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.

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

So where, you might ask, do the figures of 4C, or 3C come from? Well they are due to positive feedbacks.

What happened was this, when the fed the 1.2C per 100% into the climate models in the late 90s they couldn't recreate the previous 30 years unless they added a big positive feedback which multiplied that 1.2 C up to 4 C.

The feedback they chose was simplistic. Water Vapour. A powerful GH gas and with a simplistic mechanism chosen, the 'as it gets warmer, more water evaporates' they had their mechanism.


Of course the system is far more complex than this, WV is an excellent heat transport to the upper atmosphere, but this can be verified by checking just what WV has done over the last 30 years or so.

For that we can go to NASA: http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content...3/NVAP_pwv.jpg

Ah. WV has actually fallen. Hm, now that means WV is a negative feedback, and actually reduces that 1.2 to something like 1 C.

We can actually also verify this with experimental data because have already added 46% more CO2 to the atmosphere! So what did we get for this 46%? We got 0.7 C.

Now of course the effect of CO2 is inverse log, the more you add, the less effect you get, so for almost half the CO2 increase we have had over half the temperature increase. So even if we attribute ALL that 0.7 C to CO2, and no one does that, we are bang on line to get to 1C for 100%.


What does all this mean? Well the goal of limiting temperature rise to 2 C is attainable without limiting CO2 production.

A temperature rise of 2C has been chosen because it is the limit at which supposed climate change becomes dangerous. In limiting it to 1C climate change is not dangerous, all we have is a slight rise in temperature. A rise less than that which we have already seen since the depths of the little ice age. And we have not even got to 1C yet!


So, not only are these storms NOT due to climate change, at 0.7 C climate cant have changed that much, unless the IPCC is completely wrong, and future warming is also not a problem.

These storms are just normal. The kind of thing we get every 50 or 100 years. The kind of thing that created the flood plains in the first place that we see flooded today.

On Monday, 17 February 2014 11:33:32 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote:
In article ,

matt_sykes writes



These storms are just normal. The kind of thing we get every 50 or 100

years. The kind of thing that created the flood plains in the first

place that we see flooded today.



Storms can create floods, but they can't create flood plains. Those were

created by geomorphology.



--

Malcolm

If you want to be really pedantic a flood plain IS geomorphology, as is an other change of the land. Anyway, that's digressing from the topic. The fact is that GW can not be responsible since we are not at the limit for dangerous climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoidin...climate_change

(And that's even with the new figure of 1C max, and not the old 2C max).

"matt_sykes" wrote:

What happened was this, when the fed the 1.2C per
100% into the climate models in the late 90s they
couldn't recreate the previous 30 years unless they
added a big positive feedback which multiplied that
1.2 C up to 4 C.

The feedback they chose was simplistic. Water Vapour.
snippage

It might be worth having a read of Arrhenius's 1896 paper, "On the Influence
of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground".

http://nsdl.org/sites/classic_articles/Article4.htm

Page 263 shows that even at this time it was already well known that
relative humidity tends to be conserved - i.e. if temperature rises,
absolute humidity also rises, and that of course amplifies the initial
warming because of the rise in the water vapour greenhouse effect. It's a
straightforward principle of physics, not something invented as a 'fudge' as
you seem to be suggesting.

On Monday, 17 February 2014 13:12:40 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote:
In article ,

matt_sykes writes

On Monday, 17 February 2014 11:33:32 UTC+1, Malcolm wrote:

In article ,



matt_sykes writes







These storms are just normal. The kind of thing we get every 50 or 100



years. The kind of thing that created the flood plains in the first



place that we see flooded today.







Storms can create floods, but they can't create flood plains. Those were



created by geomorphology.





If you want to be really pedantic a flood plain IS geomorphology, as is

an other change of the land. Anyway, that's digressing from the topic.



When someone makes such a blatantly wrong claim that storms create flood

plains, it throws doubt on everything else they have claimed.


Oh yes, I forgot, floods don't come from heavy rain, which doesn't come fro rain storms. How silly of me.





And now you've become even more ridiculous by saying that "a flood plain

IS geomorphology". For your enlightenment, the ending '-ology' means

'the study of', while 'geo' and 'morph' are, respectively, 'earth' and

'form'.


Well well, he actually knows the meaning of the term he used. Can you explain your statement then "flood plains ... were created by geomorphology". Did the study of how the earth changes create flood plains? No doubt rain had nothing to do with it. It was all those scholars wandering about the banks of rivers treading the ground flat!


And don't pretend this is pedantry. If you can't get the basics right,

then why should anyone believe anything else you write?



Ah I see, its the old. "I cant refute a single thing you say about GW and feedbacks so I will pretend you have made an error, by saying storms create rain which creates floods, and then try to switch the subject to ancient greek" avoidance technique.


Its not gong to wash Malcom, I have had far too much experience dealing with the likes of Garvey to fall for that lame crap.


Now answer the point. If you can. WV is not appositive feedback, dangerous climate change doesn't happen till we reach at least 1 or 2 C, and therefore the recent storms can not be due to CO2.

Hmm? Can you do that rather than avoid it?

On Monday, 17 February 2014 13:09:37 UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote:



What happened was this, when the fed the 1.2C per

100% into the climate models in the late 90s they

couldn't recreate the previous 30 years unless they

added a big positive feedback which multiplied that

1.2 C up to 4 C.



The feedback they chose was simplistic. Water Vapour.

snippage



It might be worth having a read of Arrhenius's 1896 paper, "On the Influence

of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground".



http://nsdl.org/sites/classic_articles/Article4.htm



Page 263 shows that even at this time it was already well known that

relative humidity tends to be conserved - i.e. if temperature rises,

absolute humidity also rises, and that of course amplifies the initial

warming because of the rise in the water vapour greenhouse effect. It's a

straightforward principle of physics,

Didn't I call it simplistic?


The fact is that in all of this, you, Arrhenius's and every one else forgets is that the climate is not simple.

Anyway, did you even bother to look at the NASA WV graph? Regardless of whatever the surface temperature has done in the last 30years, WV has decreased. Which is a big nail in the coffin of AGW theory as a threat to anything.

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?


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?


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.

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.



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?

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?



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?







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?


Of course not. It has got warmer, and WV has reduced, which means your BS little theory about AGW is dead in the water.


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

On Monday, February 17, 2014 4:21:50 PM UTC, matt_sykes wrote:
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?







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?















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?





Of course not. It has got warmer, and WV has reduced, which means your BS little theory about AGW is dead in the water.





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

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.

On Monday, 17 February 2014 17:29:11 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, February 17, 2014 4:21:50 PM UTC, matt_sykes wrote:

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?















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?































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?











Of course not. It has got warmer, and WV has reduced, which means your BS little theory about AGW is dead in the water.











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



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.

Oh, look who has turned up...

So Garvey, care to add anything useful to the discussion by refuting NASA WV data or are you just gong to stand there on the side lines casting aspersions?

"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.