First I'm not a Denialist. I'm a Skeptic. And once again we have yet another cut and paste from fc that makes for a good example of just one of the many reasons why. Anytime one questions a particular year or a decade of temps, say 1934 vs. 1998, or temps for the last decade or two vs. the Medieval warm period, one is told that one should only look at the period since the Industrial Revolution which began around 1760. (254 years is a very short period compared to the age of the earth or just the time of man, but we'll let that one go) Now the Chicken Little Conformacrats want us to accept that recent temps are the warmest years "since records began in 1880", and that regional temps are invalid since ones data must be "representative of the entire globe" (actually the industrial revolution didn't really kick in till WWII, but Chicken Little's time frame keeps getting shorter all the time, so we'll let that go also.) The main point is, if we take the statements at face value, .."since records began in 1880"....... "represent the entire globe"..... "above the 20th-century average", One must ask the question... How do you know? How do you really know that average global temperatures are 1.22 degrees above the 20th-century average. (I'm certain weather satellites weren't around in 1880, the first one considered a success launched 1960, Weather balloons also didn't start wide use and only in the developed world till the 1960s.) I find it imposable to accept that thousands or even hundreds of climate scientists stationed around the globe to record and report local temps had the calibrated instruments to quantify global temps to such a degree in the 1880s (or the 1930s or the '50s, or maybe even today with such exactness as touted by the Chicken Little's.) Ahhh...but the Ice Cores they say.... "Ice cores contain an abundance of information aboutclimate.... bubbles of atmospheric gas.....a variety information greater than in any other natural recorder such astree ringsorsediment layers.... This enables the reconstruction of local temperature records and the history of atmospheric composition." (taken directly from a Chicken Little AGW site,...but opps there's that word "Local" again. and when it come atmospheric gas.... the cores show CO2 higher at times then today without wormer temps) So the question remains, How do you know? Should the Chicken Little's shorten their time frame even more or just "cherry pick" (something us skeptics are accused of all the time)the years to compare. RAH (p.s. I'm expecting one or a combination of responses to this from the Conforacrats here on ET: 1. A statement that all the information confirming AGW has already be provided which only brings us back to where we started here. 2. That any and all views that may be contrary to Chicken Little's vision of the way things work are nothing more than right wing propaganda funded by the fossil fuel industry and Chicken Little's observations are gospel & therefore can not be questioned without be called a name...like "Denialist". 3. That I'm nothing more than a #!*% and a $%#@^&* not to mention you're a *&##$%. )
that eventuality is probably the reality right now... we are waiting for more clarity because the papers I have read have said they do not have enough readings across all the oceans. http://scrippsscholars.ucsd.edu/aan...w-water-oceans-source-or-sink-atmospheric-co2 CO2? Citation: Andersson, AJ, Mackenzie FT. 2004. Shallow-water oceans: a source or sink of atmospheric CO2? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2:348-353. Export Abstract: The shallow-water ocean environment is of great importance in the context of global change and is heavily impacted by human activity. This study evaluates the effects of human activity on the CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and the surface water of shallow-water oceans. The evaluation is based on changes in net ecosystem metabolism, net ecosystem calcification, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, as seen in a process-driven biogeochemical box model. Numerical simulations show that this air-sea interface has probably served as a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere for much of the past 300 years, but has recently switched, or will switch soon, to a net sink of CO2, because of rising atmospheric CO2 and increasing inorganic nutrient
Oh it was a joke even though it is common denier talking point and I'm just supposed to laugh. Got ya. You see, if I don't counter it with facts some idiot denier like jerm will just repeat it because it suits his lies. Actually he probably will anyway.
Well what do the experts say?.... The Geological Society of America "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
That was in the past you liar. When 9 billion tons of CO2 per year were not being released into the air from man's activities. The oceans are certainly currently absorbing CO2 and becoming more acidic. There is no doubt about this among the experts.
No liar, YOU do not know. And what YOU don't know doesn't matter. It's quite obvious what is going on and that it will get worse. loyak....CO2 is a greenhouse gas
So your question is how do they know what the temperatures were? It's pretty complicated. You can start here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
No it's not the reality now liar. The reality now is that 30 - 40% of the CO2 man releases is being absorbed into the ocean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification