Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
 

On Monday, 17 February 2014 19:46:03 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote:



Regardless of whatever the surface temperature has done in the

last 30 years, WV has decreased.



Actually atmospheric water vapour has increased and is very strongly

correlated with global atmospheric temperature (the black curve):



http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/humid2.jpg



Credit:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/...an-wet-island/



So the climate is doing what Arrhenius expected it to do, 120-odd years ago.

The water vapour feedback approximately doubles the warming impact of CO2

rise.



BTW, see if you can figure out why the graph you cited in your comment is

misleading. Look at the logarithmic scale of the Y axis for example.

It took you what, 2 days to find a graph that shows WV increasing? I mean there are thousands of papers published all over the world, many of which have poor peer review, or which are based on model predictions, or which are just plain theoretical. Have you checked these three papers to make sure they are valid?

Because clearlyt, NASA satellite data, no theory, no process, no modeling, just plain shows that you are wrong and that WV has in fact decreased.


So, lets take a look:

Dai 2006. COuldnt find his actual paper, but found this desription: http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/documents/s.../slides/Ye.pdf "Water vapor changes There is a large regional variation due to complex local effects, negative relationship is observed in some regions, Dai 2006"

And dont forget Dai is station based data, not across the entire atmisphere, like the NASA WV project data is.



Willet et al. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...2008JCLI2274.1 Its surface humidity again. Oddly though its 20S to 20N shows a big change, yet the tropics have had hardly any warming. Very odd. Quoite unexpected by any theory!

I womnt look at BErry and Kent, it is time to eat. But the moral is, just slinging links is not good enough; you need to read to criticise what you are reading.

Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
 

On Monday, February 17, 2014 7:41:49 PM UTC, Malcolm wrote:
In article ,

Dawlish writes

He's found someone else with a brain to answer his drivel, Malcolm,

which used to be confined to alt.global-warming, before he decided to

try to stalk me (very poorly and he seems to get sidetracked very

easily) onto here. I'd counsel you to ignore him. You are not dealing

with someone who is in the slightest bit rational - but your decision

Malcolm. Good luck.



Thanks, Dawlish.



I had realised that I was dealing with a denialist, and, after all a

rational AGW denialist is a massive oxymoron :-)

Malcolm

There is a fuller cv of this one the other thread.

Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
 

"matt_sykes" wrote:

....
Because clearlyt, NASA satellite data, no theory, no process,
no modeling, just plain shows that you are wrong and that
WV has in fact decreased.

The data shows atmospheric water vapour increasing. Here's another source -

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-...eries/humidity

The graph you cited in your original post was scaled logarithmically in
order to hide this fact.

Did you know that the primary 'fingerprint' of AGW is tropospheric warming
and stratospheric cooling? The author of the graph you cited chose to
emphasise the decline in stratospheric water vapour (an expected consequence
of the cooling stratosphere), but hide the increase in tropospheric water
vapour (an expected consequence of the warming troposphere) by the scaling
of the Y axis. Why do you think he did that?

Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
 

On Monday, 17 February 2014 20:41:49 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote:

I had realised that I was dealing with a denialist,


Do you actually think that term is helpful to the discussion?


What do you suppose I am denying, or is it just a blanket term you can use in order to avoid having to answer difficult questions?

I actually do not deny the climate changes nor that CO2 has a role, as I thought would have been fairly obvious by my discussion of climate sensitivity to CO2.


So, are we going to get a reasonable discussion from you about WV feedbacks or are you gong to pretend I don't exist?

Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
 

On Monday, 17 February 2014 20:39:37 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote:
In article ,

matt_sykes writes

On Monday, 17 February 2014 16:32:38 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote:

In article ,



matt_sykes writes



On Monday, 17 February 2014 14:32:49 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote:



load of BS







Storms do create flood plains. Where else does rain come from? Non storms?







Storms create floods. What possible mechanism do you imagine is involved



for a storm to create an area of low-lying land



Who said it has to be low lying. Ever hear of Boscastle?



Yes, I've been there, and to Lynmouth.



I also note the diversionary tactic.


Hahahahahahah!


YOU mentioned 'low lying land', not to mention ancient Greek, so don't talk to me of diversionary tactics.










We were discussing flood plains and

how, acccording to you, storms create them. There were certainly severe

storms at both Boscastle and Lynmouth and both created floods, but

neither created flood plains. Unless you know better, which you don't.





into which a river can



overflow at times of excess water flow? Is it the weight of water



flattening the land the river flows through?











A 'process of study' is still not gong to create a flood plain, unless



you really do think that a load of scholars standing around river banks



is enough to tramp the ground flat? Or perhaps you want to retract



and say flood plains are not formed by geomorphology? Hmm?







Read what I wrote about proceesses.







Oh, and WV is mote important than CO2. Way more important. If you



don't know that its time you did some basic reading up on GH gasses.







Water vapour is an important greenhouse effect, it is NOT about climate



change. It cannot on its own change the climatre.





I didn't say it did, I said it was proposed as a positive feedback to

CO2 caused warming. Are you having trouble reading or do you want me

to spell it out for you in simpler terms?



You claimed that CO2, even with 100% more, could only cause a 1C

increase


No I didn't. I said a 100% increase over pre industrial times.


and instead claimed that WV was more important than CO2. You

are quite simply wrong.


WV is a more important GH gas than CO2 since it is far more abundant. Everyone knows it, why don't you?






















Oh, and as for 'spouting' all I did was describe the basics of AGW



theory. If you are calling that a load of 'spout' I might agree with



you.







No, I would call it a load of BS!











But look, once again Malcom, instead of avoiding the subject, why don't



you just admit that WV is not a positive feedback as predicted and that



therefore the most we will get from 100% more CO2 is 1.2C? Can you do



that? Can you be a man and admit the science? Or are you gong to



pansy around spouting off ancient greek and other diversionary tactics?







I disagree. Water vapour is a feedback effect and your contention that



the most we will get from 100% more CO2 is 1.2C is non-credible



nonsense.





I see, so if WV is a positive feedback, ie, it increases as it gets

warmer, then the NASA WV project shows it has cooled since 1988? Is

that what you are saying Malcom?



No, I'm am saying that your claim that your claim that CO2, even with

100% more, could only cause a 1C increase and instead you claim that WV

was more important than CO2 is quite simply wrong.







Of course not. It has got warmer, and WV has reduced, which means your

BS little theory about AGW is dead in the water.



Which is a nonsense claim which anyone who knows anything about the

subject, rather than someone who deliberately ignores the science that

they don't like, knows is BS.

You are saying NASA WV data is BS are you? You want to go on the record as saying that do you?






Face facts Malcom, WV hasn't increased, or is NASA wrong and Malcom right?



Your claim that CO2, even with 100% more, could only cause a 1C

increase and instead you claim that WV was more important than CO2 is

quite simply wrong and not borne about by the facts.


No, 100% from pre industrial will directly cause 1.2 C, but WV is clearly reducing, unless you think NASA are lying, in which case it is a negative feedback.

In fact, since we have already added 46% more CO2 and only got 0.7C it is clear the sensitivity is lower than 1.2C per 100%. Or do you deny empirical data as well as NASA?

Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
 

On Monday, 17 February 2014 22:49:26 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote:



...

Because clearlyt, NASA satellite data, no theory, no process,

no modeling, just plain shows that you are wrong and that

WV has in fact decreased.



The data shows atmospheric water vapour increasing. Here's another source -



http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-...eries/humidity


Again, surface station data, and Dai (2006 is the paper I assume you are referring to here) found all sorts of inconsistencies.




The graph you cited in your original post was scaled logarithmically in

order to hide this fact.

No, it is the entire troposphere, not just surface data. If you actually look at the 1000 mb data in the graph I linked you might detect a slight trend which is not inconsistent with your shortened and expanded y axis graph above.





Did you know that the primary 'fingerprint' of AGW is tropospheric warming

and stratospheric cooling? The author of the graph you cited chose to

emphasise the decline in stratospheric water vapour

The graph doesn't have stratospheric data, it stops at 300 mb.

Why do you think he did that?

He didn't, you imagined it.

Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
 

"matt_sykes" wrote:

....
In fact, since we have already added 46% more CO2 and only got
0.7C it is clear the sensitivity is lower than 1.2C per 100%.

Don't forget the thermal inertia of the Earth's billion cubic kilometres of
ocean.

Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is like turning up the central
heating thermostat in your home - it doesn't instantly reach the new higher
temperature, because the radiators take time to feed in all the additional
heat required to bring it up to that temperature.

In the case of the Earth's climate, we've created an energy imbalance by
reducing infrared emission to space, but it takes time for the oceans to
warm up enough to once again balance insolation. The standard
back-of-the-envelope figure is that for a linear climate forcing, the
transient warming will be around 60% of equilibrium warming for that
forcing.

The net climate forcing (anthropogenic + natural) to date is around 1.7W/m²
and fast feedback climate sensitivity is around 0.75°C/W/m², or 3°C for a
doubling of atmospheric COâ‚‚ from 280 to 560ppm, so we would expect to see
around 1.7 * 0.75 = 1.3°C of global warming at equilibrium and 1.7 * 0.75 *
0.6 = 0.8°C today, which is pretty much exactly the warming that we have
seen.

If you're arguing for something lower than 1.2°C per doubling of atmospheric
COâ‚‚ then you would only expect to have seen, at the very most, 1.7 * 0.3 *
0.6 = 0.3°C of global warming - clearly well below what has been observed.

Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
 

"matt_sykes" wrote:

If you actually look at the 1000 mb data in the graph I linked
you might detect a slight trend which is not inconsistent with
your shortened and expanded y axis graph above.

Yes, that's right. As you probably know, atmospheric water vapour is
largely concentrated in the lower troposphere -

http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress...centration.png

The logarithmic scale of the graph you cited emphasises the very small
decline in water vapour at high altitude and effectively hides the much
larger increase of water vapour in the lower troposhere, which of course is
what has the largest impact on the greenhouse effect. You have to wonder
about the motivation of the author for displaying it in this misleading way.

The graph doesn't have stratospheric data, it stops at 300 mb.

Yes you're right about that, thanks. I mis-remembered the heights for those
pressure layers.

Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT aproblem.
 

On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 02:17:28 -0800 (PST)
matt_sykes wrote:

As you all probably know the direct warming effect of doubling CO2
from preindustrial times can be calculated at 1.2 C. This is well
known, there is plenty of data on line on this and there is not
argument about it, it is basic physics.

We do? I don't. But then I supposed it's all changed since I were a lad.

". . . changes of mean atmospheric temperature due to CO2 [as
calculated by Manabe (1971) on the assumption of constant relative
humidity and fixed cloudiness] are about 0.3C per 10 percent change of
CO2 and appear capable of accounting for only a fraction of the
observed warming of the earth [sic] between 1880 and 1940. They could,
however, conceivably aggregate to a further warming of about 0.5C
between now and the end of the century."

That's from "Understanding Climate Change - A Program for Action"
published in 1975 (March).

As for the forecast of a 0.5C rise in temperature by the end of the
century, it was actually 0.48C (using 11-year smoothing). Pretty damn
close, I'd say.

Taking the longer view, a 3C rise for a doubling of CO2 would account
for a 1.03C rise in temperature from 1866 to 2007 (mid-points of
11-year means). The actual rise was 0.87C.


So, that's increasing CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, we expect to get
1.2 C. We are currently at 400.

Nope. We expect a further rise of at least 1.75C from now to 2076 when
we reach 560ppm, assuming a constant rise (based on rate of increase of
last ten years) in CO2 from now on.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'.
"Welcome to the year of the whores. People around the globe celebrate."
- BBC News subtitle

Why the storms can NOT be due to CO2. And why GW is NOT a problem.
 

On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:01:23 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote:



...

In fact, since we have already added 46% more CO2 and only got

0.7C it is clear the sensitivity is lower than 1.2C per 100%.



Don't forget the thermal inertia of the Earth's billion cubic kilometres of

ocean.



Not this old crock again.

There is no such thing as thermal intertia. You add heat to matter, its temperature increases. Period.

(I wonder if anyone is going to chime in with the one exception, as unjustifiable as it is, for obvious reasons)

So you cant 'store heat' in some handy little heat sink somewhere and have it later jump out on the earth and cause warming. It just isn't physically possible.