On Aug 20, 7:33 pm, Al Bedo wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
Here, from Hadley Centre, are the global sea surface
temperatures from 1850 to 2006. Please see:

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadSST2gl.jpg
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt)

Of course the SSTs warmed at the fastest rate from 1910 through 1945
with very little help from GHGs. The most recent thirty five
years warmed at a lesser rate, even with lots of reputed GHG forcing.

Al - maybe this is a dumb question, but why was there necessarily
"very little help from GHGs" between 1910 and 1945?

The global depression of the 1930s would very likely have reduced
emissions of GHG's by shutting down heavy industry across the
capitalist west during this period - granted.

But the period 1910 - 1930 was generally an era of rapid industrial
growth, I believe, and virtually all of that growth was powered by
fossil fuels -- more coal in the early years, but with an increasing
shift to oil in the later years.

The world's commercial shipping fleets and its naval fleets both were
powered by fossil fuels in this era -- again, with more dependence on
coal in the early years and a gradual or not so gradual shift to
petroleum over time.

The world automobile industry, and especially the US auto industry,
also saw enormous growth in this period, admittedly from fairly small
beginnings: Henry Ford's invention of the Model A and Model T and his
establishment of the first automobile assembly lines, beginning a
little before 1910, made a huge difference in how common gasoline-
powered automobiles became in the US over the next two decades.

So why wasn't there a significant "anthropogenic greenhouse effect"
even before the end of World War II?

I recognize that western industrial capitalism, plus Soviet-led
industrialization in Eastern Europe, plus Third World industrialism
all soared dramatically after 1945, and that the global auto industry
and the airline industry saw especially spectacular growth. So
global CO2 emissions after 1945 were undoubtedly far greater than
before.

But on the other hand, all of the major industrial powers by 1910 had
been undergoing coal-powered industrial growth for decades, at leat,
and in the case of Great Britain, coal-based industrial growth had
been underway for around two centuries.

I would expect that in the AGW science is valid - which I think it is
-- the legacy of all that coal burning would have some cumulative
effect on the climate by the 1920s.

Of course coal-based industrialization also contributed large volumes
of carbon particulates, sulfur-dioxide aerosols and other pollutants
to the air over Europe, Britain, Japan and parts of the US, which may
have had mixed effects on the climate.

Has anybody in either the AGW Camp or the AGW-Denialist camp studied
this issue, I wonder?
I mean, it isn't as if by 1910, the western industrial countries were
existing in some pristine state akin to the mythical Garden of Eden.
Some of them -- eg. the UK - were already quite polluted.

On Aug 20, 9:06 pm, Talk-n-Dog wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
Here, from Hadley Centre, are the global sea surface
temperatures from 1850 to 2006. Please see:

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadSST2gl.jpg

As predicted by Arrhenius over a century ago,
the rate of sea warming is slower than global land
warming. NASA GISS has global land surface
warming at .58K/per century between 1880 and
2006. (Please see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt)

These data come from:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Why is 1970-ish the baseline for the temperature anomaly?

What was the sensitivity/accuracy of the thermometers used?

Why should I care that sea surface temperatures have risen over the past
150 years?

If one aspirin helps then 30 will really fix me up - huh.
This is a typical way of thinking, which overflows into Global Warming,
people think that if a little Co2 makes it a half degree warmer then a
lot of Co2 will make it really hot.


I like your analogy, Dog. If one aspirin will cure your headache,
then what if you take 200 of them?
Well, they won't probably kill you, but they won't help either.

So maybe CO2 is like aspirin? "The poison is in the dose"?

On Sep 10, 2:36 am, "ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans"
wrote:
"ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans" wrote:
Traslation... Ocean temps are rising, consistant with the the expected
properties of Global Warming.

wrote

Temp. records are artificially inflated consistEnt with the proven
heat bias of XBTs, courtesy of peer reviewed Gouretsky et al.

Gee Kwaggie, last week you were frothing at the mouth claiming that
temperature doesn't exist.

Where was that?

john fernbach wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:06 pm, Talk-n-Dog wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
Here, from Hadley Centre, are the global sea surface
temperatures from 1850 to 2006. Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadSST2gl.jpg
As predicted by Arrhenius over a century ago,
the rate of sea warming is slower than global land
warming. NASA GISS has global land surface
warming at .58K/per century between 1880 and
2006. (Please see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt)
These data come from:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Why is 1970-ish the baseline for the temperature anomaly?
What was the sensitivity/accuracy of the thermometers used?
Why should I care that sea surface temperatures have risen over the past
150 years?
If one aspirin helps then 30 will really fix me up - huh.
This is a typical way of thinking, which overflows into Global Warming,
people think that if a little Co2 makes it a half degree warmer then a
lot of Co2 will make it really hot.


I like your analogy, Dog. If one aspirin will cure your headache,
then what if you take 200 of them?
Well, they won't probably kill you, but they won't help either.

So maybe CO2 is like aspirin? "The poison is in the dose"?

Could be since 100% will solve all your problems.

--
http://OutSourcedNews.com
I suppose I could buy meteor insurance too, to help rebuild on that
impact crater, destined to be where my house is.


Our constitution protects criminals, sexual deviants and U.S. Senators.
Which at times are, one and the same...

The problem with the global warming theory, is that a theory is like a
bowl of ice-cream, it only takes a little dab of bull**** to ruin the
whole thing. - Gump That -

How to outsmart Global Warming -- Plant your corn when the oak leaves
are as big as a squirrels ear.

Insanity is only synapses deep.
It's not if, it's just when, No one gets out alive.

john fernbach wrote:

On Aug 20, 9:06 pm, Talk-n-Dog
wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
Here, from Hadley Centre, are the global sea
surface
temperatures from 1850 to 2006. Please see:

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadSST2gl.jpg

As predicted by Arrhenius over a century
ago, the rate of sea warming is slower than
global land
warming. NASA GISS has global land surface
warming at .58K/per century between 1880 and
2006. (Please see:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt)

These data come from:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Why is 1970-ish the baseline for the
temperature anomaly?

What was the sensitivity/accuracy of the
thermometers used?

Why should I care that sea surface
temperatures have risen over the past 150
years?

If one aspirin helps then 30 will really fix me
up - huh. This is a typical way of thinking,
which overflows into Global Warming, people
think that if a little Co2 makes it a half
degree warmer then a lot of Co2 will make it
really hot.


I like your analogy, Dog. If one aspirin will
cure your headache, then what if you take 200 of
them? Well, they won't probably kill you, but
they won't help either.

So maybe CO2 is like aspirin? "The poison is in
the dose"?

I suggest you put a bag over your head, secure it
around your neck and breath deeply. Calibrate
the toxicity level for us, John

"ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans"
Gee Kwaggie, last week you were frothing at the mouth claiming that
temperature doesn't exist.


wrote
Where was that?

All over this thread. Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenouse
effects within the frame of physics.

You know. The thread (and others) you created in order to claim that
temperature doesn't exist because it's oooooh, sooooo, Complicated...

Ahahahahahahahahah..

wrote
That claim is made by the authors of that study who work for NOAA.
Their errors in the study came from XBT heat bias. Again, you have no
concern for reality.

Ahahahahahaha... When this study was originally published the Denialist
Losers were all over it claiming that it showed the earth wasn't warming.

Now they try to use the retraction of their failure to imply that all ocean
research is flawed.

Oh, we all know what's going on here.


wrote
Evidently not you, asswipe.

Oh, please don't use the term "asswipe", the thought of excrement gets you
KKKonservatives far too excited, and makes some of you hang out in airport
bathrooms making homofriendly with other men as they try to empty their
colons.


wrote
You've yet to make a relevant comment, you lazy lump of polemics.

You are a known perpetual liar.
You are scientifically illiterate.
You are a self confessed KKKonservative Loser who professes a desire to war
against any fact that counters KKKonservative dogma.

I can think of nothing else more relevant to science.

Your KKKonservative religion of Death and Destruction is under seige and
you will tell any lie, no matter
how rediculous in order to defend it from reality.

Ahahahahahaha... Laughably you think you can keep reality at bay forever.
But with every passing day you become more and more the pathetic loser you
were destined to be.

You can't even bring yourself to use your real name out of fear that you
will not survive the hangman's noose.for your lying treason against
humanity.




wrote
So sez, what's your name again?

ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans. Prove it's not my real name you **** Sucking
RepubliKKKan Loser..

"Talk-n-Dog" wrote...

Nothing....

On Sep 11, 1:53 pm, "ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans"
wrote:
"ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans"

Gee Kwaggie, last week you were frothing at the mouth claiming that
temperature doesn't exist.

wrote

Where was that?

All over this thread. Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenouse
effects within the frame of physics.

You know. The thread (and others) you created in order to claim that
temperature doesn't exist because it's oooooh, sooooo, Complicated...

Ahahahahahahahahah..

I created this thread? It's actually easy to see that Roger started
the thread. Your handwaving =/= a quote of me saying temperature
doesn't exist. This is relevant because I've never said anything like
that.

You are a moron; enough time's been wasted on you. Ahahaha?