So the ocean was warming even before the wide use of petrochemical fuels? What could have caused that? Far from another 'nail in the deniers coffin', this points to other factors in the warming trend.

So the ocean was warming even before the wide use of petrochemical fuels? What could have caused that? Far from another 'nail in the deniers coffin', this points to other factors in the warming trend.

Coal burning and forest clearing.

More and more the deniers have weaker and weaker arguments to fall back on. I think its high time the global warming deniers give up the unfruitful debate and start working to figure out how to get us out of this emergency!

Alarming-ist.

A factoid they're ignoring is that in the 1870's we were coming out of a mini-ice age. Fortunately the Earth warmed. Otherwise we would all now be contending with glaciers. Given my druthers I will take global warming, any day, over global cooling. Ice ages are a disaster. They create enormous die offs. You want extinctions? Loss of bio-diversity? Have an ice age. You want diversity? Enjoy the global warming. All the periods of increased species diversity have been during the warming periods.

The problem is that modern humans have gotten used to things the whey they were at a particular recent time. They forget that during past centuries we had warmings and coolings. The reality is change. Change is normal. There is no need to deny change - it is. Embrace it.

And yet another nail in the Denialist coffin.

None of us deny that the 1800s were the coldest period in 10,000 years.

The Little Ice Age was horribly cold.

Or that luckily (and naturally) it warmed a small amount.

Strangely, after 1872 it kept getting colder

http://www.cru.ue...t2gl.txt

1910 Oceans were .34C COLDER than 1872.

You would think real scientists would mention the ocean getting colder for 40 years.

Why would they withhold that information?

1872 - Sea Temperature -0.281
1955 - Sea Temperature -0.307

Wow. CO2 is a mysterious gas ....

And yet another nail in the Denialist coffin.

None of us deny that the 1800s were the coldest period in 10,000 years.

The Little Ice Age was horribly cold.

Or that luckily (and naturally) it warmed a small amount.

Strangely, after 1872 it kept getting colder

http://www.cru.ue...t2gl.txt

1910 Oceans were .34C COLDER than 1872.

gee NotParker, you dont get it. This is 'post normalism' not 'science', data need not apply if it contradicts the central grant generating hypothesis.

I'd like to thank VD and the rest of his STD's for giving me another chance to point out how much warming occurred in the 20s-40s (which he denies rabidly).

HADSST2 ocean temepratures

1910 -0.615
1941 0.136

Notice - Sea temperatures rose .751C from 1910 to 1941

1955 -0.307

Then they dropped .443C in just 14 years.

1969 0.055

Then up again

1975 -0.206

Then down again.

And as of Jan 2012, Sea temperatures are a miniscule .065C warmer than 1941.

The facts are all documented in the United Nations reports on Climate Change. The numbers are getting Louder and Bigger with each new collection of Hard FACTs. Facts that you deniers are ignoring. You can make all of the Luntic whining rants you want but that doesn't change the facts.

In this case they have measured an INCREDIBLE RISE in GLOBAL ocean temperatures that would make your mothers hair turn white with fear. It's hard to raise the global ocean temperature that much. There is only on solution, a global effort by mankind to completely stop using fossil fuels. Everything will need to be made carbon neutral or carbon absorbing and then maybe we can keep this world alive and prospering.

You deniers are on the morally wrong end of this debate.

In this case they have measured an INCREDIBLE RISE in GLOBAL ocean temperatures

Actually, the biggest rise in the last 150 years was 1910 to 1941.

Since 1941 temps went down and up and down and up and now sit a teensy, tiny .065C warmer.

I generally quickly find data that contradicts your data.

Your data says:

1910 -0.4430
1944 0.2270

Thats a .67 rise. Considering how imperfect measure SST is, it matches my data really well.

1944 0.2270
2011 0.3969

Only .1699 in next 67 years

Thanks for confirming my data STD!

Remember, all the pre-1950 warming was natural. And 90% or more of the 20th century warming occurred before 1945.

CO2 warming is a con game. Natural warming is what happened.

I don't see the 40 year decline in ocean temperatures that ParkerTard lies about.

Right here. For the sane. I've given up hope VD can see any facts.

http://www.woodfo...75/trend

Currently temperatures are 0.74'C warmer than average -

.065C warmer than the 1940s.

All the warming took place from 1910 to the 1940s. As shown by the CRU data I references and the NOAA data referenced by your STD.

Look at how you take an outlier year 1944

The peak year of 34 degrees of warming is not an outlier.

It is the peak year. Warming and cooling go in cycles. The peak, they bottom out, then change direction.

Noticing cycles is what happens when you look at the data realistically.

You, and the other STD's have no sense of perspective.

And on top of that you pass on VD's lies as if they are truth.

http://www.woodfo...42/trend

And dir, thanks for the NOAA data that confirms my data is true.

There was a huge amount of warming 1910 to 1942/44.

Currently temperatures are 0.74'C warmer than average - globally.

2012 - 0.218

1944 - 0.121

A miniscule .097C more than the peak year of the last spate of natural global warming.

I admit it cooled after 1944. But why does the post 1944 cooling never get blamed on CO2.

http://www.cru.ue...t3gl.txt

NotParker = Junk propaganda. It's an obvious political agenda being posed by the "deniers". Here he tries to obfuscate some facts;
2012 - 0.218; 1944 - 0.121. Here is what SCIENTIST from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego found; 0.33-degree Celsius (0.59-degree Fahrenheit) average increase in the upper portions of the ocean to 700 meters (2,300 feet) depth GLOBALLY!

Now 0.33 does not equal 0.218 does it?

When will everyone face the fact that the earth is getting hotter, sea levels are rising. I figure that somewhere in the neighborhood of 1700 to 2000 years, Greece will be the first to go under. Then, the southern Midwest. The Bahamas and some Hawaiian Islands will be gone long before then. A sobering fact is that all we can do to SLOW down this climate change is to stop, stop burning fossil fuels Now. One jetliner in transit from New York to California burns more fuel that 100'000 cars in in 5 hours. Wind Power, Solar Panels and Natural Gas are the answer. That is if they can find a way to get to the Natural Gas without further polluting the earths atmosphere. Now gentleman, That is not going to happen! We are beyond the point of no return! The next four or five generations will be left with the task of slowing down this inevitable course of doom & gloom. Maybe, just maybe, we will be making a breathable atmosphere on Mars. Or better yet, we will have found another planet to exploit.

Why do people have NO problem believing in the ice age and the extinction of entire species but DO have a problem with nature being replete with cyclic processes?

(Sigh)...and on a related issue: "Science under fire from 'merchants of doubt': US historian" http://www.physor...ian.html

Why do people have NO problem believing in the ice age and the extinction of entire species but DO have a problem with nature being replete with cyclic processes?

Cyclic processes are not cumulative in the long run. Adding huge amounts of greenhouse gases creates a cumulative effect on time spans relevant for humans.
Unless you are willing to wait hundreds of thousands of years for geological cycles to remove the CO2 as those geological cycles are far slower than anything else affecting climate.

arbitrarily picking 1944

I didn't arbitrarily pick 1944. I chose to find the peak year of a cycle.

http://www.woodfo...42/trend

Warming of oceans from 1910 to 1942/44 totally dwarfs the minuscule change in ocean temperature since 1944.

Reputable scientists acknowledge that all 1950 warming was natural. Therefore the massive 1910 to 1944 warming was all natural.

Miniscule warming post-1944 may have a teensy, tiny human component. But it is trivial warming compared to 1910-1944.

Now 0.33 does not equal 0.218 does it?

As I've shown, the oceans did cool from 1872 to 1910.

Then they warmed until 1944.

And then they cooled again.

Then they got a teensy, tiny bit warmer than 1944.

Unless you are willing to wait hundreds of thousands of years for geological cycles to remove the CO2

CO2 only lasts around 5 years in the atmosphere.

Notice the huge monthly fluctuation with the seasons?

http://www.esrl.n.../trends/

CO2 lasts considerably longer than 5 years in the atmosphere

Then an 8ppm seasonal drop would be impossible.

More likely it only lasts months.

CO2 lasts considerably longer than 5 years in the atmosphere

Then an 8ppm seasonal drop would be impossible.

More likely it only lasts months.

"In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998)"

http://www.co2sci...EDIT.php

think about it dude.

I do. Papers say 5 years. Natural fluctuations say 5 years or less.

And a miniscule amount of warming stopped 15 years ago as CO2 rose.

CO2 is meaningless ... except plants like it.

Vendicar:

The last time we met, you were telling the world the same story: the reason why temperatures went up starting way back in 1840 was because of coal consumption.

Here's a link:http://www.wou.ed...ves.htm.

Look at Fig. 2. Do you notice that significant amounts of coal consumption and petroleum use began in 1900--not in 1870, nor in 1840?

And please also notice that high levels of petroleum and coal use didn't occur until 1925.

So, once again, Vendicar: what caused warming prior to 1900?

Man-made emissions is an affront to the truth, so don't offend our reason by invoking it. But, then again, why should facts get in the way of a good liberal mind.

You must not be aware that there isn't a single scientist that would debate CO2 is a GHG regardless of his or her stance on AGW.

Recent evidence suggest a negative feedback, meaning CO2 causes cooling.

Where do you see any cycles in this graph?

Massive warming 1910 to 1943/44.

Cooling and then flat trend 1945 - 1980

Small warming 1980 to 1998

Then cooling from 1998 to where temperatures are lower than 1944.

http://www.woodfo...77/trend

dir - I'm not saying that at all. Of course humans are a contributing factor. BUT... we are not THE factor. Global warming would happen with or without us. The only difference would be how quickly.
I think we are doing more harm to each other and to the creatures of this great world than we are to the climate.

lind - are you saying that believing in the cyclic nature of climate (which I of course do - as I accept what the scientists who study the climate tell us) excludes the possibility that human activity is also affecting the climate?

Recent evidence suggest a negative feedback, meaning CO2 causes cooling. Reference please!

"CO2 has a negligible effect upon climate and that water vapor acts as a negative feedback to global warming."

http://hockeyscht...ate.html

Cyclic processes are not cumulative in the long run. Adding huge amounts of greenhouse gases creates a cumulative effect on time spans relevant for humans.
Unless you are willing to wait hundreds of thousands of years for geological cycles to remove the CO2 as those geological cycles are far slower than anything else affecting climate.

So you're saying that either space/time & Earth itself stopped and no greenhouse gases were created & accumulated spanning the hundreds of thousands of years between the end of the dinosaurs and the age of modern man today that would have been relevant enough today for geological cycles to remove the CO2, or, are you saying that it all happened during the age of the dinosaurs as relatively quickly as now due to a huge increase in extreme dinosaur farts? Does that mean that we should put a limit on the number of cows permitted due to the high risk of cow farts?

Note during EVERY warm interglacial CO2 PPM never goes above 285PPM.

CO2 rose 100ppm during the Eemian (the last interglacial). CO2 rose after temperature rose. CO2 fell as temperature fell and the Eemian ended as the Holocene will end.

During the Eemian, sea level at peak was probably 4 to 6m (13 to 20 feet) higher than today.

if there is no water vapour or clouds then it had better be hotter

"three peer reviewed papers (Lindzen and Choi, Spencer and Braswell, and now Richard P. Allan) based on observations that show a net negative feedback for clouds, and a strong one at that."

http://wattsupwit...-budget/

the fact that CO2 levels rose 100PPM during the Eemian interglacial (130,000 - 114,000 years ago, making it the second to last interglacial and the PPM was still below 285) only supports it's standing as a GHG. Do you even know what point you're trying to make?

CO2 rise FOLLOWED temperature. CO2 did not cause the rise.

As Oceans warm they can hold less CO2.

Warming cycles like the MWP and the small runup to 1998 and the big rise from 1910 to 1944 are natural.

Eemian:

http://www.ferdin...ian.html

The 100ppm rise in CO2 after temperature rose did nothing to prevent the Eemian from ending.

The recent CO2 rise of slightly over 100ppm will do nothing to prevent the Holocene from ending.

100ppm is huge. I mean wow, tack on 100ppm of CO2 to the current 400ppm we have and now the earth will be in Unknown territory with respect to the heat trapping potential of the atmosphere.

CO2 levels don't track global temperatures, it's just the opposite. Global ocean temperatures are rising and that tends to increase the solubility for CO2.

100ppm is huge.

110ppm from 1750 to present. Within the margin of error the same as the Eemian.

However, during the Eemian, temperature rose 7 - 10C.

Current temperatures are about .1C to .2C above 1944.

CO2 seems impotent in the Holocene.

What do you mean "CO2 seems impotent in the Holocene."? Do you mean that the scientists are discarding the heat trapping potential of CO2 as if it was just background noise. Far from it. The science behind the heat trapping capability of CO2 is very well known now.

ok rubberman. "established by fitting in to" (I can "fit" numbers in to an equation to come up with the answer I want), "approximate and only representative of the changes observed" (to me this is the same as 'eyeballing' it, or 'guesstimating'. Everything I've looked up for a definitive answer or result ends with a disclaimer of one form or another), "temperature changes at [one site] frequently exceed the changes observed in [another] or in the global average". In other words, I don't think scientists know one way or another for certain. Even though the "skeptical" scientists are few, I think the die-hards are secretly not totally positive about all their data.

At any rate, what the hell can we do except try to improve from here on out.

What do you mean "CO2 seems impotent in the Holocene."?

CO2 did not cause the MWP or the LIA or the Roman Optimum or the Holocene Optimum or the pre-1945 warming as examples of CO2's impotence.

At notpark; "Your debate can only dream of being elevated to the status of a joke." I SECOND THAT!

100ppm is huge. I mean wow, tack on 100ppm of CO2 to the current 400ppm we have and now the earth will be in Unknown territory with respect to the heat trapping potential of the atmosphere.

CO2 levels don't track global temperatures, it's just the opposite. Global ocean temperatures are rising and that tends to increase the solubility for CO2.

We should start making fuel and water from seawater.

Kaa-dude you make a really good point "We should start making fuel and water..." Yeah we need to. Not to be an alarmist, but modern civilization is very resource needy. Needy of fuel, resources, land, food, waters and environments. It doesn't leave room for much else unless your a deep ocean sea creature.

OMG Howhot! Seriously?
Firstly, We ALL know the United Nations is the absolute source of impregnable scientific fact (sarcasm intended).

Secondly, "The FACTS". This could be purely objective or subjective depending on how biased an individual is, for example... you?

Thirdly, "Luntic whining rants". Insolence is unnecessary and shows only the ignorance of the speaker. Have you listened to yourself lately?

And lastly, "You deniers are on the morally wrong end of this debate." Who are you to decide what is moral and what is not when it comes to scientific "fact" as you so strongly declare global warming is? You used a poor choice of words in your supposition of scientifically FACTUAL discourse (contradiction of words supposition & factual intended).

The facts are all documented in the United Nations reports on Climate Change... of Hard FACTs... they have measured an INCREDIBLE RISE in GLOBAL ocean temperatures .

You deniers are on the morally wrong end of this debate.

CO2 did not cause the MWP or the LIA or the Roman Optimum or the Holocene Optimum or the pre-1945 warming as examples of CO2's impotence.

Even more importantly, CO2 is impotent when humidity is low,. Desert temperatures can drop by 30C or more at night in the absence of water vapor (the #1 GHG if you've forgotten) and Antarctica is dry.

Because those were transient

400 years is a long time. Even 1910 to 1944 was 16 years longer than the ultra short transient 1980 to 1998 miniscule warming.

And Jan 2012 was colder than Jan 1944.

And Antarctica has been cooling for 30 years. Which means the teensy tiny 1980 to 1998 warming wasn't global.

So the ocean was warming even before the wide use of petrochemical fuels? What could have caused that? Far from another 'nail in the deniers coffin', this points to other factors in the warming trend.

Quite wrong, friend.

You see, before modern technology, people used dirtier forms of carbon fuel, including burning wood and coal directly for cooking and heating of the home, plus all work and metallurgy.

The early decades of the Industrial Revolution was incredibly dirty both in terms of soot and CO2 pollution, because their processes and engines were far less efficient than ours.

The soot likely ended up in the Artic, where it probably altered Albedo and melted sea ice and glaciers.

Also, back then they didn't fight forest fires with aircraft, although you can be sure forest fires were happening about as often, seeing as how people actually would be using open fires a lot more per capita as compared to modern times.

In general, stuff like blacksmithing before the invention of truly modern, ultra-efficient foundries would have been very filthy compared to modern processes.

We probably under-estimate the amount of energy used in the 1750's through the 1850's because it's not easy to quantify the private use of wood or coal in this time period, and it varies widely by region.

Imagine doing all your cooking over a wood or coal stove, where most of the heat escapes straight out of the flue, and you can see how you'd probably actually use a lot more energy than we use today. And again, it's very dirty with soot and other pollutants going straight into the air.

Most ships and trains still used coal-fired boilers up until around the 1930's or 1940's, which again would have been very dirty and inefficient compared to modern U.S. coal technology, nevermind modern diesel and gasoline technology.

Vendicar_Decarian
Please don't attribute something I wrote to someone else. I don't even know who LinDabTard is other than that is who you claim to have quoted "Firstly, We ALL know the United Nations..."

Also, please do not use what I said out of context. My entire reply was to an earlier post by Howhot and taken in context was literally stated as "sarcasm intended".

Again, please do not attribute what I say to someone else, and, do not selectively take what I do say and use it out of context.

Best regards

Correct.

"Firstly, We ALL know the United Nations is the absolute source of impregnable scientific fact" - LinDabTard

Well.. Actually the U.N. has no "scientists", but often assembles and sometimes employs independent scientists to summarize existing science or analyze a problem from a scientific standpoint.

http://thingsbrea...history/[/q