monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis states the greenhouse emissions will warm the lower atmosphere, which will then result in a subsequent warming of Earth's surface. Yet, since 1998 the surface has warmed (more on that surface "warming" here and here) while the atmosphere had not warmed at all through 2015 - this is a major AGW hypothesis disconnect.
====
In addition, the AGW hypothesis assumes that increasing greenhouse gases will cause the triggering of major positive feedbacks that in turn will cause dangerous, accelerated warming in the atmosphere and then the surface. In reality, the "dangerous, accelerated warming" has not taken place, anywhere.
======
The CO2-centric AGW hypothesis, and climate models, assume that every additional emission molecule of atmospheric CO2 will accelerate the global warming, to the point of no return. Thus, each new tonne (metric) of CO2 will boost the acceleration via a theoretical positive feedback amplification.

But does the empirical evidence actually indicate that is indeed what is taking place?
====
The observed shrinking of CO2's influence on global warming does not bode well for the future longevity of the AGW hypothesis.
=====
The IPCC's catastrophic AGW (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the prediction that human CO2 emissions would produce a "hotspot" in the atmosphere above the tropics. This hotspot was identified by the IPCC as the penultimate evidence that global warming was accelerating...

The tropical, runaway hotspot did not happen in spite of massive amounts of CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere; ergo, the IPCC was wrong, again; the billion-dollar climate model predictions were wrong, again; alarmist, agenda-driven scientists' claims of climate doomsday were wrong, again; and, the fanatical anti-CO2 green lobby was wrong, as always.
======
AGW alarmist climate scientists predicted that increasing human CO2 emissions would cause an increase in water vapor with the result being a global warming tipping point - empirical evidence completely discredits that prediction.
=====
The runaway global warming scenarios of the IPCC climate models are based exclusively on a hypothesized positive climate feedback - satellite data reveal a powerful negative cloud feedback instead....
=====
But the actual climate empirical evidence (ie, non-warming world, lower ocean temps) and cold weather events has now forced CO2-centric global warming alarmists into a pretzeled logic that ultimately supports the overall negative feedbacks of global climate as understood by CAGW-skeptics, not the positive feedbacks pushed by the IPCC.
======
IPCC "experts" and climate models predicted that CO2 increases would cause runaway growth in atmospheric water vapor & temperatures - wrong on both counts...

Establishment science and coastal elites are literally besides themselves as the empirical evidence continues to affirm that the "consensus" IPCC catastrophic AGW hypothesis is at best, lame, and more likely just plain invalid.
====
e essential foundation of the AGW hypothesis is that CO2 atmospheric increases block the escape of infrared radiation and increasingly bounces the infrared warming back to the Earth's surface to warm it. But when examining the empirical evidence, the infrared radiation bouncing back to Earth is mostly decreasing, not increasing.
====
IPCC science predicts that as CO2 increase in atmosphere, the resulting warming will increase the atmosphere's water vapor levels, which will cause more warming (a positive feedback).

Unfortunately for the IPCC, that major tenet of the AGW hypothesis has not worked so well, as the below atmospheric humidity chart from www.climate4you.com reveals.
=====
Climate models have been programmed to produce a thawing of the tundra permafrost from human CO2-induced warming. This tundra "melting" will produce an explosion of CO2 and methane gas into the atmosphere. This is the mighty lore of the AGW hypothesis, thus models must be instructed to simulate this outcome. Fortunately, the AGW hypothesis and climate model programmers were wrong - like big time.
=====
Satellite Data: Theory That CO2 Causes Positive Water Vapor Feedback, Which Then Boosts Temperatures Seems Not To Work....

Another failure for the IPCC climate models and the overall CO2 AGW hypothesis that relies on a phantom positive feedback water vapor mechanism - the climate opera is at the curtain call and the phantom is AWOL

To say that climate change isn't happening, is to put your head in the sand.

The science may not be in, to confirm that it's caused by our input, but that's a moot point. It's happening. And probably always was.

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras...

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects...But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading.

Not to be petty but you kind of undercut your argument here;

Quote:

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading.

Just sayin', ya know?

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.

Trump Is Terrible at Firing!

It aint my argument.

Funny that this imminient "ice age" was happening at a time when the sky in LA was always black from pollution, coal plants were pumping smoke into the atmosphere 24/7, and the anthropomorphic CO2 spewing was enormous.

They are called “must-runs,” and they arrive every day at television stations owned by the Sinclair Broadcast Group — short video segments that are centrally produced by the company. Station managers around the country are directed to work them into the broadcast over a period of 24 or 48 hours.

Since November 2015, Sinclair has ordered its stations to run a daily segment from a “Terrorism Alert Desk” with updates on terrorism-related news around the world. During the election campaign last year, it sent out a package that suggested in part that voters should not support Hillary Clinton because the Democratic Party was historically pro-slavery. More recently, Sinclair asked stations to run a short segment in which Scott Livingston, the company’s vice president for news, accused the national news media of publishing “fake news stories.”

As Sinclair prepares to expand its stable of local TV stations with a proposed acquisition of Tribune Media — which would add 42 stations to Sinclair’s 173 — advocacy groups have shown concern about the size and reach the combined company would have. Its stations would reach more than 70 percent of the nation’s households, including many of the largest markets.