Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

On Aug 20, 11:32 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Aug 20, 6:17 pm, wrote:
[ . . . ]

You *could* blame it on the assumption that all sea going vessels
simultaneously switched from bucket measurement to water intake
measurement; a false assumption which biases the record.

You *could* blame it on the XBT devices which have been proven to have
a warm bias, see Gouretski et al. 2006, obviously biasing the record.

Or you could just ignore any quality control issues with the data and
scream about the falling sky because the point suits you.

If you have better data, you are certainly welcome
to post them here. Until then, science sides with
data over conjecture.

I cited one study right there, bub, Gouretsky et al.; ball's in your
court on that one. Also, you can read all about bucket vs. engine
inlet measurement on McIntyre's blog. And before you impugn his
credibility yet again, while ignoring the substance of the argument,
let's not downplay that he forced Hansen to revise his data,
regardless of how you choose to spin that fact. Even you should be
having a harder time justifying your ad homina in place of actually
refuting substantive argument given the evidence.

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

On Aug 20, 11:03 pm, wrote:
On Aug 20, 11:32 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Aug 20, 6:17 pm, wrote:
[ . . . ]

You *could* blame it on the assumption that all sea going vessels
simultaneously switched from bucket measurement to water intake
measurement; a false assumption which biases the record.

You *could* blame it on the XBT devices which have been proven to have
a warm bias, see Gouretski et al. 2006, obviously biasing the record.

Or you could just ignore any quality control issues with the data and
scream about the falling sky because the point suits you.

If you have better data, you are certainly welcome
to post them here. Until then, science sides with
data over conjecture.

I cited one study right there, bub, Gouretsky et al.; ball's in your
court on that one. Also, you can read all about bucket vs. engine
inlet measurement on McIntyre's blog. And before you impugn his
credibility yet again, while ignoring the substance of the argument,
let's not downplay that he forced Hansen to revise his data,
regardless of how you choose to spin that fact. Even you should be
having a harder time justifying your ad homina in place of actually
refuting substantive argument given the evidence.

In summary then, you have no better data,
only tangential ravings. In fact, you have
no data at all.

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Aug 20, 5:19 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
[ . . . ]
Why should I care that sea surface temperatures have risen over the past
150 years?
LOL!
Isn't that about what one lobster said to
another as the water in their pot slowly
warmed?

Probably.

Are you implying that I'm a lobster? If there is any question, I'm not.

So, why should I care that sea surface temperatures have risen over the
past 150 years?

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

On Aug 20, 7:37 pm, Professor1942 wrote:
On Aug 20, 1:55 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:

There are no urban centers in the sea, but watch
the fossil fools blame this on UHI anyway.

Uhh, it's called the SUN, Poppycock.

The sun just started 100 years ago! Wow! Even the fundamentalists
give it 6600 years!

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

On Aug 21, 9:46 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Aug 20, 11:03 pm, wrote:





On Aug 20, 11:32 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Aug 20, 6:17 pm, wrote:
[ . . . ]

You *could* blame it on the assumption that all sea going vessels
simultaneously switched from bucket measurement to water intake
measurement; a false assumption which biases the record.

You *could* blame it on the XBT devices which have been proven to have
a warm bias, see Gouretski et al. 2006, obviously biasing the record.

Or you could just ignore any quality control issues with the data and
scream about the falling sky because the point suits you.

If you have better data, you are certainly welcome
to post them here. Until then, science sides with
data over conjecture.

I cited one study right there, bub, Gouretsky et al.; ball's in your
court on that one. Also, you can read all about bucket vs. engine
inlet measurement on McIntyre's blog. And before you impugn his
credibility yet again, while ignoring the substance of the argument,
let's not downplay that he forced Hansen to revise his data,
regardless of how you choose to spin that fact. Even you should be
having a harder time justifying your ad homina in place of actually
refuting substantive argument given the evidence.

In summary then, you have no better data,
only tangential ravings. In fact, you have
no data at all.

English isn't your first language? This makes two times you've
ignored plain cites, if it is. Gouretsky et al. 2006 details the bias
in XBTs. McIntyre makes a plain case for the stupidity of assuming
all ships simultaneously changed their measurement methods. Ignoring
the arguments that are offered is not a winning strategy.

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

On Aug 21, 6:19 pm, wrote:
On Aug 21, 9:46 am, Roger Coppock wrote:





On Aug 20, 11:03 pm, wrote:

On Aug 20, 11:32 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Aug 20, 6:17 pm, wrote:
[ . . . ]

You *could* blame it on the assumption that all sea going vessels
simultaneously switched from bucket measurement to water intake
measurement; a false assumption which biases the record.

You *could* blame it on the XBT devices which have been proven to have
a warm bias, see Gouretski et al. 2006, obviously biasing the record.

Or you could just ignore any quality control issues with the data and
scream about the falling sky because the point suits you.

If you have better data, you are certainly welcome
to post them here. Until then, science sides with
data over conjecture.

I cited one study right there, bub, Gouretsky et al.; ball's in your
court on that one. Also, you can read all about bucket vs. engine
inlet measurement on McIntyre's blog. And before you impugn his
credibility yet again, while ignoring the substance of the argument,
let's not downplay that he forced Hansen to revise his data,
regardless of how you choose to spin that fact. Even you should be
having a harder time justifying your ad homina in place of actually
refuting substantive argument given the evidence.

In summary then, you have no better data,
only tangential ravings. In fact, you have
no data at all.

English isn't your first language? This makes two times you've
ignored plain cites, if it is. Gouretsky et al. 2006 details the bias
in XBTs. McIntyre makes a plain case for the stupidity of assuming
all ships simultaneously changed their measurement methods. Ignoring
the arguments that are offered is not a winning strategy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here is the state of the art of temperature analyses of the ocean. Non
existent. When this study concluded that there was significant cooling
of the oceans, it was attacked and forced to be retracted.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/lyman/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf

A critical point for the retraction is the warm bias of readings from
the previous system which showed a warming. In any event, this study
and it's retraction prove the invalidity of the models used for ocean
warming.

Where is the accurate study from these readings???

Crappock has no viable science for his hysteria of global warming. He
can demonstrate no means for slight warming of the atmosphere to warm
the oceans in a short period of 100 yrs. In actuality, the ocean loses
most of it's heat due to evaporative cooling. Warming of the air
increases this rate.

Just remember crappock. Without strict honesty in science you only
have stirred up horse****. Like all of your rantings and statistics
from Hansen, that he falsified for better effect at promoting his
agenda and hysteria of global catastrophe.

But crappock also has no problem with falsifying his data for better
effect. It's just part of his war against those that use and sell
fossil fuels.

KD
CO2Phobia is a psychological disease.

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

"Al Bedo" wrote
Of course the SSTs warmed at the fastest rate from 1910 through 1945
with very little help from GHGs.

Really? You put a lot of credibility in three observations that push the
slope higher.

What is the natural level of variability by the way? You comments have no
weight if the variance is within the natural level of variability.


"Al Bedo" wrote
The most recent thirty five years warmed at a lesser rate, even with lots
of reputed GHG forcing.

Sorry, you can't say that either. Again since you don't know know what
the natural level of variability is.

We know for example that for the entire globe as a whole, the natural
level is about .5'C. Anything change below that over a period of a couiple
of decades can simply have a natural cause. Outside that range and you are
dealing with something new and measured. Current temps are no .74'C above
the average, or .24'C above the natural level of variability.

I really get a laugh when denialists look at a trend of 2 or three years
and see a .05'C fall and proclaim as finished, the ongoing rise in temps,
when in fact over that short a period such s trivially small change in temp
can not be ascribed any significance at all.

But such is the Ignorance, Dishonesty, and Scientific Illiteracy in the
Denialist Camp.

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

"Professor1942" wrote
Uhh, it's called the SUN, Poppycock.

You mean the Sun, who's output has been monitored for decades and found
repeatedly to not have changed enough to cause the observed warming.

Oh ya, that sun....

Ahahahahahaha... You ****ing Ignorant Loser.

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

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

Warmer oceans = dead coral reefs for one. 50% to 80% of the great barrier
reef is already dead due to heat stress and coral bleaching.

Why should I care if someone puts a bullet in Peter Franks head?

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

"Talk-n-Dog" wrote
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.

People seem to think that if you put a blanket on your bed you get warmer
and adding another one makes it even warmer. 30 would make it really hot.

The only good KKKonservative is a dead KKKonservative.