On Feb 12, 10:24*am, Peter Franks wrote:
The land surface temperature record is dirty and must be constantly
corrected, often after the fact using 'best guesses' at correction, not
to mention the numerous stations that should be corrected, but aren't.
All of this stinks of a useless dataset.

For historical analysis, why not just use the ocean surface temperature
record? No correction needed.

?

OK, it's certainly a good sized statistical sample.
However, classic global warming theory says sea
surface temperatures rise slower than land surface
temperatures. (The water mixes, hiding the solar
heating with colder water from below, preventing
that energy from re-radiating,) Although the rates
are different, the global land and sea surface data
do show strong correlations. They both show a
warming planet.

The Sea Surface Temperature, or SST, Record

Here, from Hadley Centre, are the global sea surface
temperatures from 1850 to 2009. Please see:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te.../hadsst2gl.txt
The yearly means of these data are graphed he
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadSST2gl.jpg

Here are the slope data:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/hadSlope1850-2008.jpg

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Feb 12, 10:24 am, Peter Franks wrote:
The land surface temperature record is dirty and must be constantly
corrected, often after the fact using 'best guesses' at correction, not
to mention the numerous stations that should be corrected, but aren't.
All of this stinks of a useless dataset.

For historical analysis, why not just use the ocean surface temperature
record? No correction needed.

?

OK, it's certainly a good sized statistical sample.

Perhaps, but dirty. Why use it when there is an arguably much cleaner
sample? GIGO.

However, classic global warming theory says sea
surface temperatures rise slower than land surface
temperatures. (The water mixes, hiding the solar
heating with colder water from below, preventing
that energy from re-radiating,) Although the rates
are different, the global land and sea surface data
do show strong correlations. They both show a
warming planet.

The Sea Surface Temperature, or SST, Record

Here, from Hadley Centre, are the global sea surface
temperatures from 1850 to 2009. Please see:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te.../hadsst2gl.txt
The yearly means of these data are graphed he
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadSST2gl.jpg

Do you have a graph of the actual temperatures (not the anomaly)?

Defining what is/isn't an anomaly is relative and subject to
interpretation -- I'd prefer to see the actual temperatures.

Here are the slope data:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/hadSlope1850-2008.jpg

Interesting 50 year cycle, what's the explanation/cause of that?

On Feb 12, 4:17*pm, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Feb 12, 10:24 am, Peter Franks wrote:
The land surface temperature record is dirty and must be constantly
corrected, often after the fact using 'best guesses' at correction, not
to mention the numerous stations that should be corrected, but aren't.
All of this stinks of a useless dataset.

For historical analysis, why not just use the ocean surface temperature
record? No correction needed.

?

OK, it's certainly a good sized statistical sample.

Perhaps, but dirty. *Why use it when there is an arguably much cleaner
sample? *GIGO.





However, classic global warming theory says sea
surface temperatures rise slower than land surface
temperatures. *(The water mixes, hiding the solar
heating with colder water from below, preventing
that energy from re-radiating,) *Although the rates
are different, the global land and sea surface data
do show strong correlations. *They both show a
warming planet.

The Sea Surface Temperature, or SST, Record

Here, from Hadley Centre, are the global sea surface
temperatures from 1850 to 2009. *Please see:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te.../hadsst2gl.txt
The yearly means of these data are graphed he
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadSST2gl.jpg

Do you have a graph of the actual temperatures (not the anomaly)?

Defining what is/isn't an anomaly is relative and subject to
interpretation -- I'd prefer to see the actual temperatures.

Just add 14.0 C. You'll be close enough.


Here are the slope data:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/hadSlope1850-2008.jpg

Interesting 50 year cycle, what's the explanation/cause of that?

I don't know. It's hard to study that signal because
the much larger global warming signal swamps it.

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Feb 12, 4:17 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Feb 12, 10:24 am, Peter Franks wrote:
The land surface temperature record is dirty and must be constantly
corrected, often after the fact using 'best guesses' at correction, not
to mention the numerous stations that should be corrected, but aren't.
All of this stinks of a useless dataset.
For historical analysis, why not just use the ocean surface temperature
record? No correction needed.
?
OK, it's certainly a good sized statistical sample.
Perhaps, but dirty. Why use it when there is an arguably much cleaner
sample? GIGO.





However, classic global warming theory says sea
surface temperatures rise slower than land surface
temperatures. (The water mixes, hiding the solar
heating with colder water from below, preventing
that energy from re-radiating,) Although the rates
are different, the global land and sea surface data
do show strong correlations. They both show a
warming planet.
The Sea Surface Temperature, or SST, Record
Here, from Hadley Centre, are the global sea surface
temperatures from 1850 to 2009. Please see:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te.../hadsst2gl.txt
The yearly means of these data are graphed he
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadSST2gl.jpg
Do you have a graph of the actual temperatures (not the anomaly)?

Defining what is/isn't an anomaly is relative and subject to
interpretation -- I'd prefer to see the actual temperatures.

Just add 14.0 C. You'll be close enough.

Would you mind creating a graph of the sea surface temperature history?


Here are the slope data:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/hadSlope1850-2008.jpg
Interesting 50 year cycle, what's the explanation/cause of that?

I don't know. It's hard to study that signal because
the much larger global warming signal swamps it.

Hmm. I hope that attitude isn't endemic to the GW industry.
Understanding the cause of the cycle is /critical/ to better
understanding the effects, wouldn't you say?

On 2/12/10 3:22 PM, in article
, "Roger
Coppock" wrote:

On Feb 12, 10:24*am, Peter Franks wrote:
The land surface temperature record is dirty and must be constantly
corrected, often after the fact using 'best guesses' at correction, not
to mention the numerous stations that should be corrected, but aren't.
All of this stinks of a useless dataset.

For historical analysis, why not just use the ocean surface temperature
record? No correction needed.

?

OK, it's certainly a good sized statistical sample.
However, classic global warming theory says sea
surface temperatures rise slower than land surface
temperatures. (The water mixes, hiding the solar
heating with colder water from below, preventing
that energy from re-radiating,) Although the rates
are different, the global land and sea surface data
do show strong correlations. They both show a
warming planet.

ø ROTFLMAO
"classic global warming theory" is not worth two cents

ø The issue is really irrelevant.
Nobody can control the wind
Nobody can control the rain or snow
Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Global temps are within natural variations
Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation

Get used to it!!

‹ ‹
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural causes