It wasn't proof the first time you posted it and it's still not proof
Honestly test. How much of that did you read...honestly...
I've read it.. Actually I skimmed over 200 years of non-relevant history which makes up 1/2 the article..
The other half is platitudes based on "old information" and speculation about the fraction of MAN-MADE CO2 causation of the warming. An example of that is ----
Meanwhile the level of CO2 in the air kept rising, indeed faster than anyone had expected. In this essay we have seen how, ever since the late 1950s, an increasing number of experts predicted that effects on climate would become clearly visible around the year 2000. They were right. As the 21st century began, not only was the global temperature soaring in a way never seen before, but field evidence showed that the expected feedbacks were kicking in. The world's plants were taking up more CO2, but their capacity to absorb was waning. Warmer oceans were absorbing less CO2, and gas was seen bubbling from melting Arctic tundra.(61) In sum, global warming was leading to more greenhouse emissions, which would lead to more warming... and so forth. Around 2008 some scientists began to warn that these changes were coming on faster than the international panels had predicted.
This whole statement is contraindicated by NEWER studies showing that CO2 absorption (of the man-caused fraction) has approximately doubled in the last 60 years and is NOT currently slowing. Seems like everytime a projection is made -- and the press goes wild -- it is later refuted when no one is listening and the media NEVER retracts the hyped story... (See my thread on Poisoning Oysters with CO2 for an example -- still no media coverage or retraction)
So the old proclamations and speculations continue to survive -- like this one. Living mostly in the past 200 years of science is what Ole Rocks does better than analyzing and absorbing NEW information.
What you're arguing about in this thread is a good example of hype and why I don't give a 1/2 shit about Sea Ice Extent. They are measuring the extent of extremely thin and extremely seasonal ice. Their acceptance figures are (something like) if it has 24% ice coverage it is considered COMPLETELY iced. And if that melts --- the whole square that the berg was in included in melt area. This is a Las Vegas sports bar bet. What matters is ICE VOLUME and no one seems to care about that because it's far less dramatic.
I prefer to concentrate on the fact that I never believed ONE STUPID NUMBER -- like Mean Annual Surface Temp was able to describe a complex climate change issue. In FACT -- the hyperventilating warmers are now saying the effect is NOT GLOBAL because the heating at the Arctic is proceeding faster. That's NOT because of a uniform blanket of CO2 which undeniably is roughly the same worldwide FORCING the same amount of change. Rather it's because the "climate sensitivity" of the Arctic is much different -- can't be described with a single number either -- and is NOT STATIC. In fact -- these folks who were convincing the public with that single mangled Hockey Stick graph of temp are NOW saying that Climate Change is NOT global but highly REGIONALIZED.
If that's the case -- a constant uniform forcing function from CO2 acting globally and a SYNTHESIZED single temp anomality number are kids play. And you have to consider that if the Arctic currently has a climate sensitivity of TWICE the moderate lattitudes (E.G.) -- that other DISMISSED forcing functions like solar irradiation have TWICE the effect they were presumed to have in those regions..
This is TOO complex to rely on the SAME LINK for years at a time. OR A SINGLE STUPID NUMBER derived from 12000 sensors. (especially dumb if you now have SATELLITE data to replace those problematic 12,000 sensors and their distribution and calibration)
And if you're relying on what you've heard from CNN or NPR --- you're not getting a good picture of how much we DON'T know about why and how the Earth is warming..
THAT'S why I just laugh and carry on when this link gets trotted out for the 1920th time....
This might not be bull shit, but we better damn well demand a set up that's economical.
