Hadley Cell Migration is PROOF of Climate Change since 1980s

Im a BM wrote:
There is no shortage of irrefutable evidence that climate change is real.

Im a BM wrote:
The northern migration of the boundary between tundra and boreal forest, for example.

Im a BM wrote:
We can see organisms on the ground responding to changing climate conditions.

Im a BM wrote:
It's no longer too cold for forests at the southern edge of the tundra.

Im a BM wrote:
Thawed permafrost enables penetration of the kind of deeper roots that trees need to grow.

Im a BM wrote:
This correlates in a very causal manner to the migration northward of HADLEY CELLS.

Im a BM wrote:
The shifting geographic position of the hadley cells caused the geographic position of the taiga-tundra boundary to shift.

Im a BM wrote:

Here is a quote from Google and God:

[b]Im a BM wrote:
"Hadley Cells are expanding poleward (northward in the Northern Hemisphere)

Im a BM wrote:
due to global warming,

Im a BM wrote:
causing subtropical dry zones and high-pressure belts to shift toward the poles,

Im a BM wrote:
affecting weather patterns,

Im a BM wrote:
rainfall,

Im a BM wrote:
and potential crop productivity in mid latitudes.

Im a BM wrote:
This expansion, observed since the 1980s

Im a BM wrote:
is a significant climate signal,

Im a BM wrote:
with rates estimated around 0.1(degree)-0.5(degree) latitude per decade,

Im a BM wrote:
though regional shifts vary."[/b]

Im a BM wrote:
There is no shortage of irrefutable evidence that climate change is real.

The northern migration of the boundary between tundra and boreal forest, for example. We can see organisms on the ground responding to changing climate conditions. It's no longer too cold for forests at the southern edge of the tundra. Thawed permafrost enables penetration of the kind of deeper roots that trees need to grow.

This correlates in a very causal manner to the migration northward of HADLEY CELLS. The shifting geographic position of the hadley cells caused the geographic position of the taiga-tundra boundary to shift.

Here is a quote from Google and God:

"Hadley Cells are expanding poleward (northward in the Northern Hemisphere) due to global warming, causing subtropical dry zones and high-pressure belts to shift toward the poles, affecting weather patterns, rainfall, and potential crop productivity in mid latitudes. This expansion, observed since the 1980s is a significant climate signal, with rates estimated around 0.1(degree)-0.5(degree) latitude per decade, though regional shifts vary."

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
There is no shortage of irrefutable evidence that climate change is real.

The northern migration of the boundary between tundra and boreal forest, for example. We can see organisms on the ground responding to changing climate conditions. It's no longer too cold for forests at the southern edge of the tundra. Thawed permafrost enables penetration of the kind of deeper roots that trees need to grow.

This correlates in a very causal manner to the migration northward of HADLEY CELLS. The shifting geographic position of the hadley cells caused the geographic position of the taiga-tundra boundary to shift.

Here is a quote from Google and God:

"Hadley Cells are expanding poleward (northward in the Northern Hemisphere) due to global warming, causing subtropical dry zones and high-pressure belts to shift toward the poles, affecting weather patterns, rainfall, and potential crop productivity in mid latitudes. This expansion, observed since the 1980s is a significant climate signal, with rates estimated around 0.1(degree)-0.5(degree) latitude per decade, though regional shifts vary."

I just can't take anybody serious who says the north polar region hasn't warmed up significantly.

Do you think the Hadley Cells expanding northward is an effect of the pole North Pole warming up, or do you think it is the cause of the North Pole warming up?

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
There is no shortage of irrefutable evidence that climate change is real.

The northern migration of the boundary between tundra and boreal forest, for example. We can see organisms on the ground responding to changing climate conditions. It's no longer too cold for forests at the southern edge of the tundra. Thawed permafrost enables penetration of the kind of deeper roots that trees need to grow.

This correlates in a very causal manner to the migration northward of HADLEY CELLS. The shifting geographic position of the hadley cells caused the geographic position of the taiga-tundra boundary to shift.

Here is a quote from Google and God:

"Hadley Cells are expanding poleward (northward in the Northern Hemisphere) due to global warming, causing subtropical dry zones and high-pressure belts to shift toward the poles, affecting weather patterns, rainfall, and potential crop productivity in mid latitudes. This expansion, observed since the 1980s is a significant climate signal, with rates estimated around 0.1(degree)-0.5(degree) latitude per decade, though regional shifts vary."

I just can't take anybody serious who says the north polar region hasn't warmed up significantly.

Do you think the Hadley Cells expanding northward is an effect of the pole North Pole warming up, or do you think it is the cause of the North Pole warming up?

The position of the Hadley Cells is a response to the temperature in convection currents of air, not a driver of it. You can see in a pot of water as it heats up, hot spots beneath create localized points where hot water rises up in convection currents. The position of those convection currents depends on the position of where heat enters the pot from below. If you move the pot more to one side of the burner, you'll see the position of the convection currents shift to one side.

Where Hadley Cell convection currents rise up from the surface is where you get the most rain. The rising warm air cools as it rises, with water condensing out. Hadley cells along the equator correspond to the wettest rainforests. Deserts are found at latitudes where Hadley Cell currents are moving DOWNWARD toward the surface. That air bears little water and only gets warmer when it approaches the surface.

The North Pole is in a region where the Hadley Cell brings relatively dry air down from high above toward the surface. Less than 12 inches annual snowfall there! In terms of precipitation, the North Pole is a desert. That air current at the North Pole flows south until it rises back up as a convection current with heavy rain and snow over the boreal forest. The latitude where that air rises up is moving closer to the North pole, reflected in the shifting boundary of the tundra.

The latitudes of these Hadley Cell boundaries are shifting closer to the poles. The equator is still smack dab in the middle, with warm wet air rising up off the surface and splitting equally north and south at higher elevation. The boundaries where that air comes back down toward the surface are moving 0.1-0.5 degrees latitude closer to the poles each decade since the 1980s.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
There is no shortage of irrefutable evidence that climate change is real.

The northern migration of the boundary between tundra and boreal forest, for example. We can see organisms on the ground responding to changing climate conditions. It's no longer too cold for forests at the southern edge of the tundra. Thawed permafrost enables penetration of the kind of deeper roots that trees need to grow.

This correlates in a very causal manner to the migration northward of HADLEY CELLS. The shifting geographic position of the hadley cells caused the geographic position of the taiga-tundra boundary to shift.

Here is a quote from Google and God:

"Hadley Cells are expanding poleward (northward in the Northern Hemisphere) due to global warming, causing subtropical dry zones and high-pressure belts to shift toward the poles, affecting weather patterns, rainfall, and potential crop productivity in mid latitudes. This expansion, observed since the 1980s is a significant climate signal, with rates estimated around 0.1(degree)-0.5(degree) latitude per decade, though regional shifts vary."

I just can't take anybody serious who says the north polar region hasn't warmed up significantly.

Do you think the Hadley Cells expanding northward is an effect of the pole North Pole warming up, or do you think it is the cause of the North Pole warming up?

The position of the Hadley Cells is a response to the temperature in convection currents of air, not a driver of it. You can see in a pot of water as it heats up, hot spots beneath create localized points where hot water rises up in convection currents. The position of those convection currents depends on the position of where heat enters the pot from below. If you move the pot more to one side of the burner, you'll see the position of the convection currents shift to one side.

Where Hadley Cell convection currents rise up from the surface is where you get the most rain. The rising warm air cools as it rises, with water condensing out. Hadley cells along the equator correspond to the wettest rainforests. Deserts are found at latitudes where Hadley Cell currents are moving DOWNWARD toward the surface. That air bears little water and only gets warmer when it approaches the surface.

The North Pole is in a region where the Hadley Cell brings relatively dry air down from high above toward the surface. Less than 12 inches annual snowfall there! In terms of precipitation, the North Pole is a desert. That air current at the North Pole flows south until it rises back up as a convection current with heavy rain and snow over the boreal forest. The latitude where that air rises up is moving closer to the North pole, reflected in the shifting boundary of the tundra.

The latitudes of these Hadley Cell boundaries are shifting closer to the poles. The equator is still smack dab in the middle, with warm wet air rising up off the surface and splitting equally north and south at higher elevation. The boundaries where that air comes back down toward the surface are moving 0.1-0.5 degrees latitude closer to the poles each decade since the 1980s.

There may be significantly more rain in the tropical latitudes, caused by more CO2, in my opinion. But I don't think that extra rain would cause global warming in the tropical latitudes. I think more water evaporating would have a cooling effect at those latitudes.

If it is more rain causing tropical Hadley Cells to rise a bit further north, that would not be a major factor in global warming of the north polar climate (say latitudes north of 60 degrees) in my opinion. Though perhaps a bit more rain could make its way up to the north polar region?

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
There is no shortage of irrefutable evidence that climate change is real.

The northern migration of the boundary between tundra and boreal forest, for example. We can see organisms on the ground responding to changing climate conditions. It's no longer too cold for forests at the southern edge of the tundra. Thawed permafrost enables penetration of the kind of deeper roots that trees need to grow.

This correlates in a very causal manner to the migration northward of HADLEY CELLS. The shifting geographic position of the hadley cells caused the geographic position of the taiga-tundra boundary to shift.

Here is a quote from Google and God:

"Hadley Cells are expanding poleward (northward in the Northern Hemisphere) due to global warming, causing subtropical dry zones and high-pressure belts to shift toward the poles, affecting weather patterns, rainfall, and potential crop productivity in mid latitudes. This expansion, observed since the 1980s is a significant climate signal, with rates estimated around 0.1(degree)-0.5(degree) latitude per decade, though regional shifts vary."

I just can't take anybody serious who says the north polar region hasn't warmed up significantly.

Do you think the Hadley Cells expanding northward is an effect of the pole North Pole warming up, or do you think it is the cause of the North Pole warming up?

The position of the Hadley Cells is a response to the temperature in convection currents of air, not a driver of it. You can see in a pot of water as it heats up, hot spots beneath create localized points where hot water rises up in convection currents. The position of those convection currents depends on the position of where heat enters the pot from below. If you move the pot more to one side of the burner, you'll see the position of the convection currents shift to one side.

Where Hadley Cell convection currents rise up from the surface is where you get the most rain. The rising warm air cools as it rises, with water condensing out. Hadley cells along the equator correspond to the wettest rainforests. Deserts are found at latitudes where Hadley Cell currents are moving DOWNWARD toward the surface. That air bears little water and only gets warmer when it approaches the surface.

The North Pole is in a region where the Hadley Cell brings relatively dry air down from high above toward the surface. Less than 12 inches annual snowfall there! In terms of precipitation, the North Pole is a desert. That air current at the North Pole flows south until it rises back up as a convection current with heavy rain and snow over the boreal forest. The latitude where that air rises up is moving closer to the North pole, reflected in the shifting boundary of the tundra.

The latitudes of these Hadley Cell boundaries are shifting closer to the poles. The equator is still smack dab in the middle, with warm wet air rising up off the surface and splitting equally north and south at higher elevation. The boundaries where that air comes back down toward the surface are moving 0.1-0.5 degrees latitude closer to the poles each decade since the 1980s.

There may be significantly more rain in the tropical latitudes, caused by more CO2, in my opinion. But I don't think that extra rain would cause global warming in the tropical latitudes. I think more water evaporating would have a cooling effect at those latitudes.

If it is more rain causing tropical Hadley Cells to rise a bit further north, that would not be a major factor in global warming of the north polar climate (say latitudes north of 60 degrees) in my opinion. Though perhaps a bit more rain could make its way up to the north polar region?

Perhaps accidentally, you are correct that there may be significantly more rain in the tropical latitudes, caused by more CO2. However, it is only indirectly caused by CO2, as it is directly caused by global warming. Warmer air holds more water. Period. Wetter air yields more precipitation. Period. Warmer sea surfaces emit more water vapor to the atmosphere. Period. Storms with more rain, because the warmer air holds so much more water, and the warmer sea surface drove so much more water into the warmer air, are going to dump more water as they move along. Ya gotta admit we've been getting some pretty impressive flooding in the last decade or two, compared to many decades before that.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
There is no shortage of irrefutable evidence that climate change is real.

The northern migration of the boundary between tundra and boreal forest, for example. We can see organisms on the ground responding to changing climate conditions. It's no longer too cold for forests at the southern edge of the tundra. Thawed permafrost enables penetration of the kind of deeper roots that trees need to grow.

This correlates in a very causal manner to the migration northward of HADLEY CELLS. The shifting geographic position of the hadley cells caused the geographic position of the taiga-tundra boundary to shift.

Here is a quote from Google and God:

"Hadley Cells are expanding poleward (northward in the Northern Hemisphere) due to global warming, causing subtropical dry zones and high-pressure belts to shift toward the poles, affecting weather patterns, rainfall, and potential crop productivity in mid latitudes. This expansion, observed since the 1980s is a significant climate signal, with rates estimated around 0.1(degree)-0.5(degree) latitude per decade, though regional shifts vary."

I just can't take anybody serious who says the north polar region hasn't warmed up significantly.

Do you think the Hadley Cells expanding northward is an effect of the pole North Pole warming up, or do you think it is the cause of the North Pole warming up?

The position of the Hadley Cells is a response to the temperature in convection currents of air, not a driver of it. You can see in a pot of water as it heats up, hot spots beneath create localized points where hot water rises up in convection currents. The position of those convection currents depends on the position of where heat enters the pot from below. If you move the pot more to one side of the burner, you'll see the position of the convection currents shift to one side.

Where Hadley Cell convection currents rise up from the surface is where you get the most rain. The rising warm air cools as it rises, with water condensing out. Hadley cells along the equator correspond to the wettest rainforests. Deserts are found at latitudes where Hadley Cell currents are moving DOWNWARD toward the surface. That air bears little water and only gets warmer when it approaches the surface.

The North Pole is in a region where the Hadley Cell brings relatively dry air down from high above toward the surface. Less than 12 inches annual snowfall there! In terms of precipitation, the North Pole is a desert. That air current at the North Pole flows south until it rises back up as a convection current with heavy rain and snow over the boreal forest. The latitude where that air rises up is moving closer to the North pole, reflected in the shifting boundary of the tundra.

The latitudes of these Hadley Cell boundaries are shifting closer to the poles. The equator is still smack dab in the middle, with warm wet air rising up off the surface and splitting equally north and south at higher elevation. The boundaries where that air comes back down toward the surface are moving 0.1-0.5 degrees latitude closer to the poles each decade since the 1980s.

There may be significantly more rain in the tropical latitudes, caused by more CO2, in my opinion. But I don't think that extra rain would cause global warming in the tropical latitudes. I think more water evaporating would have a cooling effect at those latitudes.

If it is more rain causing tropical Hadley Cells to rise a bit further north, that would not be a major factor in global warming of the north polar climate (say latitudes north of 60 degrees) in my opinion. Though perhaps a bit more rain could make its way up to the north polar region?

Perhaps accidentally, you are correct that there may be significantly more rain in the tropical latitudes, caused by more CO2. However, it is only indirectly caused by CO2, as it is directly caused by global warming. Warmer air holds more water. Period. Wetter air yields more precipitation. Period. Warmer sea surfaces emit more water vapor to the atmosphere. Period. Storms with more rain, because the warmer air holds so much more water, and the warmer sea surface drove so much more water into the warmer air, are going to dump more water as they move along. Ya gotta admit we've been getting some pretty impressive flooding in the last decade or two, compared to many decades before that.

Just going with my gut here, I doubt there is significant global warming in the tropical latitudes.

If I'm correct, then it wasn't warmer air that caused more rain.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
There is no shortage of irrefutable evidence that climate change is real.

The northern migration of the boundary between tundra and boreal forest, for example. We can see organisms on the ground responding to changing climate conditions. It's no longer too cold for forests at the southern edge of the tundra. Thawed permafrost enables penetration of the kind of deeper roots that trees need to grow.

This correlates in a very causal manner to the migration northward of HADLEY CELLS. The shifting geographic position of the hadley cells caused the geographic position of the taiga-tundra boundary to shift.

Here is a quote from Google and God:

"Hadley Cells are expanding poleward (northward in the Northern Hemisphere) due to global warming, causing subtropical dry zones and high-pressure belts to shift toward the poles, affecting weather patterns, rainfall, and potential crop productivity in mid latitudes. This expansion, observed since the 1980s is a significant climate signal, with rates estimated around 0.1(degree)-0.5(degree) latitude per decade, though regional shifts vary."

I just can't take anybody serious who says the north polar region hasn't warmed up significantly.

Do you think the Hadley Cells expanding northward is an effect of the pole North Pole warming up, or do you think it is the cause of the North Pole warming up?

The position of the Hadley Cells is a response to the temperature in convection currents of air, not a driver of it. You can see in a pot of water as it heats up, hot spots beneath create localized points where hot water rises up in convection currents. The position of those convection currents depends on the position of where heat enters the pot from below. If you move the pot more to one side of the burner, you'll see the position of the convection currents shift to one side.

Where Hadley Cell convection currents rise up from the surface is where you get the most rain. The rising warm air cools as it rises, with water condensing out. Hadley cells along the equator correspond to the wettest rainforests. Deserts are found at latitudes where Hadley Cell currents are moving DOWNWARD toward the surface. That air bears little water and only gets warmer when it approaches the surface.

The North Pole is in a region where the Hadley Cell brings relatively dry air down from high above toward the surface. Less than 12 inches annual snowfall there! In terms of precipitation, the North Pole is a desert. That air current at the North Pole flows south until it rises back up as a convection current with heavy rain and snow over the boreal forest. The latitude where that air rises up is moving closer to the North pole, reflected in the shifting boundary of the tundra.

The latitudes of these Hadley Cell boundaries are shifting closer to the poles. The equator is still smack dab in the middle, with warm wet air rising up off the surface and splitting equally north and south at higher elevation. The boundaries where that air comes back down toward the surface are moving 0.1-0.5 degrees latitude closer to the poles each decade since the 1980s.

There may be significantly more rain in the tropical latitudes, caused by more CO2, in my opinion. But I don't think that extra rain would cause global warming in the tropical latitudes. I think more water evaporating would have a cooling effect at those latitudes.

If it is more rain causing tropical Hadley Cells to rise a bit further north, that would not be a major factor in global warming of the north polar climate (say latitudes north of 60 degrees) in my opinion. Though perhaps a bit more rain could make its way up to the north polar region?

Perhaps accidentally, you are correct that there may be significantly more rain in the tropical latitudes, caused by more CO2. However, it is only indirectly caused by CO2, as it is directly caused by global warming. Warmer air holds more water. Period. Wetter air yields more precipitation. Period. Warmer sea surfaces emit more water vapor to the atmosphere. Period. Storms with more rain, because the warmer air holds so much more water, and the warmer sea surface drove so much more water into the warmer air, are going to dump more water as they move along. Ya gotta admit we've been getting some pretty impressive flooding in the last decade or two, compared to many decades before that.

Just going with my gut here, I doubt there is significant global warming in the tropical latitudes.

If I'm correct, then it wasn't warmer air that caused more rain.

Okay. Just going with my brain here... There is a vicious rumor going around about tropical coral reefs and surface water getting so hot that they "bleach".

So, tropics are certainly getting warmer. But the increases are more impressive at the highest latitudes. Damn... it was still the nineties as I recall when they noticed a 5 degree change at the poles versus a 1 degree change near the equator.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
There is no shortage of irrefutable evidence that climate change is real.

The northern migration of the boundary between tundra and boreal forest, for example. We can see organisms on the ground responding to changing climate conditions. It's no longer too cold for forests at the southern edge of the tundra. Thawed permafrost enables penetration of the kind of deeper roots that trees need to grow.

This correlates in a very causal manner to the migration northward of HADLEY CELLS. The shifting geographic position of the hadley cells caused the geographic position of the taiga-tundra boundary to shift.

Here is a quote from Google and God:

"Hadley Cells are expanding poleward (northward in the Northern Hemisphere) due to global warming, causing subtropical dry zones and high-pressure belts to shift toward the poles, affecting weather patterns, rainfall, and potential crop productivity in mid latitudes. This expansion, observed since the 1980s is a significant climate signal, with rates estimated around 0.1(degree)-0.5(degree) latitude per decade, though regional shifts vary."

I just can't take anybody serious who says the north polar region hasn't warmed up significantly.

Do you think the Hadley Cells expanding northward is an effect of the pole North Pole warming up, or do you think it is the cause of the North Pole warming up?

The position of the Hadley Cells is a response to the temperature in convection currents of air, not a driver of it. You can see in a pot of water as it heats up, hot spots beneath create localized points where hot water rises up in convection currents. The position of those convection currents depends on the position of where heat enters the pot from below. If you move the pot more to one side of the burner, you'll see the position of the convection currents shift to one side.

Where Hadley Cell convection currents rise up from the surface is where you get the most rain. The rising warm air cools as it rises, with water condensing out. Hadley cells along the equator correspond to the wettest rainforests. Deserts are found at latitudes where Hadley Cell currents are moving DOWNWARD toward the surface. That air bears little water and only gets warmer when it approaches the surface.

The North Pole is in a region where the Hadley Cell brings relatively dry air down from high above toward the surface. Less than 12 inches annual snowfall there! In terms of precipitation, the North Pole is a desert. That air current at the North Pole flows south until it rises back up as a convection current with heavy rain and snow over the boreal forest. The latitude where that air rises up is moving closer to the North pole, reflected in the shifting boundary of the tundra.

The latitudes of these Hadley Cell boundaries are shifting closer to the poles. The equator is still smack dab in the middle, with warm wet air rising up off the surface and splitting equally north and south at higher elevation. The boundaries where that air comes back down toward the surface are moving 0.1-0.5 degrees latitude closer to the poles each decade since the 1980s.

There may be significantly more rain in the tropical latitudes, caused by more CO2, in my opinion. But I don't think that extra rain would cause global warming in the tropical latitudes. I think more water evaporating would have a cooling effect at those latitudes.

If it is more rain causing tropical Hadley Cells to rise a bit further north, that would not be a major factor in global warming of the north polar climate (say latitudes north of 60 degrees) in my opinion. Though perhaps a bit more rain could make its way up to the north polar region?

Perhaps accidentally, you are correct that there may be significantly more rain in the tropical latitudes, caused by more CO2. However, it is only indirectly caused by CO2, as it is directly caused by global warming. Warmer air holds more water. Period. Wetter air yields more precipitation. Period. Warmer sea surfaces emit more water vapor to the atmosphere. Period. Storms with more rain, because the warmer air holds so much more water, and the warmer sea surface drove so much more water into the warmer air, are going to dump more water as they move along. Ya gotta admit we've been getting some pretty impressive flooding in the last decade or two, compared to many decades before that.

Just going with my gut here, I doubt there is significant global warming in the tropical latitudes.

If I'm correct, then it wasn't warmer air that caused more rain.

Okay. Just going with my brain here... There is a vicious rumor going around about tropical coral reefs and surface water getting so hot that they "bleach".

So, tropics are certainly getting warmer. But the increases are more impressive at the highest latitudes. Damn... it was still the nineties as I recall when they noticed a 5 degree change at the poles versus a 1 degree change near the equator.

A 1 degree change does not seem significant enough to conclude it is outside a reasonable margin of error IMO.

Furthermore, if there is significantly increased rainfall, then there could be decreased salinity, and that could be the actual reason more coral reef bleached.

Im a BM wrote:
Warmer air holds more water. Period.

Im a BM wrote:
Wetter air yields more precipitation. Period.

Im a BM wrote:
Ya gotta admit we've been getting some pretty impressive flooding in the last decade or two, compared to many decades before that.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
There is no shortage of irrefutable evidence that climate change is real.

The northern migration of the boundary between tundra and boreal forest, for example. We can see organisms on the ground responding to changing climate conditions. It's no longer too cold for forests at the southern edge of the tundra. Thawed permafrost enables penetration of the kind of deeper roots that trees need to grow.

This correlates in a very causal manner to the migration northward of HADLEY CELLS. The shifting geographic position of the hadley cells caused the geographic position of the taiga-tundra boundary to shift.

Here is a quote from Google and God:

"Hadley Cells are expanding poleward (northward in the Northern Hemisphere) due to global warming, causing subtropical dry zones and high-pressure belts to shift toward the poles, affecting weather patterns, rainfall, and potential crop productivity in mid latitudes. This expansion, observed since the 1980s is a significant climate signal, with rates estimated around 0.1(degree)-0.5(degree) latitude per decade, though regional shifts vary."

I just can't take anybody serious who says the north polar region hasn't warmed up significantly.

Do you think the Hadley Cells expanding northward is an effect of the pole North Pole warming up, or do you think it is the cause of the North Pole warming up?

The position of the Hadley Cells is a response to the temperature in convection currents of air, not a driver of it. You can see in a pot of water as it heats up, hot spots beneath create localized points where hot water rises up in convection currents. The position of those convection currents depends on the position of where heat enters the pot from below. If you move the pot more to one side of the burner, you'll see the position of the convection currents shift to one side.

Where Hadley Cell convection currents rise up from the surface is where you get the most rain. The rising warm air cools as it rises, with water condensing out. Hadley cells along the equator correspond to the wettest rainforests. Deserts are found at latitudes where Hadley Cell currents are moving DOWNWARD toward the surface. That air bears little water and only gets warmer when it approaches the surface.

The North Pole is in a region where the Hadley Cell brings relatively dry air down from high above toward the surface. Less than 12 inches annual snowfall there! In terms of precipitation, the North Pole is a desert. That air current at the North Pole flows south until it rises back up as a convection current with heavy rain and snow over the boreal forest. The latitude where that air rises up is moving closer to the North pole, reflected in the shifting boundary of the tundra.

The latitudes of these Hadley Cell boundaries are shifting closer to the poles. The equator is still smack dab in the middle, with warm wet air rising up off the surface and splitting equally north and south at higher elevation. The boundaries where that air comes back down toward the surface are moving 0.1-0.5 degrees latitude closer to the poles each decade since the 1980s.

There may be significantly more rain in the tropical latitudes, caused by more CO2, in my opinion. But I don't think that extra rain would cause global warming in the tropical latitudes. I think more water evaporating would have a cooling effect at those latitudes.

If it is more rain causing tropical Hadley Cells to rise a bit further north, that would not be a major factor in global warming of the north polar climate (say latitudes north of 60 degrees) in my opinion. Though perhaps a bit more rain could make its way up to the north polar region?

Perhaps accidentally, you are correct that there may be significantly more rain in the tropical latitudes, caused by more CO2. However, it is only indirectly caused by CO2, as it is directly caused by global warming. Warmer air holds more water. Period. Wetter air yields more precipitation. Period. Warmer sea surfaces emit more water vapor to the atmosphere. Period. Storms with more rain, because the warmer air holds so much more water, and the warmer sea surface drove so much more water into the warmer air, are going to dump more water as they move along. Ya gotta admit we've been getting some pretty impressive flooding in the last decade or two, compared to many decades before that.

Just going with my gut here, I doubt there is significant global warming in the tropical latitudes.

If I'm correct, then it wasn't warmer air that caused more rain.

Okay. Just going with my brain here... There is a vicious rumor going around about tropical coral reefs and surface water getting so hot that they "bleach".

So, tropics are certainly getting warmer. But the increases are more impressive at the highest latitudes. Damn... it was still the nineties as I recall when they noticed a 5 degree change at the poles versus a 1 degree change near the equator.

A 1 degree change does not seem significant enough to conclude it is outside a reasonable margin of error IMO.

Furthermore, if there is significantly increased rainfall, then there could be decreased salinity, and that could be the actual reason more coral reef bleached.

Trying to understand your thought process... Water evaporates, ever so slightly increasing the salinity it leaves behind in the remaining water. Rain falls on the ocean, ever so slightly decreasing salinity in the uppermost centimeters. Less than a drop in the bucket if you do the math. Where freshwater rivers meet the sea, that's where you can see a significant salinity gradient. Where rain falls... It would have to be Noah's forty days and forty nights level rain, diluting salinity in the shallowest, confined entry bay. The SF Bay wouldn't work. Way too deep with much too wide an entrance for a deluge of rain to be able to nudge the salinity low enough... for what? To explain why corals bleach?

Gosh, you would think that marine biologists would know to measure salinity as a water chemical parameter to account for in their coral bleaching investigations. Actually, they do.

Trying not to be cruel, and just trying to make sense of your thought process.

Did you think it was plausible that scientists overlooked the most basic water parameter anyone measures besides temperature? They measure salinity before they measure pH, if they even measure pH.

Did you think it was plausible that you discovered the mechanism all those scientists failed to identify?

Based on your other posts, I'm guessing that is exactly what you thought.

Im a BM wrote:
There is no shortage of irrefutable evidence that climate change is real.

Im a BM wrote:The northern migration of the boundary between tundra and boreal forest, for example.

Im a BM wrote: We can see organisms on the ground responding to changing climate conditions.

Im a BM wrote: It's no longer too cold for forests at the southern edge of the tundra.

Im a BM wrote: Thawed permafrost enables penetration of the kind of deeper roots that trees need to grow.

Im a BM wrote:This correlates in a very causal manner to the migration northward of HADLEY CELLS.

Im a BM wrote:
The position of the Hadley Cells is a response to the temperature in convection currents of air, not a driver of it.

Im a BM wrote:
You can see in a pot of water as it heats up, hot spots beneath create localized points where hot water rises up in convection currents. The position of those convection currents depends on the position of where heat enters the pot from below.

Im a BM wrote:
If you move the pot more to one side of the burner, you'll see the position of the convection currents shift to one side.

Im a BM wrote:
Where Hadley Cell convection currents rise up from the surface is where you get the most rain. The rising warm air cools as it rises, with water condensing out. Hadley cells along the equator correspond to the wettest rainforests. Deserts are found at latitudes where Hadley Cell currents are moving DOWNWARD toward the surface. That air bears little water and only gets warmer when it approaches the surface.

Im a BM wrote:
The North Pole is in a region where the Hadley Cell brings relatively dry air down from high above toward the surface. Less than 12 inches annual snowfall there! In terms of precipitation, the North Pole is a desert.

Im a BM wrote:
That air current at the North Pole flows south until it rises back up as a convection current with heavy rain and snow over the boreal forest.

Im a BM wrote:
The latitude where that air rises up is moving closer to the North pole, reflected in the shifting boundary of the tundra.

Im a BM wrote:
The latitudes of these Hadley Cell boundaries are shifting closer to the poles.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
The equator is still smack dab in the middle, with warm wet air rising up off the surface and splitting equally north and south at higher elevation.

Im a BM wrote:
The boundaries where that air comes back down toward the surface are moving 0.1-0.5 degrees latitude closer to the poles each decade since the 1980s.

Spongy Iris wrote:
There may be significantly more rain in the tropical latitudes, caused by more CO2, in my opinion.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But I don't think that extra rain would cause global warming in the tropical latitudes. I think more water evaporating would have a cooling effect at those latitudes.

Spongy Iris wrote:
If it is more rain causing tropical Hadley Cells to rise a bit further north, that would not be a major factor in global warming of the north polar climate (say latitudes north of 60 degrees) in my opinion. Though perhaps a bit more rain could make its way up to the north polar region?

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps accidentally, you are correct that there may be significantly more rain in the tropical latitudes, caused by more CO2.

Im a BM wrote:
However, it is only indirectly caused by CO2,

Im a BM wrote:
as it is directly caused by global warming.

Im a BM wrote:
Warmer air holds more water. Period.

Im a BM wrote:
Wetter air yields more precipitation. Period.

Im a BM wrote:
Warmer sea surfaces emit more water vapor to the atmosphere. Period.

Im a BM wrote:
Storms with more rain, because the warmer air holds so much more water, and the warmer sea surface drove so much more water into the warmer air, are going to dump more water as they move along.

Im a BM wrote:
Ya gotta admit we've been getting some pretty impressive flooding in the last decade or two, compared to many decades before that.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Just going with my gut here, I doubt there is significant global warming in the tropical latitudes.

If I'm correct, then it wasn't warmer air that caused more rain.

Im a BM wrote:
Okay. Just going with my brain here...

Im a BM wrote:
There is a vicious rumor going around about tropical coral reefs and surface water getting so hot that they "bleach".

Im a BM wrote:
So, tropics are certainly getting warmer.

Im a BM wrote:
But the increases are more impressive at the highest latitudes.

Im a BM wrote:
Damn... it was still the nineties as I recall when they noticed a 5 degree change at the poles versus a 1 degree change near the equator.

Spongy Iris wrote:
A 1 degree change does not seem significant enough to conclude it is outside a reasonable margin of error IMO.

Furthermore, if there is significantly increased rainfall, then there could be decreased salinity, and that could be the actual reason more coral reef bleached.

Im a BM wrote:
Trying to understand your thought process... Water evaporates, ever so slightly increasing the salinity it leaves behind in the remaining water. Rain falls on the ocean, ever so slightly decreasing salinity in the uppermost centimeters. Less than a drop in the bucket if you do the math. Where freshwater rivers meet the sea, that's where you can see a significant salinity gradient. Where rain falls... It would have to be Noah's forty days and forty nights level rain, diluting salinity in the shallowest, confined entry bay. The SF Bay wouldn't work. Way too deep with much too wide an entrance for a deluge of rain to be able to nudge the salinity low enough... for what? To explain why corals bleach?

Im a BM wrote:
Gosh, you would think that marine biologists would know to measure salinity as a water chemical parameter to account for in their coral bleaching investigations. Actually, they do.

Im a BM wrote:
Trying not to be cruel, and just trying to make sense of your thought process.

Did you think it was plausible that scientists overlooked the most basic water parameter anyone measures besides temperature? They measure salinity before they measure pH, if they even measure pH.

Im a BM wrote:
Did you think it was plausible that you discovered the mechanism all those scientists failed to identify?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Warmer air holds more water. Period.

Not always. It CAN hold more water than cooler air, but only if the moisture is available.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Wetter air yields more precipitation. Period.

Not always. Rainfall amounts are highly dependent on the amount of COLD air available to CREATE LIFT and condensation....or raindrops. Did you get that? Let's review. COLD air is necessary, and a shitload of it, to create a large or severe storm.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Ya gotta admit we've been getting some pretty impressive flooding in the last decade or two, compared to many decades before that.

Ya gotta admit we've been getting some pretty impressive flooding in the last 300 years.

PS You seem to be on your period.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Just going with my gut here, I doubt there is significant global warming in the tropical latitudes.

If I'm correct, then it wasn't warmer air that caused more rain.

Your gut is hallucinating. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or a latitude.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Just going with my gut here, I doubt there is significant global warming in the tropical latitudes.

If I'm correct, then it wasn't warmer air that caused more rain.

Your gut is hallucinating. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or a latitude.

EIGHT CONSECUTIVE POSTS, all on the same thread, by the Chemistry Clown.

Im a BM wrote:
Well, at least it makes it easier to scroll past them when they are all together in an unbroken sequence.

Im a BM wrote:
That red orange bird thing makes the scrolling easier. Don't stop scrolling until you see the last orange red bird fly past on the left.

Im a BM wrote:
Or go ahead and READ the stupid crap he posts. It's not MY problem, is it?

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Just going with my gut here, I doubt there is significant global warming in the tropical latitudes.

If I'm correct, then it wasn't warmer air that caused more rain.

Your gut is hallucinating. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or a latitude.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Just going with my gut here, I doubt there is significant global warming in the tropical latitudes.

If I'm correct, then it wasn't warmer air that caused more rain.

Your gut is hallucinating. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or a latitude.

We don't need to measure the temperature everywhere, just enough to conclude the north polar regions have warmed significantly.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And if that isn't good enough for you, just look at all the melting ice from Greenland.

Spongy Iris wrote:
If you still don't believe it, just look at how the AMOC has collapsed.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And if you still can't fathom it, look how the coral reefs have bleached.

Spongy Iris wrote:
After all that it becomes undeniable IMO. I'm not the umpire here, but looks to me like you struck out

Im a BM wrote:
There is no shortage of irrefutable evidence that climate change is real.

The northern migration of the boundary between tundra and boreal forest, for example. We can see organisms on the ground responding to changing climate conditions. It's no longer too cold for forests at the southern edge of the tundra. Thawed permafrost enables penetration of the kind of deeper roots that trees need to grow.

This correlates in a very causal manner to the migration northward of HADLEY CELLS. The shifting geographic position of the hadley cells caused the geographic position of the taiga-tundra boundary to shift.

Here is a quote from Google and God:

"Hadley Cells are expanding poleward (northward in the Northern Hemisphere) due to global warming, causing subtropical dry zones and high-pressure belts to shift toward the poles, affecting weather patterns, rainfall, and potential crop productivity in mid latitudes. This expansion, observed since the 1980s is a significant climate signal, with rates estimated around 0.1(degree)-0.5(degree) latitude per decade, though regional shifts vary."

Spongy Iris wrote:We don't need to measure the temperature everywhere, just enough to conclude the north polar regions have warmed significantly.

Spongy Iris wrote:And if that isn't good enough for you, just look at all the melting ice from Greenland.

Spongy Iris wrote:If you still don't believe it, just look at how the AMOC has collapsed.

Spongy Iris wrote: And if you still can't fathom it, look how the coral reefs have bleached.

Spongy Iris wrote:After all that it becomes undeniable IMO.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I guess your forgetting that clouds don't trap heat, they block cold.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I guess your forgetting that clouds don't trap heat, they block cold.

That sounds pretty cheesey to me.

.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
There is no shortage of irrefutable evidence that climate change is real.

The northern migration of the boundary between tundra and boreal forest, for example. We can see organisms on the ground responding to changing climate conditions. It's no longer too cold for forests at the southern edge of the tundra. Thawed permafrost enables penetration of the kind of deeper roots that trees need to grow.

This correlates in a very causal manner to the migration northward of HADLEY CELLS. The shifting geographic position of the hadley cells caused the geographic position of the taiga-tundra boundary to shift.

Here is a quote from Google and God:

"Hadley Cells are expanding poleward (northward in the Northern Hemisphere) due to global warming, causing subtropical dry zones and high-pressure belts to shift toward the poles, affecting weather patterns, rainfall, and potential crop productivity in mid latitudes. This expansion, observed since the 1980s is a significant climate signal, with rates estimated around 0.1(degree)-0.5(degree) latitude per decade, though regional shifts vary."

LOL climate change is very real, and began 5 billion years ago. The current warming trend began 22,000 years ago

Wake up Al Bore

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

I guess your forgetting that clouds don't trap heat, they block cold.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

I guess your forgetting that clouds don't trap heat, they block cold.

Clouds don't trap or block anything.
You cannot block a negative.
You cannot trap heat.

You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

I guess your forgetting that clouds don't trap heat, they block cold.

Clouds don't trap or block anything.
You cannot block a negative.
You cannot trap heat.

You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

You are ignoring the dynamics of Heaven and Earth.
You are ignoring gravity.

There is not enough energy pushing up from the North Polar climates. The cold air falling down upon it overwhelms the weak heat from below.

If I tried to do jumping jacks in a warehouse freezer, I would not transfer enough energy to heat the freezer. But if the freezer fan got clogged with ice, the freezer would warm up, because less cold air would fall down from the fan. Same idea.

That is why Greenland ice has melted more than it has frozen in recent history > desalinated the North Atlantic a bit > collapsed the AMOC current a bit > slowed the heat transfer from the South Atlantic a bit > increased the temperature of the South Atlantic > and bleached a lot of the coral reefs.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

I guess your forgetting that clouds don't trap heat, they block cold.

Clouds don't trap or block anything.
You cannot block a negative.
You cannot trap heat.

You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

You are ignoring the dynamics of Heaven and Earth.
You are ignoring gravity.

There is not enough energy pushing up from the North Polar climates. The cold air falling down upon it overwhelms the weak heat from below.

If I tried to do jumping jacks in a warehouse freezer, I would not transfer enough energy to heat the freezer. But if the freezer fan got clogged with ice, the freezer would warm up, because less cold air would fall down from the fan. Same idea.

That is why Greenland ice has melted more than it has frozen in recent history > desalinated the North Atlantic a bit > collapsed the AMOC current a bit > slowed the heat transfer from the South Atlantic a bit > increased the temperature of the South Atlantic > and bleached a lot of the coral reefs.

If you tried to do jumping jacks your heart would give out under the strain of your belly full of kosher hot dogs

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

I guess your forgetting that clouds don't trap heat, they block cold.

Clouds don't trap or block anything.
You cannot block a negative.
You cannot trap heat.

You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

You are ignoring the dynamics of Heaven and Earth.
You are ignoring gravity.

There is not enough energy pushing up from the North Polar climates. The cold air falling down upon it overwhelms the weak heat from below.

If I tried to do jumping jacks in a warehouse freezer, I would not transfer enough energy to heat the freezer. But if the freezer fan got clogged with ice, the freezer would warm up, because less cold air would fall down from the fan. Same idea.

That is why Greenland ice has melted more than it has frozen in recent history > desalinated the North Atlantic a bit > collapsed the AMOC current a bit > slowed the heat transfer from the South Atlantic a bit > increased the temperature of the South Atlantic > and bleached a lot of the coral reefs.

If you tried to do jumping jacks your heart would give out under the strain of your belly full of kosher hot dogs

Bro today I did 30 push ups and 30 sit ups.

OMG not easy at 6'0" , 248 pounds. The last 10 were forced.

I hope I didn't injure myself.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

I guess your forgetting that clouds don't trap heat, they block cold.

Clouds don't trap or block anything.
You cannot block a negative.
You cannot trap heat.

You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

You are ignoring the dynamics of Heaven and Earth.
You are ignoring gravity.

There is not enough energy pushing up from the North Polar climates. The cold air falling down upon it overwhelms the weak heat from below.

If I tried to do jumping jacks in a warehouse freezer, I would not transfer enough energy to heat the freezer. But if the freezer fan got clogged with ice, the freezer would warm up, because less cold air would fall down from the fan. Same idea.

That is why Greenland ice has melted more than it has frozen in recent history > desalinated the North Atlantic a bit > collapsed the AMOC current a bit > slowed the heat transfer from the South Atlantic a bit > increased the temperature of the South Atlantic > and bleached a lot of the coral reefs.

If you tried to do jumping jacks your heart would give out under the strain of your belly full of kosher hot dogs

Bro today I did 30 push ups and 30 sit ups.

OMG not easy at 6'0" , 248 pounds. The last 10 were forced.

I hope I didn't injure myself.

I watched a guy doing chins the other day, seemed like he did a bunch but his chin never did clear the bar, but at least he wasn't on the gay machine that lifts you up as you go making the entire time wasted

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

I guess your forgetting that clouds don't trap heat, they block cold.

Clouds don't trap or block anything.
You cannot block a negative.
You cannot trap heat.

You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

You are ignoring the dynamics of Heaven and Earth.
You are ignoring gravity.

There is not enough energy pushing up from the North Polar climates. The cold air falling down upon it overwhelms the weak heat from below.

If I tried to do jumping jacks in a warehouse freezer, I would not transfer enough energy to heat the freezer. But if the freezer fan got clogged with ice, the freezer would warm up, because less cold air would fall down from the fan. Same idea.

That is why Greenland ice has melted more than it has frozen in recent history > desalinated the North Atlantic a bit > collapsed the AMOC current a bit > slowed the heat transfer from the South Atlantic a bit > increased the temperature of the South Atlantic > and bleached a lot of the coral reefs.

If you tried to do jumping jacks your heart would give out under the strain of your belly full of kosher hot dogs

Bro today I did 30 push ups and 30 sit ups.

OMG not easy at 6'0" , 248 pounds. The last 10 were forced.

I hope I didn't injure myself.

I watched a guy doing chins the other day, seemed like he did a bunch but his chin never did clear the bar, but at least he wasn't on the gay machine that lifts you up as you go making the entire time wasted

The secretary of trans' chin cleared the bar and he did 10.

And he took his time with it, so actually won the contest IMO.

But the 71 year old RFK did 20, rushing for better momentum. He is way too stiff to clear his chin, but extremely impressive strength for a grey man who is 71. Still turned me green with envy, both of them.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

I guess your forgetting that clouds don't trap heat, they block cold.

Clouds don't trap or block anything.
You cannot block a negative.
You cannot trap heat.

You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

You are ignoring the dynamics of Heaven and Earth.
You are ignoring gravity.

Spongy Iris wrote:

There is not enough energy pushing up from the North Polar climates. The cold air falling down upon it overwhelms the weak heat from below.

Spongy Iris wrote:

If I tried to do jumping jacks in a warehouse freezer, I would not transfer enough energy to heat the freezer.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But if the freezer fan got clogged with ice, the freezer would warm up, because less cold air would fall down from the fan. Same idea.
Fans are not refrigerators.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
That is why Greenland ice has melted more than it has frozen in recent history

Spongy Iris wrote:
> desalinated the North Atlantic a bit

Spongy Iris wrote:
> collapsed the AMOC current a bit

Spongy Iris wrote:
> slowed the heat transfer from the South Atlantic a bit

Spongy Iris wrote:
> increased the temperature of the South Atlantic

Spongy Iris wrote:
> and bleached a lot of the coral reefs.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

You are ignoring the dynamics of Heaven and Earth.
You are ignoring gravity.

Inversion fallacy