I'll have to mention here that my comment regarded the statemnts by some, that more dangerous and violent weather developements would occur given the temps those folks were claiming. High school graduates wouldn't be expected to understand it, there's not much they really do understand. Most can grasp the concept though, and they should be taught how to use the gas law.
The gas law is appropriate to this question, because the atmosphere is a gas, bounded by the Earth and it's gravitational field. In other words it's a gas in a plastic container. One of the walls represented by the Earth's gravitational field is elastic, so neither the volume, or the pressure is exactly constant. Now the energy of the gas is P*V, so E = P*V. Take the example of the temp rise of 1.8oC estimated for the year ~2090 by the NSF, or check my FR bookmarks for a quick est. of the limit of temp rise for doubling the CO2, it's essentially the same number.
So T1 = 18oC = 291oK
and
T2 = 19.8oC = 292.8oK
Oh, I see someone's raised their hand. Yes, Mary...question. Mary asks, "what about the water, isn't there more water in the atmosphere if it's hotter." Why yes there is, since I let the P and V vary, lets account for the change in n, the number of moles of gas. That can be done easily by adjusting n2 by multiplying it by the ratio of the final pressure of the atmosphere to the initial pressure of the atmosphere at constant volume. Since the total pressure is a sum of the partial pressures, and at constant volume n will scale accordingly.
and at
Then at
So,
combining gives:
or,
So E after warming is:
So the new total E is 0.9% higher than it was before it warmed up a hundred years from now. That's ~1% more available E/storm and it's not significant.
It's not significant for any storm, because the energy of any particular location in the atmosphere is a random variable. Random variables follow a gaussian dist and the center of that dist is the average E. Storms are due to pressure differentials from atmospheric locations with different E's. So if the number of locations with different E, NEi, of a particular Ei, are plotted against Ei for the initial and final E's, in this case the higher temp envelope will be the same as the lower temp envelope, shifted around the higher average E2. The 1% change in avg. E isn't going to effect sigma, the std dev, for the 2 systems, because nothing significant was introduced to effect variability. So storm intensity will scale proportional to the avg E's for the 2 temps.
Now this example shows how to find and grasp what the limit is to any modeling of atmospheric disturbances done in a more detailed and complex way. Increasing the size of the vessel does not change the gas law in any way, it's validity is independent of V. It's valid so long as the gas is not near a critical point and the bulk of it's not. Water is, but if you compare the 0.6% increase, to the extra 0.3% from this calc, it still doesn't amount to spit as far as adding anything significant to the change in avg E, or the envelope of the atmospheric pressures that give rise to storms.
I don't read and follow all volumes of data and reports about this subject. I don't have the time. I believe the KISS principle always applies and should always be used to understand things and fish through the fog of obfuscation for the truth.
" No-one is free from bias or greed"...and"..."
I am. Moral folks seek truth and understanding, whether they're scientists, businessmen, whatever... I'm just a third world chicken farmer that believes in protecting Freedom. The KISS principle always works, especially to uncover a con. Cons are always an immoral scheme to subvert Freedom and individual rights. Public schools don't teach these things, because if they did, their cons would have no effect and the socialist system they promote would fail to progress and vanish.
You're welcome to email my reply to any "top scientists", or those expert in atmospheric modeling and ask they refute my analysis of the strange and destructive weather scare many warmists promote. I claim that this outline provides a reality constraint for any modeling output.
Using the gas law you calculate the increase in energy available for storm creation in the atmosphere 100 years from now - about 1% based on a temperature rise of 1.8 degrees.
You then say that storm magnitudes follow a probability distribution and this distribution remains the same, independent of the rise in energy, except for a possible exception regarding water - which you consider later. Since the distribution remains the same one can pretty much expect a linear relationship between storm magnitude and energy level, i.e. storm magnitude shouldn't increase by much more than 1%, on average. Finally, you consider water and conclude that it does not near its critical point in the energy range under consideration.
If I can follow the argument virtually any real scientist concerned with atmospherics can. The idea that they couldn't, or didn't is ridiculous. I don't have to e-mail anyone.
I'm glad you don't suffer from greed or bias.