Then come back and please explain how marble and antacid consumption is at all related while CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is "completely unrelated". With some real world references rather than the fruits of your imagination. Thanks! I await further entertainment...
Basic reading comprehension would serve you well, I wont expect such miraculous developments though. Perhaps, if you read it again slowly, you'll discover that "completely unrelated" had other words in front of it. I also gave you the other major cause, but laziness knows no bounds so I wont expect you to bother looking up the acidification effects of nitrogen based fertilizers being used in massive quantities to create ethanol.
CaCO3. Also known as marble. The primary ingredient of common antacids being powdered marble. As an antacid, it modifies the acidity of the fluid environment it's added to. In the direction we'd want.
It's also what most sea shells are made out of. Coral and whatnot depend on a specific acidity, and the availability of dissolved calcium ions(compliments of runoff dissolving marble in nature), in order to reform CaCO3 in their exoskeletal structures. Tums can solve more than just your heart burn.
I quote from this article: "Since any increase in solar radiation would heat both the lower and upper atmosphere, the observed drop in upper atmospheric temperatures in the past 30 years argues against a large portion of the observed greenhouse effect being caused by solar variability."
Basically we have a relatively cool stratosphere and a relatively warm troposphere. You cannot explain that by a solar influence.
Thermosphere != stratosphere. If you're going to give me dire consequences that are completely unrelated, don't go getting them confused for entirely different subjects after I shoot it down...
The bullshit is as follows. Oh no, our thermosphere is collapsing, we're all going to die because AGW got rid of the heat barrier that blocks most of the infrared out in space!
It's nonsense. It's also completely unrelated to the stratospheric cooling, which stopped. In the mid 90's.
Plot away and see for yourself. Rapid decline in the 80's, and by y2k it's damn near flat. Kinda like the tropospheric temperatures have been flat. Only difference is stratovolcanic eruptions are what make the large spikes, instead of ENSO. Funny how the declines are following the spikes from volcanic activity. It's almost as if it's entirely unrelated to AGW, a product of all the aerosols Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. St. Helen's pumped into the stratosphere...
The physical process behind this is increased partial-pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, which requires an increased partial-pressure of CO2 in the ocean. This is more important than the release of CO2 by warming. Most of the absorbed CO2 is turned into acids, only 1% of the CO2 stays in the ocean as a gas.
The paleo record is not the current man made CO2 increase. Stop bringing it up if you're going to pretend I'm arguing the other every time I point out that the oceans absorb and expel CO2 relative to temperature. It's pissing me off.
While the records may show some variability in ice sheet cover, it's not been as thin and small as in recent years.
Note how the northwest passage isn't clear of ice in the picture of the ice extent in 1938. The passage was sailed in 1906, by Roald Amundsen. It was again sailed in the 40's, on multiple occasions, by the RCMPV St. Roch. The data for 1940-46 is missing from the source material. I'll leave the why to someone less paranoid than I am. After all, it's not like they've been padding the record or something. Okay, so they have, but you probably don't believe that either. It's not like someone had satellite records to prove that they added an area the size of greenland to past ice extents in that graph. It's just hand drawn maps!
What does ice extent really say? The difference between where we were in the early 40's, ice wise, and where we are now, is just a couple more years of melt. Hit the mid 2000's and oh look, the late 30's! Not exactly proof of epic ice failure coming. Glaciers have been expanding the last few years too.
And how do the 30s compare with the last 20 years of repeated records... I'll tell you: they're an incident, while we're now in a trend. And what do the 30s tell you about the global average ... nothing really. It's a local variation.
What do they tell you about the USHCN? That it's been doctored. I don't understand how you can beat your head against this wall so often without getting it through. The temperature record doesn't show the "local" and "incidental" heat wave that lasted well over a decade. It's been reducing in severity and duration with every successive iteration of GHCN.
The question is not why am I trying to disprove AGW by saying it was warmer in the 30's in a particular area. The question is why does the USHCN record, which covers the dust bowl era, not reflect the actual higher temperatures of historic record.
I suppose you're reading rubbish like this: http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/which-was-the-warmest-decade/
Such articles are completely biased by regional short-term effects. The global record, on the other hand, is as much corrected for regionality as possible. That is more reliable... not perfect I suppose, but it's the best we have.
It's just one more example of throwing away a lot of knowledge and keeping just the few biased data that prove the point one wants to make... and throw in a few flashy graphics and boast about how stupid and unreliable the scientific community is to make the article seem "superior" even though it's complete garbage.
You prove the problem with this link you trashed as being regional and short term. What does the GHCN v3 say on that particular region? That it was one of the larger warming trends between those two. It can't be both. Either we were warmer back then, regionally, or we weren't. The GHCN says no, despite the historical contradiction and the complete lack of such a trend shown in the stations that are present for both time periods.