) ‘leaks’ off into space.
I would also enter into the record that which we have easily at hand in the way of both microwave sounding uints (MSU) sensors as well as the full spectrum of satellite (near and far) IR sensors in their several bands -
- these give easy evidence of the transmmission ‘windows’ in the atmosphere so one can witness wither land temperature, say, or the temperature of the ‘water vapor’ as it reaches various ‘heights’ and is ’seen’ by sensors in the 6.7 micron band (normally considered an aborption band, but it also emits at the top).
Witness:
http://www.rap.ucar.edu/weather/satellite/
Choose ‘Water Vapor’ from the radio buttons (the programming environment in Windows Forms calls those ‘radio buttons!) on the left; what is seen is the temp of the top of the water vapor present.
We have much ground to cover in this area.
_Jim (Comment#96) December 23rd, 2007 at 5:01 pm
And it doesn’t explain why temperatures are not higher in the tropics, due to the “greenhouse effect.”
I am going to object here, on this site, to the use of the term “greenhouse effect”, and instead use diffrent descriptive terms, since this I do not think does justice to the function of the atmosphere thermally.
An atmosphere with EM (conside from just over DC to over ‘Blue Light’ like us RF types like to descibe wideband RF circuits!) transmissive ‘holes’ and with blocking or re-radiative segments in the spectra that influences the temperature of the planet it surrounds needs its own name. Later we can consider convective effects, water vapor phase change etc.
jae (Comment#97) December 23rd, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Jim: here’s a name for you: Heat Storage Capacity.
welikerocks (Comment#98) December 23rd, 2007 at 5:09 pm
re: 67
that’s a powerful picture.
Lucia, thanks for making this place. I promise I won’t say much. Plan on reading a lot though and I am glad you are getting some input jae!
Happy Holidays to you all!
Larry R. (Comment#99) December 23rd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Lucia, you may want to rethink this “free for all” policy. Looks like we’re doing the same Humpty-Dumpty “when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean” stuff we were doing at CA.
_Jim (Comment#100) December 23rd, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Over on ukweatherworld, Charles (cba) has been doing some work with a one-dimensional atmosphereic model using MODTRAN/HITRAN database of spectral transmissivity -
http://www.ukweatherworld.co.u.....;start=161
- but my thinking is his graphical output does not quite account for the plentitude of ‘lines’ in the spectral graphs he shows … the intergration he performs to calculate TOA (top of atmosphere) radiation is probebly correct, but the graphs are a little spikey and do not allow for the presentation of the resolution that HITRAN has (I’m presuming a little bit here, based on previous reading of his posts).
Andrey Levin (Comment#101) December 23rd, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Jae:
WV causes both evaporative cooling and GHG effects. The problem is where. Evaporative cooling is concentrated strictly at the surface. GHG effect of WV is mashed all over troposphere. IPCC defines climate forcing (W/m2) at the top of the troposphere, where most of convective and latent heat transfer stops. It is simplified concept, which allows to use classic radiative balance calculations. Now the real mystery is how GCM infiltrate this GHG effect on the top of the troposphere down to the surface (and sideways).
Since Earth does not experience run-away WV feedback heating, it is logical to postulate that energy required to evaporate 1 ton of water is at least no less than what GHG effect this one ton of evaporated water causes (equilibrium is strong function of surface temperature). Again, evaporative cooling is confined strictly at the surface, so it would be logical to agree with you that water evaporation causes predominantly cooling effect of the surface and adjacent air layer.
Where I am wrong?
_Jim (Comment#102) December 23rd, 2007 at 6:27 pm
WV … and GHG effects.
…
GHG effect of WV is mashed all over troposphere. IPCC defines climate forcing (W/m2) at the top of the troposphere, where most of convective and latent heat transfer stops. It is simplified concept, which allows to use classic radiative balance calculations. Now the real mystery is how GCM infiltrate this GHG effect on the top of the troposphere down to the surface (and sideways).
So, is this so much hand waving in the calculation -
- or are the effects of the the individual widening and narrowing of certain ‘aperatures’ (if you will) due to gases/water vapor (due in large part to altitude) taken into consideration in fine detail?
(I’m thinking they are.)
Observation:
If one looks at the Wien Displacement Curves for various temperatures lower K (Kelvin) temperatures (e.g. 288 K) like those found on the surface of the earth, one sees where the Wien curve begins to ‘peek’ or bridge over certain areas ‘blocked’ by either CO2 or H2O (in/near the usual wavelenghts bands like 15 um, 4.3 um etc), so there does not seem to be any complete blocking of spectral transmission taking place that won’t at some point become inconsequential; a rise in temperature of the ‘radiating’ BB at the surface and the Wien curve can be seen pushing above and beyond the ’sucked-out’ portions of the radiating curve.
Ground to TOA (top of atmosphere) Calcs
Calculaitons by cba (Charles) looked to yield somewhere around a .7 deg C temperture increase for a doubling of CO2 from present.
This was using a simple one-dimension model from ground up theough 50, 60, 120 KM at ome point I think, using the xxTRAN databases.
jae (Comment#103) December 23rd, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Funny how XXX-the-arrogant….
Edited: Jae: No name calling.
jae (Comment#104) December 23rd, 2007 at 6:38 pm
74, Jim: what role does convection play in all these XXXXX calculations? Is it ignored?
—
Edited: I permit any topic, but please avoid calling things Pie-in-the-sky.
lucia (Comment#105) December 23rd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
@Jae–
However, it doesn’t explain why it is hotter in Scottsbluff Nebraska in July than at more humid areas further east at the same latitude and elevation.
Of course this isn’t explained by Hadley cells. This is explained by the fact that Scottsbluff NE is in the rainshadow of Mountains. The weather is dominated by that– so read the “mountains” bit.
The locations further east get a larger fraction of air that hasn’t just passed over mountains. For example, Iowa is nowhere near any mountains.
None of what you discuss at esnips negates the theory of global warming.
Even if the extra heat at the tropics goes into evaporating water, that water eventaully condenses. When it does that heat is added to the atmosphere and heats the air at the point where the water condenses. So, the heat is still added.
@Larry– I’m pretty much going to let people write what they want to write and read it at least for now. This will run at least through the holidays.
Yes. That means that lots of stuff will be nonsense. But if that keeps the nonsense off CA, I think that will help Steve. Meanwhile, I’ll hunt around for a plugin to deal with ranking comments etc. I’ll also be writing more formal posts later on, and decreeing some rules. But for the most part, I’m going to tolerate a lot without necessarily endorsing anything.
Bear in mind: I think AGW is probable. So, for that reason, the nonsense here isn’t as much a problem for me.
@_Jim– I have no trouble with people using the term Greenhouse. It is widely known that “the greenhouse effect” is not a good term as far as describing the physics. But, the word is used nevertheless. So… I’m not going to monitor the word so much at least for now.
That said: If I see specific words tend to lead to ad hominems, attacks etc. I’ll add them to a spam filter, or something. I can code enough to do all sorts of bizarre stuff once I know what I want to do.
lucia (Comment#106) December 23rd, 2007 at 6:54 pm
@Jim: I don’t know anything what-so-ever about Wien’s law. Feel free to talk about it now. I’m going to go see what I can do to accomodate letting people insert figures. (Or, right now, if you just add the link, I can just edit the image to show, but there will be a lag time. Tomorrow is Christmas Eve after all. Still, there isn’t much traffic yet, so I can can edit individual posts.)
_Jim (Comment#107) December 23rd, 2007 at 6:55 pm
what role does convection play in all these
See my #68:
Later we can consider convective effects, water vapor phase change etc.
Let’s not ‘bite off’ more than we can chew on the first go-round; some of the concepts and factors involved are going to be non-obvious and buried in technical terms the first time, so let us get those understood first.
Convection causing boundary layer mixing and sensible heat transfer to higher levels in the troposphere, considertion of a phase change of water vapor to liquid water and the release of the latent heat of evaporation; I don’t want to consider all that just yet …
I have seen what I thought were doubts expressed about surface level radiative cooling after the sun went down (the reason your car gets all ‘dewed up’ sitting uncovered in the driveway when the sky was clear!)
_Jim (Comment#108) December 23rd, 2007 at 7:04 pm
I can just edit the image to show … Tomorrow is Christmas Eve after all. Still, there isn’t much traffic yet,
No problem (he says chomping at the bit, anxious to post some graphics!)
so I can can edit individual posts.)
Oh, I don’t want to trouble you at this point (THAT will come later!)
Oh, on the ‘greenhouse’ term, I don’t want to find myself using it … it seems to be more of a marketing term meant for easy sale to the general public and I would like to move (myself) a little past that point.
_Jim (Comment#109) December 23rd, 2007 at 7:09 pm
I can just edit the image to show … Tomorrow is Christmas Eve after all. Still, there isn’t much traffic yet,
No problem (he says chomping at the bit, anxious to post some graphics!)
so I can can edit individual posts.)
Oh, I don’t want to trouble you at this point (THAT may come later!)
Oh, on the ‘greenhouse’ term, I don’t want to find myself using it … it seems to be more of a marketing term meant for easy sale to the general public and I would like to move (myself) a little past that point.
_Jim (Comment#110) December 23rd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
I can just edit the image to show … Tomorrow is Christmas Eve after all. Still, there isn’t much traffic yet,
No problem (he says chomping at the bit, anxious to post some graphics!)
so I can can edit individual posts.)
Oh, I don’t want to trouble you at this point (THAT may come later!)
Oh, on the ‘greenhouse’ term, I don’t want to find myself using it … it seems to be more of a marketing term meant for easy sale to the general public and I would like to move (myself) a little past that point.
PS I had a little trouble with this post - this marks the third submittal.
lucia (Comment#111) December 23rd, 2007 at 7:20 pm
@Jae–
With regard to the esnips article:
This requires 0.69 watts of energy (latent heat of evaporation).
Watts are not units of energy. They just aren’t.
As before at CA, you are interchanging watts and power. It’s more than just using the wrong word, you narrative makes it clear you are interchanging the two.
I know one thing for sure: I will be inserting “watts are not energy” on any comments that try to claim watts are units of energy. I’m also not going to take any argument seriously if they are based on simply mixing up power and energy.
lucia (Comment#112) December 23rd, 2007 at 7:22 pm
@Jae–
So far all I’m getting is:
You can’t explain why low lying area of Iraq are hotter than the equator during the summer under both these conditions:
* CO2 plus H2o feedback do not cause AGW and
* CO2 plus H2o feedback do cause AGW.
Becaused Iraq is hotter, because you can’t explain the reason at all, based on not being able to explain the difference at all, you conclude CO2 and H20 Feedback don’t cause global warming.
(This, of course, makes no real sense, since you can’t explain what happens with or without CO2 and CO2 makes no difference to any argument you advance. )
_Jim (Comment#113) December 23rd, 2007 at 7:50 pm
I can just edit the image to show … Tomorrow is Christmas Eve after all. Still, there isn’t much traffic yet,
No problem (he says chomping at the bit, anxious to post some graphics!)
so I can can edit individual posts.)
Oh, I don’t want to trouble you at this point (THAT will come later!)
Oh, on the ‘greenhouse’ term, I don’t want to find myself using it … it seems to be more of a marketing term meant for easy sale to the general public and I would like to move (myself) a little past that point. I’m looking for a better term, jae suggested one above, too.
(Trying to post this again!)
_Jim (Comment#114) December 23rd, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Help! I’ve fallen and gan’t get up! (can’t seem to get a post through the spam filter)
Do < sup > < /sup > tags work? I tried earlier, didn’t seem to … (just nagging for another feature!)
jae (Comment#115) December 23rd, 2007 at 8:30 pm
“Of course this isn’t explained by Hadley cells. This is explained by the fact that Scottsbluff NE is in the rainshadow of Mountains. The weather is dominated by that– so read the “mountains” bit.”
Lucia, you are making this a very hostile site for me. If that’s what you want, then quit advertising this site as an open forum.
Have you ever been to Scottsbluff, NB. What mountains are you talking about? The Rockies? They are 150 miles to the west. A “rainshadow” 150 miles away. NOT. I spent a lot of time there, Lucia.
jae (Comment#116) December 23rd, 2007 at 8:32 pm
81: Lucia: I can’t understand what you are trying to say. Please calm down.
jae (Comment#117) December 23rd, 2007 at 8:42 pm
“Watts are not units of energy. They just aren’t.”
You are correct. I should have put watt-hr in these places. But 1 watt is equal to one watt-hour, numerically, despite what you may have read on CA. So it really makes no difference. One watt = 1 joule/sec = (1 joule/sec)(3600 sec/hr) = 3600 joules/hr = 1 watt-hr. IOW, 1 = 1. Why is this so hard to understand?
Edit: The argument for why watt-hours are the same as watts is beyond wrong.
jae (Comment#118) December 23rd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Lucia, if you are going to run this blog, you should not be so hostile to divergent opinions. Otherwise, it is a joke.
jae (Comment#119) December 23rd, 2007 at 8:48 pm
“Let’s not ‘bite off’ more than we can chew on the first go-round; some of the concepts and factors involved are going to be non-obvious and buried in technical terms the first time, so let us get those understood first.”
OK, let’s follow your program here and see where it leads.
lucia (Comment#120) December 23rd, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Jae– How is 150 miles to far to be in the rain shadow of mountains? Are you under the impression rain shadows only extend 5 miles? Or 10 miles?
Des Moines is far to the east of the Rockies and out of the rainshadow. Parts of Western Nebraska are not.
As to the forum: you may discuss what you wish. It’s open.
However, you can’t call people names, or refer to other people’s theories as “pie in the sky”. I’ll delete name calling. I will do this for everyone.
Had someone called you a name or referred top your theory as “pie in the sky”, I’d edit that too.
So far, no one has called you or your theory names, so I haven’t edited their comments.
Also, if a theory is based on mixing up units of power and energy, I’m going to point that out. I’ll do the same for any obvious mixing up of units.
======
@83– I am perfectly calm.
I’m trying to summarize what you seem to say to see if I understand it. You summarize it yourself this way:
Rick: I’m not pushing a theory with this stuff. I’m just wondering why some things don’t seem to mesh with the “radiative-convective” theory that the climate scientists use to explain how CO2 increases the warmth of the atmosphere. Just questions, that’s all, at this point.
So, as I see it what you are telling us is:
a) You are not advancing any theory.
b) You are asking us questions.
c) You ask us why Iraq is hotter in summer because, presumably, this puzzles you and you do not know.
d) humidity and aridity is somehow involved in these questions and in the non-theory.
e) You suggest your inability to explain why Iraq is hotter than the equator during the summer is as proof that AGW doesn’t happen. (Admittedly, this would contradict a, since the idea that this proves AGW doesn’t happen is, itself, a theory. )
That’s more or less as much as I get of the various collections of comments.
So…. is that about right?
If that’s not about right, you really are going to have to do what I suggested much earlier on:
Get a wordpress blog. Write posts laying out your argument, interlacing figures, equations etc. That way, people can have some chance of understanding the point you are trying to make.
The alternative of trying to make a point by asking rhetorical questions doesn’t work because no one can possibly figure out what point you are trying to make.
welikerocks (Comment#121) December 24th, 2007 at 5:48 am
“e) You suggest your inability to explain why Iraq is hotter than the equator during the summer is as proof that AGW doesn’t happen. (Admittedly, this would contradict a, since the idea that this proves AGW doesn’t happen is, itself, a theory. )”
With all do respect, I think jae, like some of the rest of us is trying to discover why so much power is given to a tiny little gas in our atmosphere called CO2 , and if this theory (that comes from computer and laboratory) pans out at all in the REAL world. The fact that you can list all the mechanisms (or mountains if you will) that make Iraq hotter helps on the path to this discovery. I don’t think jae is completely unaware as to why Iraq is hotter, and doesn’t have a concept of distance or even geography, but he does want to find out where AGW that is supposed to be happening right NOW fits in.
Keep in mind, I live with a published, just as smart as anybody here, environmental scientist who thinks we could double and or triple the CO2 content of the atmosphere and it wouldn’t matter much He feels other forces are more important, like mountains water, the sun, orbit : tilts and wobbles, and always have been.
And sorry, you do sound a tad hostile and it doesn’t really feel at all like an “open forum”. I know, I have run one myself for a couple of years. And the fact that Steve Mosher and Larry are here taunting shows me Emotional IQs or (lack there of) is a real thing we can measure too.
lucia (Comment#122) December 24th, 2007 at 5:57 am
@weilrocks– I am trying to understand what jae is trying to say.
I’m fine with Jae wondering about the importance of CO2. But what he is doing is asking questions about why certain places are hotter that others, and at particular times of year.
Initially, he only named these generally. However, when pressed, he has named two places: Lowlying areas in Iraq in summer, compared to the equator, and Scottsbluff NE, compared to parts further east.
In each case, we know why these places are hotter.
How does AGW fit into these answer? These places are hotter than the alternates if there is AGW. These places are hotter if there is no AGW.
As far as I can tell, these answers have nothing to do with AGW.
If that particular answer sounds hostile, I don’t know how I can word it otherwise.
steven mosher (Comment#123) December 24th, 2007 at 6:24 am
here is a good source for you jae. get this book.
I’ll lnk one page
lucia (Comment#124) December 24th, 2007 at 6:26 am
Thanks steven. That should be a great resource for someone who wants to understand why some places on the planet are hotter or colder than othe
Pat Keating (Comment#7) 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.