Now, all you AGW morons need to go to the original post and re-read it and let it sink in a little bit. Maybe you will be able to retain the knowledge longer than 2 minutes. Write it down or something if you need to do that to reinforce your memories.
Is the global warming recorded real or due to error? While most scientists believe that the observed warming is real, some believe that it is so slight that we can't be sure that instrument calibration problems and urban heat island impacts have been dealt with adequately. If not, it has not been for lack of effort. The problems are immense. For example, in 1999, Los Angeles moved its data station 4 miles to an area outside the city that is lower in elevation and nearer the coast, with cooler, drier, and less extreme conditions. Even when a location has not moved, the rising temperatures may reflect the growth of a community, or land use changes, around it. Calibration is daunting for calibrating the instruments themselves. An example is relating sea surface temperatures that were derived from a thermometer placed in a bucket of water pulled from the ocean in 1860, with a continuous stream of data taken from a ship's water inlet much deeper in the water in the 1960s, data from drifting and moored buoys transmitted by satellite in the 1980s, and with satellite data from the very top layer of the surface since the 1970s. Perhaps only time will really tell. Many skeptic scientists believe that the trend line turned in 1998 for the present cycle, while many consensus scientists are quick to point out that we are still having temperatures above average, and in turn, the skeptics claim that there is no real way to compute a global average. Lastly, the best data are from the USA. According to NOAA, 2006 was the warmest year in U.S. records, almost the same as 1936. The skeptics say that if only rural sites are used, the temperature actually falls, indicating that in the US, and probably the world, what has been measured is the growth of cities and the heat they absorb and generate; there is no warming. <a href=http://www.climatecooling.org/#reality>Reality</a>
From your link... good point about the oceans warming since the last ice age. In the oceans, major climate warming and cooling is a fact of life, whether it is over a few years as in an El Niño or over decades as in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the North Atlantic Oscillation. Currents, temperatures, salinity, and biology change rapidly to the new state in months or a couple years. These changes far exceed the changes expected with global warming and occur much faster. The one degree F. rise since about 1860, indeed since the year 1000, has brought the global average temperature from 56.6 to 57.4 degrees F (13.5 to 14.3 C). This is at the level of noise in this rapidly changing system. Sea level has been inexorably rising since the last glaciation lost its grip, and temperatures rose by 10-20 degrees, a mere 10,000 years ago. It is only some few thousand years since Georges Bank was part of the mainland. It is now 60 miles offshore of Provincetown on Cape Cod. Its trees and the shells of its oysters that flourished on its shores still come up in dredges and trawls in now deep water, with the oysters looking like they were shucked yesterday. In the face of all these natural changes, and those we are here to consider, some species flourish while others diminish. These considerations were well understood in all the IPCC groups in which I participated. I have some concerns about some few species near the margins of their suitable habitat range. These include corals near the equator and perhaps polar bears. But I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even with the IPCCâs warming, than the next ice age that will likely last over 100,000 years and bring temperatures much colder than even today. The NOAA PaleoClimate Program shows us that when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the earth was much warmer, the CO2 levels were 2 to 4 times higher, and coral reefs were much more expansive. The earth was so productive then that we are still using the oil, coal, and gas it generated. In contrast, the last ice age maximum, at just 20,000 years ago saw temperatures 4-7 deg. C (7.6-13.6 F) cooler than present. The one deg. F rise since the 1850s is a relatively small component. (Photo of frozen North Cove, Fairhaven Mass. in March 2007; courtesy of OceansArt.us).
Global Cooling in Progress By MARK DUELL PUBLISHED: 12:08, 19 March 2013 | UPDATED: 15:55, 19 March 2013 <img src='http://i.mol.im/i/pix/2013/03/19/article-2295716-18C80BDB000005DC-836_636x382.jpg'> *Astonishing Met Office satellite maps compare March 2012 to March 2013 *Aboyne, Aberdeen, hit 23.6C high on 27/3/12 but -12.9C low on 11/3/2013 These satellite maps show just how far weâve fallen from the March 2012 (left) high of 23.6C recorded in Aboyne, Aberdeenshire, to a daytime low of -7.8C in the same village last week, in March 2013 (right). That astonishing difference - which is a whopping 36.5C when considering Aboyne's even colder overnight low last week of -12.9C - in just one year comes as another snowfall covered the north of the UK overnight and persistently cold weather kept an unusual grip on March 2013. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-maps-Britain-shivering-basked-24C-March.html
And yet, still, 97% of all the world's climatologist agree that the earth is rapidly warming due the release of 9 billion tons per year of the greenhouse gas CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels and this warming will continue and increase in rate. Oh...and all it's science organizations.
you are a desperate agw nutter are you not. you have learned that is 97.5 of the agw nutters published in pro agw journals believe in agw. It is like saying 97 percent of the people published in Jesus Saves magazine believe Jesus is a historical figure.
Futurecurrents claims to not be a child but an adult. Yet, he continues to obsess in childish things.