Screwed the pooch on this one.
NASA’s GISS channel in question is looking at upper-air temperatures. If you put more greenhouse gasses (or manmade structures) at lower altitudes, you raise the temperature at those lower altitudes. Then the solar radiation doesn’t reach the upper altitudes to warm them up.
The reality is that the last two years in NASA’s surface-level temperatures show an unprecedented surge.
A small amount of global warming is happening. A significant portion is manmade. Much of it is urban heat island effects, and the undoing of the clouds of sulfur particulates, which caused the global cooling paranoia in the 1970s. Some of global warming is due to greenhouse gasses. The greenhouse gas effect is self-limiting; once the sky is opaque to CO2 at a given frequence, it’s opaque.
None of the pop-culture effects of global warming will happen.
Melting sea ice, like at the North Pole can’t raise sea levels. And you’d need to raise the temperature 100 degrees for 10,000 years to melt the bulk of Antarctica.
Global warming barely effects the tropics, but effects the polar regions much more, so no, the tropics won’t die off from heat death.
But as the temperature differentials decline, you’ll get fewer intense storms, because air pressure is the measure of energy in the atmosphere, not storms, and the air pressure will become more equal.
The real science is that the Earth will warm, maybe about two degrees in the next century. (OH NOS!) There will be more warming... maybe seven degrees... where we need it to be warmer, and almost no warming near the equator. Increased vegetation will make hot, dry areas more humid and slighlt cooler. Sea levels will rise from adiabatic expansion (that is, liquids expand as they get warmer), maybe about four inches. And fossil fuels will be obsolete far sooner than anyone imagines.
The problem with surface level temperature is the data points. Much of it is estimated and most of the warming comes from areas they don’t have actual readings, its effected by urban heat, etc. In other words, its easy to screw with the surface data.
I’d also note, atmospheric data used to be the gold standard in measuring temperature due to no bias and better quality reading, until it started showing significantly less warming than the land readings, and the CAGW crowd started attacking it as less credible.
Thanks for the good feedback