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.

"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 13:09:37 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.

"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.

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.

"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?

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

On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 15:03:27 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
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.


Nearer 0.6 C http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had...m:1866/to:2007









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.

You know of course the effect of CO2 is inverse log? No. Oh, Well you do now. You cant extend a rate from the first 50% into the second.


Oh, and as for last ten years of warming? Care to explain how we are gong to get ANY increase based on this?http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had...m:2004/to:2014

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 07:44:50 -0800 (PST)
matt_sykes wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 15:03:27 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
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.


Nearer 0.6 C
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had...m:1866/to:2007


Following anomalies are based on 1951-80 normal (or 1901-2000, same
thing).

11-year mean centred on 1866 is -0.28.
11-year mean centred on 2007 is +0.59

Care to do the sums on that and tell me whether your answer is nearer
0.6C or 0.87C?



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

On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 16:28:20 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 07:44:50 -0800 (PST)

matt_sykes wrote:



On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 15:03:27 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:

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.





Nearer 0.6 C

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had...m:1866/to:2007





Following anomalies are based on 1951-80 normal (or 1901-2000, same

thing).



11-year mean centred on 1866 is -0.28.

11-year mean centred on 2007 is +0.59



Care to do the sums on that and tell me whether your answer is nearer

0.6C or 0.87C?







--

Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'.

"Welcome to the year of the whores. People around the globe celebrate."

- BBC News subtitle

But you havent given your data source, its just figures. I have given you IPCC data, the official, global, agreed data, and it shows 0,6 ish.

And the last 10 years as flat as a pancake.