Are you really this stupid? There are THOUSANDS of thermometers and satellites measuring this. Instrument error has nothing to do with it idiot. Yes, if there was ONE thermometer reading you MIGHT have a point but even then it is the relative change over time that is the telling thing. So even if ONE thermometer that was off by 50 degrees shows a gradual increase over time it is STILL significant. But I know. You are just repeating propaganda that you read on LOLWUWT or Breitbarf. Stop being such a sheep.
I never said or intimated any such thing. I did say that YOU know nothing about AGW beyond the sound bites, and the earth has not paused in gaining heat and NASA NOAA and virtually the entire worlds climate science community agree that the earth is still gaining heat. If you need me to post the chart again I will.
I believe the combination of all three - overfishing, the destruction of coastal wetlands, and pollution all have a significant impact on the fisheries. Overfishing is obviously the lead problem. However, coastal development that is destroying large sections of coastal wetlands causes a large impact to raising the next generation of fish via the food chain. Pollution is a localized problem - North Carolina and other eastern states have had large local issues with industrial coastal pollution - Doug Rader is actually most known in NC for driving lawsuits against the "Weyerhaeuser paper company that resulted in new restrictions on filling wetlands and the preservation of thousands of acres in the East Dismal Swamp." and legal action against other industrial polluters of the NC coast. Nearly all officials involved in fishery issues state that AGW is not an issue. AGW is also not an important issue causing coral reef bleaching according to most scientists deeply focused on coral reef issues. The top causes of coral reef bleaching are Solar Irradiance, Subaerial Exposure, Sedimentation, Fresh Water Dilution, Inorganic Nutrients and Xenbiotics.
So, you do not agree with NASA. Thank you for conceding that you do not agree with the scientific conclusions from NASA. You think that you are smarter than a team of NASA scientist. blahahahahahahaha. Demonstrating that your religious beliefs are so strong that you refuse to accept scientific conclusions from NASA.
Yeah OK whatever. Saying there is a "pause" is NOT a scientific conclusion. But I don't expect you to understand that.
That answer is incorrect. I know the correct answer and here's the funny thing - the answer's not found in the scientific paper where that diagram came from; the authors did not define the zero line in their paper. It was sloppy on their part. Even sloppier is the fact that the 'data coverage' for the 0-700M chart at the 700M level was 0% in 1957 and didn't reach 100% until 1994. So most of the graph is simply made up 'approximations'. But sure, let's go with your answer. Does that mean that we should attempt to get the ocean temperature back to the baseline number and if so, what is the precise baseline temperature in either degrees F or C? Now, since we're no longer using atmospheric temperatures to determine the earth's temperature (because if we do, it shows no global warming except for our data alterations), should we now start incorporating soil temperatures into the global warming equation? Perhaps we go down from surface to 700 meters in the soil to see how much heat has been added to the earth? OK, now for an even deeper question. At what altitude above the surface are official temperature readings supposed to be taken? Or does it matter? If you do some research on the worldwide standard requirements, you'll find that using subsurface temperatures to account for the earth's warming/cooling is a steaming pile of feces. There's a reason why there's a height requirement.
It's a moot point. This year will be a record high yearly atmospheric temperature, thus according denier idiots, global warming has suddenly started again. Oh, and here is something.....the heat content of the oceans can go up without any rise in temperature at all.
It's obvious that the zero line is the 80's decade. Things are charted like that all the time. Your other assertions that the data is incomplete is unsubstantiated and meaningless.
Data not incomplete? LOL! Figure 1. http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat12.pdf This is the paper that the graph is derived from. 2000M coverage is even worse than 700M coverage. The zero line is based an average of 1971-2000 data. But I've already given you a link showing that the data prior to 1994 is junk because it requires that a significant amount of data is 'approximated' - another word for made up fiction. Just as you simply made it up when asked the origin of the zero line, thinking you wouldn't get caught. The zero line is meaningless crap, as with the rest of the entire report. It's simply made up junk. Don't even get me started on use of 'pentadal' data. That's also a bunch of junk to manipulate the data. As far as the oceans heating, how is the heat transferred? UV light only penetrates a small depth of water so it's not transferred from the sun. Some sort of magic air to water heat exchange? Pray tell, how does the exchange of heat from air to water work? If you've ever owned a pool, you'd know that the water's heat gets sucked out by evaporation, not the other way around - this same process occurs with ocean water; science doesn't get suspended just because the water is in the ocean instead of my pool. But seriously, how can anyone sit there and say that the standard for recording temperatures for decades, if not centuries, is now obsolete because 'we found heat under the sea'? Pure fiction, just like The Little Mermaid (hence the 'under the sea' reference). The sad thing is that my tax dollars were wasted on that pile of steaming feces from NOAA called a 'scientific' paper. It's crap. And now the global alarmists are doubling down on stupid by stating that the heat's 'under the sea'. It would be funny if there wasn't so much money being wasted on this junk science.