Obvious Global Warming

[skookerasbil]

In 2017..........nobody is caring about global warming. When you are forced to wear ball warmers 8 months out of the year, nobody is going to be caring about the "settled science". Which is exactly what we are seeing.

When people in Alberta, Canada are riding jet ski's with bikini's on in mid-January for 3 weeks straight, maybe people will start paying attention. But not a second sooner. 20 years of k00k warmist bomb throwing hasnt moved the ball a single yard in the real world. Only the climate nutters think -100 in NH tonight means on Monday, time to get on the horn with your representative and demand action on climate change!!

 

[toobfreak]

And so?

View attachment 169673

And so your graph ignores the part where the climate forcing factors such as CO2, and Methane have shot through the roof.

Hey, have you ever realized in all their C02-absorbing plant studies they never include grass?

Know why? Grass filters C02 @ 450% of the highest plant they list.

So yeah, a grass field of 5 acres with 5 bovines on it filters 400%+ more CO2 and methane than the cows produce.

Plus, we get beef!

Global warming was a scam to pick taxpayer's pockets. That is all.

Stupid fuck, have you ever realized that they measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, not where it comes from or where it is going.

While grass may absorb a lot of CO2 while growing, it is making zero difference in the amount that is continually increasing due to the use of fossil fuels.

Hey Stupid Fuck, let me take your chart above and re-chart the data to SAY THE EXACT SAME THING, but presented a bit differently. The exact same data now, except instead of the CO2 spiraling out of control racing upward, it is practically unchanged, a mere 80 parts per million, a change of only 0.0008%. Funny that NOAA chose to present it YOUR way though. I guess it's all in what you want people to take from your data.

View attachment 169737

And of course, being the scientist I am, I know even this is not conclusive proof of anything! For all I know, the altitude of Mauna Loa corresponds to some acute or chronic layer of CO2 concentration! Maybe locally, maybe globally, so before I can draw any conclusions, I would need to take samples at ground level, higher up and other places to see if this data represents the NORM or a FLUKE.

For all you know? Which isn't much? LOL!

The Mauna Loa observatory is selected because of its stable conditions and representative concentrations of the gasses in the atmosphere.

Also, NOAA presents the graph the way it does because 450ppm is the "x2" doubling mark of CO2 since the Industrial revolution.

We measure the increase of CO2 by that doubling, which adds 4Watts to the system.

No one cares that it's only 0.00008% of the total gasses, because it's not about the total, it's about what effect it has.

Oh, Pleeease. You haven't a clue what I know much less a clue what I DO. Just another typical liberal who is right about everything and anyone who sees the data differently is simply WRONG. Most telling was your slip that if I was in your "trade," I would be dead. What do you do, you and your colleagues gang up on anyone who disagrees with you and and beat them up? Or do you just blacklist them like the good little Commie you are so that you can then turn around and claim all reputable people agree with you? Yeah, that's how it works. You fucks are oh so transparent; anytime I see someone like you that is SO hung up on an issue that you simply won't let it go, as if you are going to settle anything here, I know I have reeled in another little crying snowflake.

WELL GUESS WHAT Jiminy Cricket? Things are going to go right on just as they are because like I said, until our technology naturally evolves past fossil fuels, it is either use them or lose half the population on the planet. But if that leaves you awake at night in a cold sweat, there are things you can do today to reduce the pressure on the planet-- -- -- take a running leap off the roof of a building thus saving the Earth your meager carbon footprint.

 

[toobfreak]

Yes. I see it now. It is colder at the north and south poles and warmer along the equator. Yes. Who woulda thunk. That could be a problem

Hahaha....oh man...you dont even know what a temperature anomaly is, do you? How can you even pretend to have an opinion on any of this? Might as well ask a retarded ferret for his opinions on quantum theory.

Yes, I know a human anomaly when I SEE one!

Weather and climate are an EXERCISE in anomalies!
Hardly a season goes by that we don't have one
anomaly or another. But unlike Liberals, they eventually
pass after a few days.

 

[Deno]

I said it wasn't an efficient means of

producing power dumb ass....

Yes I know, crybaby. And that was a stupid response, as it appears that everyone on the planet except for you understands that it is not used for producing power at all!

You are insane....

 

[flacaltenn]

People say look at the weather in New York, in Mid West! No Global Warming!

Here's the Temperature anomaly (which shows the current temperature deviating from the average).

The only place super cold, are those places, the rest of the Northern Hemisphere is much hotter than average winters:

Climate Reanalyzer

You do realize that the data product from "climate reanalysis" is NOT actual weather station readings and notoriously wrong I hope. It's a form of global "spatial fitting" that ASSIGNS temperatures forwards and backwards in time to areas SPARSELY covered by actual readings.

Last time I had the "climate reanalyzer" shoved in my face -- I pulled up ACTUAL READINGS at weather stations in Siberia that were 4 to 6DegC BELOW the pretty colored graphical product. Produces whatever the "model run" is set to produce with initial conditions and assumptions.

This reanalysis in the OP is for one day of temp anomalies and uses mountains of data available since the use of satellites started in 1979. It's very accurate.

Why do you need data from 1979 to draw a map of Tuesday's temps in the Arctic? What it is -- is a form of modeling that let's you make weak/incomplete assumptions about SPATIALLY and TEMPORALLY distributing the the SPARSE DATA from that region. Not many landbased stations up there at all.

I've had it tossed in my face several times. And everytime -- it's REDISTRIBUTED estimates are complete garbage. Doesn't come CLOSE to actual station temperatures.

When your RE-analysis is more important than the ACTUAL station readings, You've gone rogue... Just map the damn ACTUAL readings. Or buy more permanent stations.