EM, &Raff, don't you think it is upto Climate Scientists to prove manmade CO2 has a link to the current change in climate first, before attributing blame for a flood?

You have obviously familiarised yourselves with all the other factors that reduce the capacity of rivers to carry rainfall to the sea? You are quite sure that all old bridges have been maintained in accordance with the recommendations of the engineers employed to do such work?

Is the current lack of a seasonal flu epidemic due to climate change?

michael hart, modern technology allows climate scientists to imagine a virtual reality climate moisture meter on Noah's Ark. It is fully adjustable to allow any conclusion to be drawn.

Reality Climate suspends all belief systems apart from their own.

Raff, do you have any experience of talking to people who have just suffered some calamity or disaster, and how it is easy to get them to blame something or anything?

Perhaps those people in countries like India, dying through lack of electricity, denied to them by climate experts, should be given the opportunity to direct their rage and hatred?

Michael hart

In the laboratory air can hold about7% more water per 1C.warming. . The temperature record is showing +1C since 1880.

Why do you keep asking me these questions? Are sceptics too stupid to work these things out for yourselves?

EM, why are climate scientists so stupid and incompetent, that they keeping going on about CO2 being the cause of climate change, without any proof?

Haven't you 'moved on' from 'old hat' Arrhenius obsession yet? People are dying through lack of fossil fuelled electricity, every hour of every day.

Golf Charlie

Why are you asking me for information?

Is your question rhetorical or are you, like Michael hart, incapable of research?

EM, it hasn't risen that much, and you know it. And the amount it has risen cannot properly be attributed as being due to human activity.

You are starting off the new year in a bad way with deflection, deception, lying, and, possibly, stupidity.
Congratulations. The only way is up.

Happy 2016.

EM, there is no research that has found a link between CO2 and climate. So what is the point in anyone asking someone claiming to be a climate expert for anything?

Climate scientists couldn't even deliver a pizza. Pizza delivery drivers do benefit society, climate scientists don't.

I would also refer you to michael hart @ 10:24

Lewes didn't flood this year.

RR: The winds from the West blowing over the Sahara arrive laden with water from the Atlantic. But not a cloud to be seen there. Compare that the winds from the West blowing over the West of England in winter - no shortage of clouds and of rain.

Attributing noticable effects on floods etc to a 1°C temperature change is - - clutching at straws?

Entropic Buffoon, hopefully you have now also sobered up enough to realise what a foolish idea it is to talk about an x % rise in humidity due to a 1°C rise in temperature.

The vapour pressure of water rises exponentially with temperature, so a rise of 1°C in, say, Arctic air from -30°C to -29°C would mean a rise in water content far, far lower than would a rise from +29°C to +30°C in the Tropics.
Your assertion is meaningless as a stand-alone statement, like so much you pour forth for our benefit. You used to teach schoolchildren bright enough to understand this, so why do you parade such stupidity here where merely using a number impresses almost nobody?

This is the same basic scientific and mathematical error that is made by people who talk of (potential) oceanic pH changes as, say, "an x % increase in [H+]".

Such people either don't understand the offence against maths, science & understanding they are committing, or they do understand it, but choose to do it anyway for suspect motives.

Such people are ignorant, or they are so deceptive as to be effectively liars. Which will you take?

Michael hart, martin A, Radical Rodent

I was talking about absolute humidity in the 10-15C range, the global average. It should have been obvious from context. Your pedantry is noted, as is that of Radical Rodent and Martin A.

The question remains. Why ask me when you are quite capable of finding out for yourself? As a group you have a foolish tendency to ask rhetorical questions for which your beliefs have already provided a scientifically incorrect answer.

Within your own echo chamber you can reinforce each other's delusions, but to an outside observer your approach sounds foolish. This is probably why you do not last long on blogs outside the deniosphere. You are quickly identified as trolls and excluded.
If you took a more positive line and actually argued your case with peer reviewed evidence, you might last longer.

Martin A

I hope you will forgive my pedantry, but the prevailing winds in the Sahara come from the Northeast, not the West.

I was thinking about the problem of attributing particular floods to climate change.

A quick and dirty possibility is this. Consider a river which on average burst its banks five times a year 100 years ago. The average now is ten times a year.

Bursting the banks represents a threshold, enough rainfall to fill the river. Over 100 years the frequency of reaching this threshold has doubled.

You insist on trying to ascribe individual floods to climate change? Presumably five of the recent floods would have happened anyway and the extra ones would be due to climate change. The five strongest would have happened anyway.

The five weakest floods would be due to climate change. Without the extra rainfall they would have remained below the threshold and would not have occurred.

Michael hart

"The vapour pressure of water rises exponentially with temperature, "

Do you put this forward as a reason for global warming? It means that the water vapour greenhouse effect would show a strong positive feedback.

Martin A, Raadiiccal rodent

From the Sahara desert entry at DesertUSA.

"The prevailing wind, which blows from the northeast toward the equator throughout the year, accounts for the desert's aridness. As the wind moves southwestward, the air warms, dissipating moisture that might otherwise be released as rainfall. "

There is a brief and unreliable wet season in the Western Sahara.Temporary west winds would account for it Perhaps this is why the Barara is regarded as lucky.

Ratty, the only hit for you at ATTP is this comment from August last year:

Ah, “climate” – a catch-all word that specifies nothing. There is no global “climate”; climate tends to be more regional; thus the climate of the UK (for example) is different from the climate of France (indeed, even within the UK, there are definite regional climates); which of these is definitely changing? Indeed, given the vagaries of the British climate, is it possible to identify any change in it? Can anyone actually point out any particular region where the climate has demonstrably changed, and in what manner is that change?

ATTP answered politely enough but declined to answer your question:

Radical,
I’ll post your comment, but I’m not planning to bother answering it. Unless I’m mistaken, you dispute the existence of the Greenhouse effect, which – if true – just means that there isn’t much point me responding.

Nobody threw "ridicule, vilification and insult" at you or "recommendations to self-harm and suicide". In fact everyone just ignored you. You don't seem to have been "excluded" either, but maybe you consider being ignored to be worse.

And on RealClimate I found just one commment, again with no abuse:

Radical Rodent says:
21 Oct 2013 at 4:50 AM

Could someone please offer an accepted definition of the term CAGW?

[Response: An imaginary concept that is brought forth as an incantation whenever there is a need to ward off the possibility of serious discussion. – gavin]

So can you give some examples of your comments that have provoked abuse and exclusion ( or just the sites). Most sites give some warnings so there should be something left to find.

Radical Rodent

If you reject peer review and statistics you will be rejected.

EM all the papers explaining the pause/hiatus in scientific papers by climate scientists were peer reviewed, so why weren't they rejected, because you say there is no pause or hiatus to explain?

So how much of climate science should be removed from the record for passing peer review and statistical analsis by fellow climate scientists?

Climate Science is not the only 'Science' to be riddled with deliberate abuse, but may be the only one that has always depended on it, ab initio.