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.

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.

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

"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.

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, 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.

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!

"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.

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

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?