Insistence not only that the earth is getting warmer due to the actions of mankind, but that this will or even can result in catastrophic warming, permeates Western governments, media, entertainment, corporations and academia. This is an increasingly expensive hoax. The “follow the science” crowd, scientists dependent on government largess for grant funding and elites on trend-following for status, refuses to accept actual science, so the average voter, educated only by a biased media, continues to go along with it and insist all others do, as well.
The facts are, Earth has not warmed since 1997. More CO2 is expelled each year, yet no warming has resulted. This is partly due to the fact that the greenhouse theory is nonsense.
Detailed information on air temperature and CO2 levels disproves that a rise in CO2 will cause a rise in temperature. The core samples from EPICA Dome C ice core on the Antarctic Plateau establish that temperature rises first and CO2 level follow in a lagging manner.
If the Greenhouse theory were correct (it's not), CO2 would drive temperature. In fact, the opposite is the case. It may well be that CO2, the bogeyman of the Klimate Kult, the gas we are closing factories, starving and unemploying people, and shuttering economies to reduce, is the same gas responsible for the cooling of the past few decades.
A recent study by the Naval Research Laboratory showed “the biggest contraction in the thermosphere in at least 43 years.” The National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO, announced that the thermosphere shrank by thirty percent because of a sharp drop in radiation from the sun. Whatever the media and future historians call the coming solar minimum, it may indeed be very cold.
It might be that terminating fertilizer production and natural gas in the name of fighting a man-made "global warming" that doesn’t exist will ensure that farmers on an already-cooling Earth produce even less food, ensuring even greater starvation.
NASA’s forecast for the next solar cycle (25) reveals it will be the weakest of the last 200 years. Perhaps this will not be as deep as the Maunder Minimum or the Dalton Minimum. Perhaps. Earth’s oceans store most of the planet’s heat. They may be cooling. As the oceans cool, the air circulating above them, and drawing heat from them – which is how hurricanes are formed – will begin to cool. Next thing you know, Amazon is out of ice skates and hot chocolate.
How do we know the oceans are cooling? NASA sensors. "A map of heat change at depths of 500 meters (top) showed an unrealistically widespread and dramatic cooling of the entire Atlantic Ocean." Along with altering our global temperature data sets to meet the needs of the political establishment, however, NASA is altering the ocean temperature readings, as well: "When the errors had been corrected, the global-scale cooling trend disappeared."
Earth experiences a 100,000-year ice age cycle (an ice-covered earth is far more “normal” than a temperate earth), a 2,200 – 2,400-year climate cycle, a 200-year “Bicentennial Cycle,” a 40-year “Relational Cycle,” and an 11-year “Schwabe Cycle.” (Dark Winter, Casey, 2014). Each of these alters the global climate. Each of these has immeasurably more impact on Earth’s climate than the internal combustion engine or electricity generation or your natural gas stove.
If we “Follow the science,” it may well be that we need to begin moving toward technologies and behaviors that warm the earth. Or at least stop trying to cool it. No one stops an advancing glacier.
However there is no doubt that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased and are likely to increase further whether naturally or from human activity or both - and that this is certainly good for plants and agriculture, even if the temperature does fall a couple of degrees. I wonder if increased plant activity might also raise or lower solar energy absorption and retention, positively or negatively.
It's pretty certain that mere CO2 in the atmosphere does not, the absorption bands largely overlap water vapor and so are utterly swamped by it, to three orders of magnitude, and as far as I can tell (and I'd be happy to see some hard science on it) the re-emission is at other wavelengths, all rotational and vibrational and not limited to CO2 at all, again limiting the net effect to zilch dependence on CO2 concentration.
Even if it doubles, it's a tiny tiny number that you're doubling and is completely swamped by water vapor.
"Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’"
"is the same gas responsible for the cooling of the past few decades." CO2 only causes a cooling effect in the upper levels of the atmosphere. In the troposphere, it most definitely causes warming. So yeah, the thesis of your argument is inaccurate.
October 18, 2022 The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan Executive Summary By The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute
First published in December 2016, this article is of relevance to an understanding of the ongoing debate on Climate Change as well the Green New Deal, largely controlled by the financial establishment. The Rockefellers also play a key role in the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset Proposal.
This whole Global Warming Cult who will soon demand the sacrifice of a Virgin or child
There is no evidence of " climate stasis" change is constant and normal.
Demand answers from the activists what physical mechanism traps heat in a CO2 molecule and after their blank stare or muttering about Arrhenius reveals their lack of knowledge inform them that CO2 can only capture short wave solar energy after it has been reflected from the surface and that the narrow wavelength that can be absorbed is near saturation. This curve is logarithmic and for any further increases it will require a doubling of CO2 concentration. So to see any new temperature increases we need to go from 400 ppm to 800 ppm. At the current rate this would take more than a century. This is more than enough time to discover superior energy sources and there is no immediate risk that warrants widescale adoption of inferior renewables.
How stupid of an idea is it that mankind can control the temperature of the earth? I guess not anymore stupid than thinking a man can be transformed into a woman and vice versa. The former canard will be and is already the most expensive and ultimately the most deadly while the latter is the most personally destructive. We can only hope that some day sanity will once again prevail before we are all huddling in our dark homes cold and starving if we are still alive.
We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know.
Back in the 70s when all this nonsense started, I taught a college level course in energy and environmental policy in Minnesota. While searching for reading material for my students, I came across these two items, released at almost the same time:
So I figured we just might break even.