Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

Cannavore said:

View Image

Click to expand...

please explain "orbital forcing"
are you now admitting Milankovitch cycles are the main forcing?


and explain in detail what 'orbital' relates to...


also, in your estimation, which cycle contributes the most forcing?



????????????????????????????
Regional widening of tropical overturning:Forced change, natural variability, and recent trends


Key Points:Thelocal tropical edge diagnostic follows spatial hydroclimate variations more closely than does the subtropical ridge.Observed widening, forced widening, and interannual variations each have their own regional signature.The pattern of observed regional widening more closely matches unforced interannual variations than forced regional widening.AbstractThe width of the tropical Hadley circulation (HC) has garnered intense interest in recent decades, owing to the emerging evidence for itsexpansion in observationsand models, and to theanticipated impacts on surface climate in its descending branches. To better clarify the causes and impacts of tropical widening, this workgeneralizesthe zonal mean HC to the regional level by defining meridional overturning cells (RC) using the horizontally divergent wind. The edges of the RC are more closely connected to surface hydroclimate than more traditional metrics of regional tropical width (such as the sea level pressure ridge), or even than the zonal mean HC. Simulations reveal a robust weakening of the RC in response to greenhouse gas increases, along with a widening of the RC in some regions. For example, simulated widening of the zonal mean HC in the Southern Hemisphere appears to arise in large part from regional overturning anomalies over the Eastern Pacific, where there is no clear RC. Unforced interannual variability in the position of the zonal mean HC edge is associated with a more general regional widening. These distinct regional signaturessuggest that the RCs may be well suited for the attribution of observed circulation trends. The spatial pattern of regional meridional overturning trends in reanalyses corresponds more closely to the pattern associated with unforced inter-annual variability than to the pattern associated with CO2 forcing, suggesting a large contribution of natural variability to the recent observed tropical widening trends.



Plain Language Summary


The large-scale tropical wind patterns responsible for the dry desert belts on either side of the tropics appear to be expanding. Most explanations for this widening are based on the tropics as a whole, and do little to address whether the subtropics are widening from one region to the next. This study extends the definition of tropical width –specifically the Hadley cell edge –to the regional level. The regional tropical edge lines up with deserts better than another, more conventional regional indicator. The observed pattern of tropical widening more closely resembles natural changes than human-caused widening during much of the year.


https://sci-hub.tw/https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JD030100

No surprises coming from the anti-vaccine crowd.

trichrider said:

who's denying climate changes?
we all agree that climate is changing.
what we don't agree on is that it is caused by CO2 or that CO2 is a pollutant responsible for 'warming'.
let me ask this...
what is it that makes CO2 the culprit?


you also must understand that if humanity is extinguished CO2 will still be here.

Click to expand...

I dunno, maybe if they show us another dozen celebrity endorsed commercials shaming individuals for flushing the toilet we' ll figure it out. They also need our burger flipping ass to donate.

once again let us look at the tale of the thermometer
in short, this April was the 2nd warmest in the record reaching back to 1880
not warm in my locale, and that shows
but the arctic, it just keeps warming and warming

April


April 2019 Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Anomalies in degrees Celsius

April 2019 Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Percentiles
For a second consecutive month, the global land and ocean surface temperature was the second highest for April since global records began in 1880. April's temperature departure of 0.93°C (1.67°F) above the 20th century average ranked second to April 2016 (+1.08°C / +1.94°F). April 2019 marks the 412th consecutive month and the 43rd consecutive April with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average. The global land and ocean temperature for April tied with September 2015 as the 11th highest monthly temperature departure from average among all months (1,672 months) on record. The 10 highest monthly temperatures departures from average have all occurred since 2015.
Above-average temperatures were present across much of the world's land and ocean surfaces. The most notable warm temperature departures from average were present across Greenland, Scandinavia, and northern and central Asia, where temperatures were 3.0°C (5.4°F) above average or higher. Record warm April temperatures were present across parts of Asia, Greenland, Scandinavia, Barents Sea, central Africa, and the Atlantic, western Indian, and the south Pacific oceans. The most notable cool temperature departures from average were present across Canada and the southern ocean off the southern coast of Australia, where temperature departures from average were 1.0°C (1.8°F) below average or cooler. No land or ocean areas had record cold April temperatures.
Averaged separately, the global land-only temperature for April was 1.48°C (2.66°F) above the 20th century average and tied with 2012 as the third highest in the 140-year record, behind 2016 (+1.89°C / +3.40°F) and 2007 (+1.50°C / +2.70°F). The global ocean-only temperature tied with 2017 as the second highest since global records began in 1880 at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above average. Only the global ocean temperature set in 2016 (+0.79°C / +1.42°F) was higher.
According to NCEI's Regional Analysis, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Oceania had an April temperature that ranked among the nine highest for April on record. North America's temperature was above average at +1.08°C (+1.94°F) and ranked as the 20th highest April temperature on record. The Caribbean region had its coolest April since 2012.
Select national information is highlighted below. Please note that different countries report anomalies with respect to different base periods. The information provided here is based directly upon these data:

• According to the Finnish Meteorological Institute, April 2019 temperatures were 2.0°–3.5°C (3.6°–6.3°F) above the 1981–2010 average across Finland. For 13 stations across the country, April 2019 was the warmest April on record. Of note, Utö Island had a temperature of 15.9°C (60.6°F) for April 2019. This value is 1.4°C (2.5°F) higher than the previous record. Records extend back to 1901 in Utö Island.
• De Bilt, Netherlands had an April temperature of 10.9°C (51.6°F), which is 1.7°C (3.1°F) above the 1981–2010 average and the seventh highest April temperature since records began in 1901.
• Austria also had a warmer-than-average April, with a nationally-averaged temperature that was 1.5°C (2.7°F) above average. This was one of Austria's 25 warmest Aprils since national records began in 1767.
• Hong Kong's minimum and maximum temperatures were 2.1°C (3.8°F) above average, ranking as the highest and second highest for April, respectively. The mean temperature for Hong Kong was 2.2°C (4.0°F) above average and the fifth highest on record.
• Warmer-than-average conditions were present across much of Australia during April 2019. Averaged as a whole, Australia's April 2019 national temperature of 1.35°C (2.43°F) above the 1961–1990 average tied as the seventh highest April temperature in the nation's 110-year record. Regionally, New South Wales had the highest temperature departure from average at +1.97°C (+3.55°F) and ranked as the fifth highest on record. South Australia and Northern Territory also had an April temperature that ranked among the ten highest since national records began in 1910.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weat...y-snow-falls-in-the-midwest-and-west/70008327


May 21, 2019

May snow wallops Denver area and many other places across the US

Here is a video about how much garbage is in the ocean.... not very hard to see how much damage us little humans are capable of causing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

arse said:

no mention of the SUN

Well I'm experiencing rapid climate change here, a couple of months ago it was hot,
now its cold and will be for a few months, but that's alright because a couple of months after that it will be hot again


Its bloody good to see the people of Australia reject all the UN/lefty scare mongering
it was a big NO for climate action, people are starting to wake up to the UN/socialist SCAM

Click to expand...

What do you expect climate change to be like?
Winter to turn into summer over a few years?
I won't speak for him, but what Cannavore is trying to show you is that there is a snowball effect, it is like compound interest.
You may be lucky enough to not notice much effect of it but maybe you have kids and some wishes for them to grow old and on and on, on a nice stable planet??
Even if it's the best case scenario and most scientists predictions are wrong/inaccurate it still doesn't change the fact that something has to be done much sooner than later, the idea that we will never need to address things is ignorance.

Frylock said:

What do you expect climate change to be like?

Click to expand...

We have a front row seat.

In 2003 47 million acres of forest, burned in Siberia, Russia.

Wonder how much CO2 that generated ?

You could see the effect on CO2 levels in the 2004-2005 numbers.

Rate of increase went from 2- ppm per year, to 3+ ppm per year.


Right now, Canadian citizens are getting a taste of something.

A repeat of the May 2016 fire that burned into downtown Fort McMurray.

They are using the term Mega-fire for anything 100,000 acres or above.

This fire is near "High Level", Alberta - how's that for a name ?

200,000 acres and it's just a baby. 100,000 acres 2 days ago.


" “The BC Wildfire Service recognizes the importance of sharing firefighting resources given the invaluable assistance Alberta has provided to B.C. during the last two wildfire seasons, which were the worst in the province’s history,” said fire information officer Kyla Fraser in a media release."

https://globalnews.ca/news/5298798/bc-wildfire-crews-help-alberta/



309 square miles, an area 17.5 miles square (of course, the fire isn't burning in a square.)

It's only about 70 degrees and there's no wind. About 1400 miles from the North Pole.


Looks like BC is joined at the hip with California. I hope Oregon & Washington don't join in the not-fun.


THE GOOD NEWS: More CO2 for our Pot Plants ?

Frylock said:

What do you expect climate change to be like?
Winter to turn into summer over a few years?
I won't speak for him, but what Cannavore is trying to show you is that there is a snowball effect, it is like compound interest.
You may be lucky enough to not notice much effect of it but maybe you have kids and some wishes for them to grow old and on and on, on a nice stable planet??
Even if it's the best case scenario and most scientists predictions are wrong/inaccurate it still doesn't change the fact that something has to be done much sooner than later, the idea that we will never need to address things is ignorance.

Click to expand...

for all us contrarians, how about explaining what you are going to do to keep the SUN from warming the planet? you think taxing everyone will do it?

you should let cannavore reveal why that 'snowball effect' has not increased the temperature from that 'orbital forcing' that he previously denied was responsible for anything.
notice cannavore hasn't responded to questioning about how in particular orbital forcing could cause a positive feedback loop, since the orbit itself changes constantly.
i've posted here before about how the cloud albedo is 10% underestimated or completely ignored in IPCC models concerning insolation, yet many still rely on the models even though they demonstrate a faulty premise.
...and no-one is touching chemtrails, geo-engineering, solar aerosol injection and the like that is taking place using data that is at best incomplete or erroneous. that should wake you up with a quickness.
you're talking action that will accomplish nothing even with regard to pollution. look, the planets population is not reversing and more people means more pollution so there's that. the only solution would be eugenics.
here's a bombshell for you, humans are not responsible for climate.
the climate happens regardless if we're here or not, we don't control it, we have insignificant impact on it, we will never master it.
i for one refuse the guilt the catastrophist cult implies by my existence.

trichrider said:

for all us contrarians, how about explaining what you are going to do to keep the SUN from warming the planet? you think taxing everyone will do it?

YES, we all know the SUN will eventually engulf the earth.... in BILLIONS of years, it will be slow and gradual that who knows where we will be with technology, interstellar travel etc. or if we just annihilate ourselves.

you should let cannavore reveal why that 'snowball effect' has not increased the temperature from that 'orbital forcing' that he previously denied was responsible for anything.
notice cannavore hasn't responded to questioning about how in particular orbital forcing could cause a positive feedback loop, since the orbit itself changes constantly.
i've posted here before about how the cloud albedo is 10% underestimated or completely ignored in IPCC models concerning insolation, yet many still rely on the models even though they demonstrate a faulty premise.
...and no-one is touching chemtrails, geo-engineering, solar aerosol injection and the like that is taking place using data that is at best incomplete or erroneous. that should wake you up with a quickness.
you're talking action that will accomplish nothing even with regard to pollution. look, the planets population is not reversing and more people means more pollution so there's that. the only solution would be eugenics.
You don't know what we can accomplish, good or bad, no one does.... positive attitude and moving forward step by step is the only way....
here's a bombshell for you, humans are not responsible for climate.
the climate happens regardless if we're here or not, we don't control it, we have insignificant impact on it, we will never master it.
i for one refuse the guilt the catastrophist cult implies by my existence.

Click to expand...

You are just a smug turd who thinks they have 'bombshells' of knowledge, but you don't

No one is trying to 'guilt' you, that is just your perception, you just don't want to do anything about maintaining and preserving our habitat, there is no guilt tripping it is just listen to the scientists and make some changes, or put in some effort- whatever....

Instead you rather try to poke holes in their work because it makes you feel guilty.... maybe the guilt is coming from within?

I'm pretty sure you would accept any and all progress in medical science if your life was in peril, but when it comes to something that makes you feel guilty you don't want any part of it.

Frylock said:

What do you expect climate change to be like?

I won't speak for him, but what Cannavore is trying to show you is that there is a snowball effect, it is like compound interest.

Click to expand...

/\

Yes !!!



That fire in Canada started 4 days ago. Made the jump to 100,000 acres, then 200,000 acres, then 230,000 acres today. And there's no wind, with temps about 70 F. AKA "Benign Conditions".

That's a hell of a Fire for Benign Conditions.



If you look at the CO2 numbers, you can see how the rate of increase jumped from 2- ppm, per year, to 3+ ppm, per year, and 3.5 ppm - in the most recent year.

Since we're pot growers, we understand the effect of that on plant growth. That's why we pay the $$ for extra CO2 for our gardens.

Trichrider, you don't seem completely daft, just a little skewiff....

Have you ever thought about the difference between hundreds or even thousands of years versus billions of years?

If you were making a ruler with 1 year for every millimeter, 1 thousand years would be 1 meter- can you even vaguely imagine what humans are like in just 1 thousand years, considering the last 1 hundred?

1 billion years would be 1 thousand kilometers (~600 miles)....

Frylock said:

You are just a smug turd who thinks they have 'bombshells' of knowledge, but you don't
i do this on a daily basis so i think i've a better grip on it than if one just repeats what they hear on cnn...



No one is trying to 'guilt' you, that is just your perception, you just don't want to do anything about maintaining and preserving our habitat, there is no guilt tripping it is just listen to the scientists and make some changes, or put in some effort- whatever....


the reason i do this daily is because i want to do something about the mischaracterization of the reason climate changes. i don't want my grandkids assuming the burden of "doing something" that requires them to devote the fruits of their labor to some unaccountable bureaucrat promoting a socialist agenda...





Instead you rather try to poke holes in their work because it makes you feel guilty.... maybe the guilt is coming from within?

what 'work' are you referring to? might that be the toil of terror attempting to frighten the public into compliance and complacency by intentionally attenuating fraudulent data? i have no guilt about climate change. the guilt i speak of is the manipulation of the uninformed to disparage and demean deniers...or what you call 'peer pressure'.


I'm pretty sure you would accept any and all progress in medical science if your life was in peril, but when it comes to something that makes you feel guilty you don't want any part of it.




are you trying to make sense? because you're doing an awful job of it.

guilt is hindsight of doing something wrong. the guilty ones are the ones who promulgate and perpetuate the myth/lie that you or i are responsible when there is so much evidence of natural and intrinsic causes for the climate changing.

no, i don't want any part of anything making me feel guilty. that would mean i acted inappropriately.

Click to expand...

stay frosty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np_CHy9ql4M


[youtubeif]Np_CHy9ql4M[/youtubeif]

ok, oh-wise one.... have a great 'woke' day trichrider

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1193-4#menu


Published: 22 May 2019



Increase in CFC-11 emissions from eastern China based on atmospheric observations

• M. Rigby,
• S. Park,
• […]
• D. Young

Nature 569, 546–550 (2019) | Download Citation

Abstract

The recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer relies on the continued decline in the atmospheric concentrations of ozone-depleting gases such as chlorofluorocarbons1. The atmospheric concentration of trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11), the second-most abundant chlorofluorocarbon, has declined substantially since the mid-1990s2. A recently reported slowdown in the decline of the atmospheric concentration of CFC-11 after 2012, however, suggests that global emissions have increased3,4. A concurrent increase in CFC-11 emissions from eastern Asia contributes to the global emission increase, but the location and magnitude of this regional source are unknown3. Here, using high-frequency atmospheric observations from Gosan, South Korea, and Hateruma, Japan, together with global monitoring data and atmospheric chemical transport model simulations, we investigate regional CFC-11 emissions from eastern Asia. We show that emissions from eastern mainland China are 7.0 ± 3.0 (±1 standard deviation) gigagrams per year higher in 2014–2017 than in 2008–2012, and that the increase in emissions arises primarily around the northeastern provinces of Shandong and Hebei. This increase accounts for a substantial fraction (at least 40 to 60 per cent) of the global rise in CFC-11 emissions. We find no evidence for a significant increase in CFC-11 emissions from any other eastern Asian countries or other regions of the world where there are available data for the detection of regional emissions. The attribution of any remaining fraction of the global CFC-11 emission rise to other regions is limited by the sparsity of long-term measurements of sufficient frequency near potentially emissive regions. Several considerations suggest that the increase in CFC-11 emissions from eastern mainland China is likely to be the result of new production and use, which is inconsistent with the Montreal Protocol agreement to phase out global chlorofluorocarbon production by 2010.


.....possible reason for the wild behavior lately of the jet stream and disruption of hadley cells. just being smug.

The Science of Climate Change: Are you a Denier?
written by Bill Randall

May 23, 2019


WASHINGTON: The clarion call for concern over climate change and global warming is not being trumpeted by a bunch of deranged tree huggers and wacky environmentalists. This call for concern has been addressed and documented by the United Nations. An article outlining issues of concern by the United Nations warned that we have a little over a decade to take proactive measures to slow down and reverse what are believed to be harmful man-made effects. (Only 11 Years Left to Prevent Irreversible Damage from Climate Change, Speakers Warn during General Assembly High-Level Meeting)
Because of passionate opinions, it is necessary to provide the empirical rationale to address what contributes to changes in our cyclical planetary climate and weather patterns.


The gases in our atmosphere

A quick primer will reveal gases in our atmosphere, among which are constituted by (but not limited to) Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Carbon Dioxide, and Ozone. Nitrogen is important to life because it is an important building block for enzymes, DNA and other components of living cells. Oxygen is important because it provides the fuel that produces energy. Argon is an inert gas, and is very useful in arc welding and cutting. It is also used in incandescent and fluorescent bulbs to minimize the effect of oxygen corroding the filament.
Ozone is very important because it helps to block a significant amount of harmful ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth.

But what about Carbon Dioxide?

To appreciate why many attribute the reported and perceived increase in average annual global temperatures, consider the following. If two rooms, each with a size of 1000 cubic feet (10’ X 10’ X 10’) were empty, and one room had all regular air removed and replaced with 100% carbon dioxide. The other room is filled with regular air. What would happen when each is heated to 200 degrees Fahrenheit, before shutting the heat off?
The room with pure Carbon Dioxide would cool at a much slower rate than the room with regular air. The reason is that the molecular structure of the CO2 would retain the heat for a much longer period. Thus, Carbon Dioxide is considered by many to be a potentially dangerous greenhouse gas if its levels go unchecked into the foreseeable future.


Carbon Dioxide is also found in the oceans.

In fact, concentrations there are much higher than in the free atmosphere. Seawater absorbs CO2; colder water absorbs more. Mechanical motions in the ocean also affect the air/sea interaction and release/absorption of CO2 in/from the atmosphere. Biological and plant life in the ocean also affect CO2 levels. Algae and seaweed (plants) absorb CO2 and release oxygen. Non-plant living organisms take in oxygen and release CO2.
Combustion from fossil fuels, coal, factory emissions, and other man-made activity all release increased levels of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So it would stand to reason that regardless of our political affiliation, socioeconomic status or nationality, we should all seriously consider and embrace the Green New Deal that many U.S. politicians espouse and promote. Right?
Well… not so fast.

We should first look at the actual atmospheric composition of the aforementioned gases.

Our atmosphere is defined as “…a gaseous envelope surrounding the earth that has motion relative to the earth.” The greatest amount (by far) is Nitrogen, which comprises 78% of the air. Next is Oxygen at 21%. Argon is at 0.94% (just under 1%). The remaining gases combined are less than 0.1% and are referred to as trace elements.
That means nitrogen, oxygen, and argon comprise over 99.9% of the air we breathe. Carbon dioxide, even though it might be demonstrated to retain more heat than regular air (as in the hypothetical example described earlier), comprises a scant 0.04% of our atmosphere (400 parts per million). That amount has not changed appreciably in the past 50+ years.

Yet proponents of global warming and climate change make the argument that CO2 levels have increased incrementally in recent years. Therefore we’re on a collision course with environmental disaster. They claim that we are seeing more record high temperatures, as well as stronger and more frequent tropical storms and tornadoes.
While new record high temperatures and changes in the frequency of tropical storms and tornadoes are objective statistics, causation (i.e.: what you attribute the changes to; cause & effect) is not as simplistic as some try to make it. A good starting point is to go back to the basics and establish the most important factors in the amount of heat measured on earth. The top two are Angle of Incidence and Albedo.


Angle of Incidence

The angle of incidence is an indicator of how direct (or indirect) the sun’s rays strike the earth’s surface. The angle of incidence is formed between a line representing the sun’s rays, and a line perpendicular to the earth’s surface.


https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/what-is-the-angle-of-incidence-optics-aerodynamics-example-attack.html

Illustration courtesy of ScienceABC.com – Angle ‘i’ is the angle of incidence.


In the above diagram, the green line is perpendicular to the (brown) surface. The yellow line would be a line representing the sun’s incoming ray. If that sun’s ray were more direct (coming more straight up and down, as when the sun is overhead at around noon), the angle of incidence (i) would decrease. If the incoming sun’s ray becomes less direct (coming in more in line with the surface, as when the sun is setting in the evening or rising in the early morning), the angle of incidence (i) would increase.
As the angle of incidence increases, incoming solar radiation decreases, and there would be less heating at the surface. The inverse is also true: As the angle of incidence decreases, incoming solar radiation increases, and there would be more heating at the surface.


Albedo

The second most important factor in the amount of heat received at the surface is albedo, which is the amount of reflectivity of an object. Simply put, light objects reflect more sunlight; dark colors absorb more sunlight.
On a hot summer day, the interior of a dark vehicle will get hotter much sooner than a vehicle with a light color. Likewise, if you wear a dark suit, you will be warmer than someone dressed in a light colored suit.
To recap, the two most important factors in determining the amount of heat at the earth’s surface are the angle of incidence and albedo.


Heat transfer in our atmosphere occurs as one of the following:

1. Radiation
2. Conduction
3. Convection, and
4. Advection

Radiation is considered in one of two forms:
Short wave (solar) radiation from the sun, and longwave (terrestrial) radiation that is RE-radiated/emitted by the earth. Conduction is heat transfer by direct contact. For example, if you sit in a chair for several minutes, and then stand up to feel the seat, why is the seat warm? It is because an amount of heat was transferred from your body directly to the seat.
This is an important concept: Most of the incoming (solar) short wave radiation penetrates clouds. This is why you can get sunburned on a cloudy day. Also, very little short wave radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. However, after incoming solar radiation reaches the earth surface, it heats the surface.
The earth then re-radiates this heat in the form of longwave radiation.

A large amount of this longwave radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. Constituent gases: oxygen, nitrogen, argon, and trace elements (including carbon dioxide) absorb this longwave radiation. This absorption by atmospheric gases acts like windows of a greenhouse. The greenhouse retains the heat for a period of time, but it eventually cools as the heat source, the sun disappears. The heat then escapes into the upper atmosphere.
If extensive cloud cover exists over the area, the longwave radiation reflects downward back toward earth. This is because very little amounts of longwave radiation penetrate clouds. This creates a greenhouse effect, which is due to more heat being retained in the lower atmosphere.
On a clear, cloudless night, the temperatures will cool much more than they will on a night with low cloud cover.
The amount of moisture in the air will also have an impact on how cool the nighttime temperatures will get. In fact, a well-known forecasting indicator for nighttime temperatures (under mostly clear skies) is the *dew point of the air at the time of maximum heating at the previous afternoon. *Dewpoint: Temperature to which air must be cooled to reach a point where it is holding all the moisture possible (saturation).
Drier air (with a lower dew point) will cool faster than air with a higher dew point. The forecasted minimum temperature is modified several degrees warmer if there is extensive low-level cloudiness because of less lower level atmospheric heat is allowed to escape than on a clear night.
www.lordgrey.org.uk

This trapping of low level atmospheric heat by extensive cloud cover over an area is primarily responsible for what is known as the greenhouse effect.

1. Convection is air heated by conduction that rises in an upward vertical motion.
2. Large scale HORIZONTAL motion of air is advection. Advection occurs slowly over a large area.

The air in the lower atmosphere tends to take on the characteristics of the underlying surface. When the air stays over an area long enough, it is classified as an air mass, based on basic properties: source region, moisture, temperature, and stability.
We will not get into factors relating to air masses across the planet, but their characteristics play into global climate: a) Source Region (where the air mass originates/forms); 2) Moisture (humid or relatively dry); 3) Temperature (comparison of whether it is warmer or colder than the surface it passes over); 4) Stability (whether or not the air mass has a tendency to rise, or remain settled.


Water vapor undergoes various changes of state.

It can go from a gas to a liquid (condensation), liquid to ice (freezing), ice to liquid (melting), liquid to gas (evaporation), and ice to gas or gas to ice without becoming a liquid (sublimation). Changes of state are either heating processes or cooling processes, depending on the surrounding air. If the moisture (undergoing a change of state) releases heat, it is a heating process.
As weird as it may sound, freezing is actually a heating process. That is because the liquid has to release heat (to the surrounding air) in order to become ice.
Tropical systems are fueled by the large scale release of heat into the surrounding air. But there must be a combination of key conditions in order to have conditions favorable for intensification of tropical systems into tropical storms or hurricanes.
Basically, you need warm sea surface temperature (80F or warmer), weak vertical wind shear, location of the developing system needs to be greater than 5 degrees latitude away from the equator (to have sufficient Coriolis force for circulation), and strong convective cloud activity clustered in a region. An absence of one or more of the above makes it improbable that a tropical system will develop into a tropical depression or stronger.
And even when all of the above conditions exist, it does not guarantee that the tropical system will develop further.

Climatological projections that use numerical computer for long-range predictions cannot accurately project tropospheric moisture into the future. Such models are DRY weather models. Furthermore, no weather forecast relies on interpolation of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Again, an atmospheric gas that constitutes a mere 0.04% of the total has a negligible effect on meteorological conditions now or into the future.
Rising and sinking motion of air can heat (by sinking and compression) or cool (by rising and expansion) by the adiabatic process. This is changing the temperature without changing the amount of heat in the parcel of air. Think of it like a box the size of a microwave with a lighted candle inside. The lighted candle represents a specific amount of heat that remains unchanged. If you take the sides of the box and reduce (i.e.: shrink the sides) to half its former size, the temperature will increase (adiabatic heating).
Likewise, if you take the sides of the box and expand (stretch) them to twice its former size, the same amount of heat will have to be spread across a larger area.
Thus, the corresponding temperature will decrease (adiabatic cooling).
The resounding consensus today is that Global Warming and Climate Change have incontrovertible evidence to support what many have hypothesized. The Green New Deal embraces this position with brazen confidence that its premise and objectives are to be embraced without question. Any who dare question it are ridiculed, and their motives vehemently scorned and impugned. However, to sound the alarm without empirical evidence is not only irresponsible, but it is also disingenuous and dishonest.
We should do whatever we can to reduce excessive carbon emissions and do what we can to ensure that our air is clean as possible. Likewise, taking prudent measures to ensure clean water, reducing oceanic pollution, recycling, and developing alternative energy sources that result in a positive return on investment are all things we should strive for.


https://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/science-climate-change-denier-119132/

It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history



Maybe they got the math wrong.

.
.