A Warming Climate Brings New Crops to Frigid Zones

[Cardinal Carminative]

Prove that it is rising. The actual raw data says otherwise

Not like you will have a clue what to do with the data but:

NOAA Global Surface Temperature Dataset (NOAAGlobalTemp), Version 4.0 (Version Superseded)

www.ncei.noaa.gov

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You have to go to the actual groups monitoring the instruments. They post the raw data, then the climatologists falsify it.

LOL. Like you would even begin to understand how the data is processed. And yes, data is often processed. Again, not like YOU would know anything about how data is handled.

You have a child's cartoon view of the data.

 

[abu afak]

Where can one find that data?

You can find real data at link below. Lots. Hundreds. Thousands.
Not a Qanon phantom site that some Blogger made up that's being spoofed to you by a raging idiot with No link.
EVERYONE, and I mean everyone, including this board's RW Admin knows sea level is Rising.
NASA, NOAA, etc, x100.
TAKE YOUR PICK:

sea level rising chart - Google Search

www.google.com

`

 

[expat_panama]

And I don't understand your question.
Nor do you.
If it is the Greenhouse effect, (and it is), it would be the whole planet as the atmosphere Mixes the gases equally...`

This is where we start to part company. Even if we had 100% greenhouse retention (not quite 200 terawatts) and ALL of the solar energy was being captured and retained to warm the planet, then if we say the average specific heat of the earth being similar to granite (0.79kJ/(kg K)) it would take over 10,000 years for the entire planet's mass (almost 6x10^24 kg) raise one degree C.

A lot of folks I've talked to about this subject say we're not heating the whole planet but rather just the biosphere, but considering most of the mass would be the oceans and even that would take (iirc) hundreds of years.

This is just 8th grade general science, but if the greenhouse effect were really heating the planet then somehow we'd be able to make sense of it. So far I've yet to get a clear answer and often all I get is hostility --which speaks poorly for the AGW cause. Sure, this doesn't mean it's not true, but given the fact that none (so far) seem to be able to look that the basic science I'm at a loss to figure out what the fuss is all about.

 

[abu afak]

This is where we start to part company. Even if we had 100% greenhouse retention (not quite 200 terawatts) and ALL of the solar energy was being captured and retained to warm the planet, then if we say the average specific heat of the earth being similar to granite (0.79kJ/(kg K)) it would take over 10,000 years for the entire planet's mass (almost 6x10^24 kg) raise one degree C.

A lot of folks I've talked to about this subject say we're not heating the whole planet but rather just the biosphere, but considering most of the mass would be the oceans and even that would take (iirc) hundreds of years.

This is just 8th grade general science, but if the greenhouse effect were really heating the planet then somehow we'd be able to make sense of it. So far I've yet to get a clear answer and often all I get is hostility --which speaks poorly for the AGW cause. Sure, this doesn't mean it's not true, but given the fact that none (so far) seem to be able to look that the basic science I'm at a loss to figure out what the fuss is all about.

"When you say "Whole Planet" (and mass) this is outside what anyone is talking about, THEE debate, and relevance.
The Climate debate IS about the Biosphere and surface (air/ground/water).
No one gives as shlt how long it will take to get to the earth's core. WTF!!
Especially when it will take 2% of that time to drown half of civilization.

What a Bizarro ambiguation you tried to turn this into.

Wiki Greenhouse Gas

A greenhouse gas (GHG or GhG) is a gas that absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range, causing the greenhouse effect.[1]
The primary greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3).

Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F),[2] rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F).[3][4][5] The atmospheres of Venus, Mars and Titan also contain greenhouse gases.

Human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (around 1750) have increased the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide by almost 50%, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 419 ppm in 2021.[6]

The last time the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was this high was over 3 million years ago.[7] This increase has occurred despite the absorption of more than half of the emissions by various natural carbon sinks in the carbon cycle.[8][9]......

`

 

[Woodznutz]

Prove that it is rising. The actual raw data says otherwise

Climate aside, I agree that we should be using more raw data instead of statistics to deal with other problems. For example the gun violence problem.

Statistics reveal: a serious problem.
Data reveals: not so much.

"I've got no problem with shootings, as long as the right people get shot."
-Dirty Harry from "Magnum Impact".

 

[westwall]

LOL. Like you would even begin to understand how the data is processed. And yes, data is often processed. Again, not like YOU would know anything about how data is handled.

You have a child's cartoon view of the data.

What needs to be "processed"? The climatologists take raw data, then run it through a climate model and voila, all of a sudden the raw data is transmogrified. Cold has become warm, all through the magic of computer derived fiction.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

What needs to be "processed"?

For one the data needs to be grid averaged. A temperature ANOMALY has to be calculated. Etc.

The climatologists take raw data, then run it through a climate model

LOL....NOT EVEN MARGINALLY CLOSE! Why do you folks who have no clue how science is done say these things with such surety??

and voila, all of a sudden the raw data is transmogrified. Cold has become warm, all through the magic of computer derived fiction.

You don't have a CLUE what you are talking about.

LOL.

 

[westwall]

For one the data needs to be grid averaged. A temperature ANOMALY has to be calculated. Etc.



LOL....NOT EVEN MARGINALLY CLOSE! Why do you folks who have no clue how science is done say these things with such surety??



You don't have a CLUE what you are talking about.

LOL.

Bullshit. Every climate model results in warming, no matter what numbers you plug into them. Your claim is utter nonsense.

 

[abu afak]

For one the data needs to be grid averaged. A temperature ANOMALY has to be calculated. Etc.



LOL....NOT EVEN MARGINALLY CLOSE! Why do you folks who have no clue how science is done say these things with such surety??



You don't have a CLUE what you are talking about.

LOL.

Wetwall just makes empty/LinkLess claims based on what he's read HERE, and written by his fellow RW ConspiracYst morons who can at least elaborate.
He can't do anything except make one sentence of them.

`

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Bullshit.

Do you NOT think the data is grid averaged? Or do you NOT think that a temperature anomaly is first calculated?

How do you think they track warming?

Wow. You sound like you might be pretty ignorant of the entire field. Like at a fractal level.

Every climate model results in warming, no matter what numbers you plug into them.

Wrong. (NOt like YOU would have a CLUE how climate models are constructed...LOL)

Your claim is utter nonsense.

It probably seems like that you because you don't know the first foreign thing about this topic!

LOL

Here you go, if you can read you can learn more about how temperature data is processed (but be aware, there are a lot of big words. Have you mom or dad help you with this)

Temperature data (HadCRUT, CRUTEM,, HadCRUT5, CRUTEM5) Climatic Research Unit global temperature

crudata.uea.ac.uk

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Wetwall just makes empty/LinkLess claims based on what he's read

Thanks for the heads up. It did appear that westwall didn't know what they were talking about.

He can't do anything except make one sentence of them.

I see that a lot.

 

[expat_panama]

"When you say "Whole Planet" (and mass) this is outside what anyone is talking about, THEE debate, and relevance.
The Climate debate IS about the Biosphere and surface (air/ground/water).
No one gives as shlt how long it will take to get to the earth's core. WTF!!
Especially when it will take 2% of that time to drown half of civilization.

What a Bizarro ambiguation you tried to turn this into.

Wiki Greenhouse Gas

A greenhouse gas (GHG or GhG) is a gas that absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range, causing the greenhouse effect.[1]
The primary greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3).

Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F),[2] rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F).[3][4][5] The atmospheres of Venus, Mars and Titan also contain greenhouse gases.

Human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (around 1750) have increased the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide by almost 50%, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 419 ppm in 2021.[6]

The last time the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was this high was over 3 million years ago.[7] This increase has occurred despite the absorption of more than half of the emissions by various natural carbon sinks in the carbon cycle.[8][9]......

OK, so it seems we've come a long way from your earlier "The average temp of the lower atmosphere, Air temperature, Land, and Oceans, would all warm as the trapping affects of the GHGs are equally distributed across the planet. All would absorb and warm each other as well... as less of the Solar/Radiation is reflected back into space. Blocked from doing so at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs."

Now you're saying it's just the biosphere that's heating up. Please be clear about whether ur saying it's all the water in all the oceans along w/ say the first 3 miles of earth (they've found life down that far). Bear in mind that the specific heat of that kind of mass makes a difference when we're looking at heat the affect of GHG's.

One last thing, when u said "No one gives as shlt how long it will take to get to the earth's core. WTF!! Especially when it will take 2% of that time to drown half of civilization. What a Bizarro ambiguation you tried to turn this into." I can respect your passion if that's what it is. Please understand that I'm not your enemy, I'm not fighting w/ u. I'm not trying to convince u of anything, but rather I'm trying to find out just what it is that the AGW folks are saying.

OTOH, if your main thrust is squabbling and u don't really care about this stuff then we'd have to just call it a day. I'm hoping that's not the case and we can stick to science.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

OK, so it seems we've come a long way from your earlier "The average temp of the lower atmosphere, Air temperature, Land, and Oceans, would all warm as the trapping affects of the GHGs are equally distributed across the planet. All would absorb and warm each other as well... as less of the Solar/Radiation is reflected back into space. Blocked from doing so at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs."

That doesn't sound like Anthropogenic Global Warming. That's a weird made-up cartoon version of things.

 

[ding]

Do you NOT think the data is grid averaged? Or do you NOT think that a temperature anomaly is first calculated?

How do you think they track warming?

Wow. You sound like you might be pretty ignorant of the entire field. Like at a fractal level.



Wrong. (NOt like YOU would have a CLUE how climate models are constructed...LOL)



It probably seems like that you because you don't know the first foreign thing about this topic!

LOL

Here you go, if you can read you can learn more about how temperature data is processed (but be aware, there are a lot of big words. Have you mom or dad help you with this)

Temperature data (HadCRUT, CRUTEM,, HadCRUT5, CRUTEM5) Climatic Research Unit global temperature

crudata.uea.ac.uk

As long as they keep including urban weather station data in their models they will continue to blame the UHI effect on CO2.

 

[skookerasbil]

Climate change like being artificially produced by man made tactics like geo-engineering???

View attachment 235796 View attachment 235797

Lol....every single climate kOOk thinks that normal Sky Etch-A-Sketch.

Oh btw....snow forecast in Pa next week.... April 18

 

[expat_panama]

That doesn't sound like Anthropogenic Global Warming. That's a weird made-up cartoon version of things.

That's what I'm trying to set aside.

There seems to be some kind of big fuss from the AGW people, many who have a serious and dedicated passion for doing what is necessary. My problem is that I've yet to get a clear answer out of their most basic proposition, that something is warming at an excessive rate.

If there are any AGW people here, please tell me what is warming and tell me how and when u've measured the temperature. Without this info the entire AGW proposition becomes vacant.

 

[skookerasbil]

As often as we hear from deniers that warming will solve the world's hunger problems, odd that no one responded to the graphic above.

Because people don't care

 

[skookerasbil]

That's what I'm trying to set aside.

There seems to be some kind of big fuss from the AGW people, many who have a serious and dedicated passion for doing what is necessary. My problem is that I've yet to get a clear answer out of their most basic proposition, that something is warming at an excessive rate.

If there are any AGW people here, please tell me what is warming and tell me how and when u've measured the temperature. Without this info the entire AGW proposition becomes vacant.

Here's the thing....the AGW contingent have yet to make their case. After 20 years btw.

Renewable energy still a joke and will be for decades. AGW is for billboard gazers....shit transcends nowhere beyond the field. Like a group navel contemplation club. In the real world, nobody is caring. They spike the football on symbolic hooey only. The energy policy makers could not possibly be any less impressed.

 

[expat_panama]

Here's the thing....the AGW contingent have yet to make their case. After 20 years btw.

Renewable energy still a joke and will be for decades. AGW is for billboard gazers....shit transcends nowhere beyond the field. Like a group navel contemplation club. In the real world, nobody is caring. They spike the football on symbolic hooey only. The energy policy makers could not possibly be any less impressed.

Somehow what ur saying makes more sense than all I've been able to get from the AGW folks, they always seem to back off when ever we get into the nuts'n'bolts of what's heating & how do we measure it.

We got to admit that there are a lot of very nice folks who're swept into this thing, as vapid as it may be.