On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Jim wrote:

>  "The problem with GW is not the temperature
>   rise. The problem is that ..."
>
>I like that dodge ... subtle, but bold ...
>
>It takes a temp increase (where are the italics
>when I need them!) to 'force' (introduce? inject?
>put?) that energy into the system - no?

It depends. If it would be turned into storms or other cinetic energy
instantly then there would be no temperature rise imho.

>No temp change - no energy change - no *extra*
>energy to evaporate liquid water and create
>water vapor ...

I don't know. Try to think what would happen on a planet with a thin
atmosphere and no water vapor and CO2 to change the albedo (mars f.ex.).
Extra energy = instant storm systems == cinetic energy, with probably very
little temperature rise.

I think that on earth things are very complex because the water vapor
travels great distances and 'bunches up' in clouds. So extra sun over the
Pacific means floods in Europe and elsewhere etc. If the rain would fall
daily where or near where it was 'lifted' (f.ex. at nightfall - as in
subtropical climates)  things would be more bearable. It's also a totally
nonlinear system with the clouds doing all sorts of bistable effects. But
I am not a weather expert.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.