HOW MUCH HAS THE EARTH ACTUALLY WARMED?

Powerlineblog ^ | April 5,2021 | BY JOHN HINDERAKER

[usconservative]

I would be willing to give odds that someone has suggested that the pandemic was caused by Global Warming.

I've read at least two that made that claim.

[palmer]

That's always been my argument. Why would anyone want freezing temperatures? Yes, some people like to go skiing. But they can move near the mountains.

All plants and animals (and insects) do better when it is warmer.

[Candor7]

The right one never gets cold. LOL.

[SomeCallMeTim]

ping

[DoughtyOne]

But that is all right, since warming due to carbon
dioxide doesn’t occur at the surface, it occurs in the
atmosphere. The only reliable, unfudged record we have
of global temperatures is the satellite record in the lower
troposphere, which only goes back to 1979. This is the
global temperature trend from then until now:

This means that “[t]he linear warming trend since January,
1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the
global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-
averaged land).” In other words, at the warming rate
that has prevailed since 1979–assuming it continues–the
Earth’s average temperature would rise by one degree in 70
years.

Even by their own explanation, that's a big fail.
They state their figures address temps at altitude.
Well guess what. Temperatures at altitude are not going
to melt glaciers or the North and South Pole ice packs.

This is just noise

[robowombat]

None of the references work.

[mosesdapoet]

Earth Axis tilts slightly away from sun
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3877075/posts

Earth Enters Unknown as Magnetic North Pole Continues Push Toward Russia, Crosses Greenwich Meridian
Sputniknews.com ^ | 15:08 13.12.2019 (updated 15:42 13.12.2019) | Staff
posted in the Free Republic Aggregate conservative news site
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3800727/posts
South Pole Reports
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3936325/posts
Posted on 12/13/2019, 4:22:18 PM by Red Badger

Earlier this year, US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the British Geological Survey (BGS) were forced to update the World Magnetic Model a year ahead of schedule due to the speed with which the magnetic north pole is shifting out of the Canadian Arctic and toward Russia’s Siberia.

Deep solar minimum on the verge of an historic milestone
wattsupwiththat.com ^ | December 12, 2019 | by Paul Dorian

Posted on 12/13/2019, 3:17:04 PM by Red Badger Posted in the Free Republic aggregate news site http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3800719/posts

Solar minimum is a normal part of the 11-year sunspot cycle, but the last one and the current one have been far deeper than most. One of the consequences of a solar minimum is a reduction of solar storms and another is the intensification of cosmic rays. The just ended solar cycle 24 turned out to be one of the weakest in more than a century – continuing a weakening trend that began in the 1980’s – and, if the latest forecasts are correct, the next solar cycle will be the weakest in more than 200 years.

One of the natural impacts of decreasing solar activity is the weakening of the ambient solar wind and its magnetic field which, in turn, allows more and more cosmic rays to penetrate the solar system. Galactic cosmic rays are high-energy particles originating from outside the solar system that can impact the Earth’s atmosphere. Our first line of defense from cosmic rays comes from the sun as its magnetic field and the solar wind combine to create a ‘shield’ that fends off cosmic rays attempting to enter the solar system. The shielding action of the sun is strongest during solar maximum and weakest during solar minimum with the weakening magnetic field and solar wind. The intensity of cosmic rays varies globally by about 15% over a solar cycle because of changes in the strength of the solar wind, which carries a weak magnetic field into the heliosphere, partially shielding Earth from low-energy galactic charged particles.

NEWLY PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC PAPER TEARS GLOBAL WARMING AND THE IPCC TO SHREDS
Electro verse.net ^ | Dec 11, 2019

Posted on 12/17/2019, 4:54:46 PM by 11th_VA

http://www.freerepublic/com/focus/f-news/3801618/posts

A scientific paper entitled “An Overview of Scientific Debate of Global Warming and Climate Change” has recently come out of the University of Karachi, Pakistan. The paper’s author, Prof. Shamshad Akhtar delves into earth’s natural temperature variations of the past 1000 years, and concludes that any modern warming trend has been hijacked by political & environmental agendas, and that the science (tackled below) has been long-ignored and at times deliberately manipulated.

... Pro human induced global warming scientists exaggerate the contribution of carbon dioxide as a major greenhouse gas in absorbing long wave earth’s radiation. The fact is water vapor is the single largest atmospheric greenhouse gas (2% by volume), Carbon dioxide is second (0.0385% by volume).

Water vapor contributes 95% to the greenhouse effect, all other greenhouse gases combined contribute only 5%. Furthermore, the man-made portion of carbon dioxide contributes only 0.117% to the greenhouse effect.

The IPCC does not consider water vapor a greenhouse gas in its reports.

In addition, water vapor absorbs in a much wider band of long wave radiation (4-8 micrometer and 12-70 micrometer bands), whereas Carbon dioxide absorbs in narrow bands (13-16 micrometer) and ozone absorbs in a much smaller narrow band (9-10 micrometer). Thus, water vapor absorbs in a much wider wave length band, it has the single largest greenhouse effect among all the greenhouse gases.

[Bob434]

[[One degree in 70 years. At this rate, we would be in real trouble by 2390.]]

Unless if curse temps start to decline again by then, which they will

[crz]

“No such thing as normal wearher since creation.”

That is correct. Any honest climate scientist will tell you that. And up in the Arctic, and Antarctic, they have the facts through ice core studies.

Matter of fact is that we are in the unusual period of earths climate. It swings drastically from ice age to extreme warm.

[metmom]

And I’d bet they’d be the first to complain about not having them, too.

[metmom]

I’ll take longer growing seasons, lower heating bills, and just generally not having to deal with the slop and mess of winter.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

After the stomach virus I had last week, the Earth’s temperature should be about 110* F.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

This Gaia chick is a pretty puny god if she is dying from the activity of a organism she made and now depends on that same organism to “heal” her.
Think I’ll find another god that ain’t so ineffective and weak.

[palmer]

Yeah, the FUND model used to incorporate benefits of global warming like those. Then the lefists got their hands on the model and erased the benefits. But most people have common sense and understand the benefits of global warming.

[deport]

None of the references work.

**********

Correct. I pointed that out in the first sentence of the posting of which is a link to the article that does work.

Note:
The links won't work in this posting but click here and it will take you to the article where they will work.

[PIF]

Warming = good
Cooling = bad
Co2 =bad
Trees = offensive

[daniel1212]

" I would be willing to give odds that someone has suggested that the pandemic was caused by Global Warming. "

At least it will be said that Covid shutdown reduced the warming rate and needs to continue.

[pierrem15]

I watched a physicist explaining how CO2 is supposed to explain global warming. I watched to the point that he considered the clincher.

He pointed to a study using balloons at high latitude. The study demonstrated that infrared measurements at high altitude showed less infrared radiation at the bandwidths that correlated to CO2 absorption compared to near surface measurements Therefore, CO2 absorbs infrared!

The problem is no one contests that this occurs. However, as his own video shows, this absorption occurs at two discrete bands. These bands correspond to specific temperature ranges. So anything outside those temperature ranges produces infrared to which CO2 is transparent. It follows then that you should ask how much of the earth's surface at what times of the year corresponds in temperature to these bands? How much infrared is actually absorbed since CO2 is only 500 parts per million of the atmosphere? How much of the infrared re-emitted by the CO2 remains trapped since the warmed CO2 re-emits heat in all directions, not just towards the surface? Lastly, how does CO2 retention compare to the effects of natural, cyclical variations in the earth's albedo, solar radiation, etc.?

That gas should be $10/gallon and our electricity bills double or triple because of this "science" is nonsense.

[CodeToad]

“The only reliable, unfudged record we have of global temperatures is the satellite record in the lower troposphere, which only goes back to 1979. This is the global temperature trend from then until now:”

Wrong. Typical liberal ignorance and nonsense trying to prove a point by lying.

The DMSP satellite program has been in operation since the 60’s and it shows a COOLING, not a warming.

[AZJeep]

Check this guy (prof Happer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHCCE-sw_Sc
If you into quantum physics, he has some heavy scientific presentations too.