"John M." wrote:

On Aug 30, 1:55 am, William Asher wrote:
Whata Fool wrote:
Whata Fool wrote:

For the sake of making this point, consider water vapor and CO2
to both be GreenHouse Gases having identical attributes as far as the
IR electromagnetic radiation energy transfer is concerned.

Greenhouse Gas theory talks about gases able to absorb and
radiate
Infra-Red radiation, with water vapor being the only major GHG, and
CO2 the only minor GHG in concentration in the atmosphere of more than
100 PPMV.

There are other very minor GHGs, but they are of no import to
this
discussion.

AGW theory seems to focus unduly on CO2, and that is what AGW is
about, man does put additional CO2 into the atmosphere every day.
But GHG theory is about water vapor mostly, and CO2 as an
adjunct.

And as I try to write about a subject I have considerable
interest
in, it is a fight to avoid the browser hijackers, illegal malware scan
sales practices and suffering the damages from forged messages posted
by a criminal who can have no reason to attack me other than my views
on GreenHouse Gas theory.

Two gases that can and do absorb and radiate Infra-Red are
present
in 99 percent of the mass of the atmosphere at any and all times, CO2
at better than 380 PPMV presently, and water vapor usually at more
than 10,000 PPMV and often at more than 20,000 PPMV.

If temperature changes are affected by changing CO2
concentration,
then changes in water vapor concentration should affect temperatures,
in the same direction with increases.

This does not change any presumption about what causes the
surface
region of Earth to be 30 degrees warmer than the moon, that is a
separate issue entirely.
If increased concentration of CO2 were to cause additional IR
radiation, and it should, then increased water vapor concentration
should cause additional IR radiation, and it may.

The problem here is that increased CO2 has been blamed for some
small temperature rise, upon the assumption that increased IR
radiation must mean higher temperatures, and this has to be a
real-time effect.
But increased humidity does not cause temperature rise, even if
it causes increased IR radiation.

The driest days can be the hottest, and the driest days can also
be the coldest. And with high humidity, air temperatures seem to
change more slowly.

And the AGW argument is that CO2 is a "permanent" GHG, while
water
vapor is considered to be more transitional or even transient.

GHGs are responsible for considerable distribution and
re-distribution
of thermal energy, but the major heat sink for the atmosphere is the
N2 and the O2 atmosphere itself, with the limited ability of those
gases to radiate IR, they would warm in daytime, and resist cooling at
night, and there is only the GHGs to cool them and to produce
survivable and even comfortable temperatures on Earth

Foo-Foo:

Just.

Do.

Some.

Math.

That's a real problem for old 'uns like us, believe it or not. I can
spend hours trying to dissect some straightforward piece of calculus
that would have occupied me for less than 5 minutes when I was twenty
years old.


Before doing math, the problem has to be structured and first
estimates made. It is common to not use any precision math until
there is a reason to.


I have read millions of words of technical literature, and
both Climate Change and AGW have the least well specified or defined
science ever. But this is common in a lot of writing, it is
usually more just sloppy writing than a properly structured problem.

In climate science, the "surface" of the real Earth might be
described in such a way so that the weather services temperature
data is quite adequate.
But in discussions of an Earth with N2 and O2 atmosphere, but
no GHGs, the surface is simply the solid rock surface.


In order to correctly model and evaluate the effect of GHGs
with an increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2 on the real
Earth, understanding the physics of the Earth with NO GHGs can
help a lot.

If GHGs cool the atmosphere, then will increasing atmospheric
CO2 cause more warming or more cooling?


Obviously CC science has already said that the effects vary
according to latitude, but there are still some questions about
certain aspects, and apparently some writers have said that certain
problems are not well understood.

If this August would have been like last August here locally,
then many of us might have looked at AGW differently, but the nights
this August have fallen down well into the 60s at night, and even
into the 50s.

The daytime temperatures have been as much as 25 degrees cooler
than last August, and there would need to be a lot of warmer anomalies
elsewhere to get back to average.


It seems as though there should be more horizontal transfer of
energy from warm to cold, my impression is that most of the horizontal
temperature changes are cold fronts moving into warmer air, and often
moist warmer air.

So this seems to make thermal transfer more of a pressure thing
than Infra-Red radiation. Maybe weather is different other places
than here, most of our weather comes down from Canada, with some from
the southwest, occasionally a Bermuda High from the southeast.


The cooling has presented a problem, and it may take time to
re-evaluate the situation. I am praying that increased atmospheric
CO2 is not the cause of the cooling.