Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

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/

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

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

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.

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

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.

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

As predicted by Arrhenius over a century ago,
the rate of sea warming is slower than global land
warming.

That's a stupid statement. How much heat can the Oceans absorb?
Apples and oranges.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/topics

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

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?

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

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.



--
http://OutSourcedNews.com
Our constitution protects criminals, drunks 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 -

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

On Aug 20, 4:55 pm, 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/

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

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.

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

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?

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

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.

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

On Aug 20, 4:33 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
These data come from:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Of course the SSTs warmed at the fastest rate from 1910 through 1945

An acceleration of:
5.6 +- .4 K/century^2
with yearly slopes computed on a 30-year rolling average.

with very little help from GHGs. The most recent thirty five

The presented data say the most recent 55 years
that 1952 to 2006 when analyzed with a 30-year
rolling average. This period has an acceleration
of 4.3 +- .1 K/century^2

years warmed at a lesser rate, even with lots of reputed GHG forcing.

What a stupid stupid strawman! No responsable
person claims that greenhouse gases are the only
climate forcing.

There are many other things that cause climate change.
Below, please find a graph of several of them. Note that
the green line, representing man-made greenhouse gas
emissions easily dominates all other potential causes of the
observed warming today and that they are growing the fastest.
Please see:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ttribution.png

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...al-4_12_01.txt

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.

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

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

Traslation... Ocean temps are rising, consistant with the the expected
properties of Global Warming.

The only good KKKonervative is a dead KKKonservative.

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

wrote
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.

Ahahahahaha... And I suppose temps have been increasing because the engines
have been getting warmer.

Oh, sorry, it's the engine intake, not output. That denialist argument
doesn't work either. Poor Denialist loser Kwag...

Ahahahahaha... The only good KKKonservatrive is a dead KKKonservative...

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

wrote
English isn't your first language? This makes two times you've
ignored plain cites, if it is.

Still not data I see. What's the problem Kwag? Can't find any to backup
your Lunatic Assertions?

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

wrote
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

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 claim that ocean
research is flawed.

Ahahahahahahahaahahha..... They try to use their own failure to argue their
point.

What a bunch of ****ing Denialist Losers.

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

On Sep 9, 3:26 pm, "ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans"
wrote:
wrote

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.

Ahahahahaha... And I suppose temps have been increasing because the engines
have been getting warmer.

Um, just read the site, moron, and then you'll figure out what's going
on.

Oh, sorry, it's the engine intake, not output. That denialist argument
doesn't work either. Poor Denialist loser Kwag...

Buckets vs. inlets. If you don't even vaguely grasp the argument, why
type a bunch of crap?

Ahahahahaha... The only good KKKonservatrive is a dead KKKonservative...

Genius.

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

On Sep 9, 3:24 pm, "ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans"
wrote:
wrote

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

Traslation... Ocean temps are rising, consistant with the the expected
properties of Global Warming.

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

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

Ahahahahaha... And I suppose temps have been increasing because the
engines
have been getting warmer.


wrote
Um, just read the site, moron, and then you'll figure out what's going
on.

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

No matter. We will track you down....

The only good KKKonservatrive is a dead KKKonservative...

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

"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.

It's just one lame ass excuse after another for you isn't it? It's
anything but warming... Any excuse you fraud artists can imagine in your
corrupt, loser minds.

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

On Sep 10, 2:33 am, some whack job idiot wrote:

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

Evidently not you, asswipe. You've yet to make a relevant comment,
you lazy lump of polemics.

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.

So sez, what's your name again? Stupid, sociopathic hypocrite that
you are, I can't help but not find your own name in your post.

[More evidence of socipathy deleted]

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

On Sep 9, 3:41 pm, "ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans"
wrote:
wrote

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

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 claim that ocean
research is flawed.

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.

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

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.

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

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"?

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

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?

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

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.

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

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

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

"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..

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

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.

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

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..

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

"Talk-n-Dog" wrote...

Nothing....

Global Sea Surface Temperatues 1850-2006
 

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?