Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[RollingThunder]

CO2 could only affect the oceans IF its wavelength of absorption was greater at night from black body sources.

Deceptive denier cult pseudo-science bullshit!

Warmer air at the surface warms the ocean waters through conduction.

Global Climate Change
Warmer Oceans
The atmosphere affects oceans, and oceans influence the atmosphere. As the temperature of the air rises, oceans absorb some of this heat and also become warmer.

The oceans ARE getting warmer, this is an observed fact.....and, over time, they are getting warmer at greater depths.

Climate Change Indicators: Sea Surface Temperature
United States Environmental Protection Agency

This indicator describes global trends in sea surface temperature.

Figure 1. Average Global Sea Surface Temperature, 1880–2015

This graph shows how the average surface temperature of the world’s oceans has changed since 1880. This graph uses the 1971 to 2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time. The shaded band shows the range of uncertainty in the data, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the methods used.
Data source: NOAA, 2016

We know this is not the case as all LWIR from CO2 is above 15um and thus using StB its radiative temperature is below -80 deg C. Again this should cause an atmospheric hot spot, which has been shown not to exist. We also know that this wave length is incapable of oceans penetration of more than 10um or skin surface.

More denier cult myths from the cultic troll....

In the real world....

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot
PhysOrg
May 14, 2015
Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt man-made global warming to suggest climate change is not occurring as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

"Using more recent data and better analysis methods we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of warming in the upper troposphere," said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof. Steve Sherwood.

"We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the upper troposphere extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see."

The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques -- linear regression and Kriging.

"We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them," said Prof Sherwood.

"All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977."

As well as confirming the tropospheric hotspot, the researchers also found a 10% increase in winds over the Southern Ocean. The character of this increase suggests it may be the result of ozone depletion.

"I am very interested in these wind speed increases and whether they may have also played some role in slowing down the warming at the surface of the ocean," said Prof Sherwood.

"However, one thing this improved data set shows us is that we should no longer accept the claim that there is warming missing higher in the atmosphere. That warming is now clearly seen."

More information: Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenised radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUK v2) , Environmental Research Letters , iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007
Journal reference: Environmental Research Letters
Provided by: University of New South Wales

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's not what I asked.

That's exactly what you've asked, and because you didn't read anything, you didn't understand anything, particularly not the part about the Earth being the lab, and the results being continuously measured and documented, accompanied with a load of links detailing the history of the experiment. Conversely, I have asked that you make an effort to understand why your question, as posed, doesn't make any sense. It almost seems as if you weren't quite up to that task.

More squid ink defense where you throw up a cloud of irrelevant bullshit to escape answering on point.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Q. How much does the temperature increase from an increase in CO2 from 200 to 400PPM?

A. Vast cloud of squid ink + links to irrelevant articles + admission that Climate system is complicated so the AGW cult never bothered with experiment, they just published their predetermined conclusion

 

[Olde Europe]

More squid ink defense where you throw up a cloud of irrelevant bullshit to escape answering on point.

You could just admit you didn't understand the answer. Or you could do some reading (as opposed to dismissing texts you obviously didn't read), and understand it, finally. Your choice, mate, and no skin off my nose either way.

 

[Wuwei]

Can you please post the lab work demonstrating the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration from 200 to 400PPM?

Thank you

Glad to see your burning interest in climate change, and the intricate interactions of CO2 with the Earth's climate system. I have some reading material for you, and follow the embedded links, too:

To start in, for the scientific story, a good starting-point is the keystone essay on the basic discoveries about The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect, followed perhaps by attempts to explain changes with Simple Models of Climate. If you are interested especially in the social connections of climate studies you could start, for example, with the facts of The Modern Temperature Trend and proceed to the long essay on U.S. Government: The View from Washington, followed by International Cooperation. For basic information and recent developments, see the page of links and bibliography.​

If you are done with that and still have questions:

Influences on climate
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Other Greenhouse Gases
Roger Revelle's Discovery
Aerosols: Volcanoes, Dust, Clouds
Biosphere: How Life Alters Climate
Changing Sun, Changing Climate?
Interview with Jack Eddy
Ocean Currents and Climate

Climate data
The Modern Temperature Trend
Rapid Climate Change Abrupt climate change
Uses of Radiocarbon Dating
Greenland Ice Drilling (J. Genuth)
Past Climate Cycles and Ice Ages
Temperatures from Fossil Shells

Theory
Simple Models of Climate Change
Chaos in the Atmosphere
Venus & Mars
General Circulation Models of Climate
Basic Radiation Calculations
Arakawa's Computation Device​

If you're finally through with that, you should be able to understand that the climate system with its feedback mechanisms, such as cloud formation and changing ocean currents, is way too complex to be replicated by any "lab work". That is to say, the "lab" is the earth itself, and the experiment we're conducting doesn't have a safety switch, but thousands of scientists and quite a few satellites are quite busy measuring the experiment's results - a.k.a. temperature records. See you in a few weeks when you're done, and you're able to answer your question yourself.

I discovered those American Institute of Physics articles you cited several months ago. They are very valuable. They cover everything in detail and are well cross referenced.

.

 

[Olde Europe]

I discovered those American Institute of Physics articles you cited several months ago. They are very valuable. They cover everything in detail and are well cross referenced.

Yep, they're excellent, and quite readable. Add Skeptical Science and Science of Doom, and you're well prepared.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

More squid ink defense where you throw up a cloud of irrelevant bullshit to escape answering on point.

You could just admit you didn't understand the answer. Or you could do some reading (as opposed to dismissing texts you obviously didn't read), and understand it, finally. Your choice, mate, and no skin off my nose either way.

I understood your answer to be, "we don't have any lab work"

 

[jc456]

Can you please post the lab work demonstrating the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration from 200 to 400PPM?

Thank you

Glad to see your burning interest in climate change, and the intricate interactions of CO2 with the Earth's climate system. I have some reading material for you, and follow the embedded links, too:

To start in, for the scientific story, a good starting-point is the keystone essay on the basic discoveries about The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect, followed perhaps by attempts to explain changes with Simple Models of Climate. If you are interested especially in the social connections of climate studies you could start, for example, with the facts of The Modern Temperature Trend and proceed to the long essay on U.S. Government: The View from Washington, followed by International Cooperation. For basic information and recent developments, see the page of links and bibliography.​

If you are done with that and still have questions:

Influences on climate
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Other Greenhouse Gases
Roger Revelle's Discovery
Aerosols: Volcanoes, Dust, Clouds
Biosphere: How Life Alters Climate
Changing Sun, Changing Climate?
Interview with Jack Eddy
Ocean Currents and Climate

Climate data
The Modern Temperature Trend
Rapid Climate Change Abrupt climate change
Uses of Radiocarbon Dating
Greenland Ice Drilling (J. Genuth)
Past Climate Cycles and Ice Ages
Temperatures from Fossil Shells

Theory
Simple Models of Climate Change
Chaos in the Atmosphere
Venus & Mars
General Circulation Models of Climate
Basic Radiation Calculations
Arakawa's Computation Device​

If you're finally through with that, you should be able to understand that the climate system with its feedback mechanisms, such as cloud formation and changing ocean currents, is way too complex to be replicated by any "lab work". That is to say, the "lab" is the earth itself, and the experiment we're conducting doesn't have a safety switch, but thousands of scientists and quite a few satellites are quite busy measuring the experiment's results - a.k.a. temperature records. See you in a few weeks when you're done, and you're able to answer your question yourself.

why don't you pull an abstract out of one of those links that demonstrates the answer to frank's question. Please obviously we're unclear which piece is the answer. Why don't you just pull out that abstract!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I discovered those American Institute of Physics articles you cited several months ago. They are very valuable. They cover everything in detail and are well cross referenced.

Yep, they're excellent, and quite readable. Add Skeptical Science and Science of Doom, and you're well prepared.

Yes, add in High Times as well because you'd have to be in an altered state to believe you've answered the "how much does temperature increase for 200ppm increase in CO2?" question

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 could only affect the oceans IF its wavelength of absorption was greater at night from black body sources.

Deceptive denier cult pseudo-science bullshit!

Warmer air at the surface warms the ocean waters through conduction.

Global Climate Change
Warmer Oceans
The atmosphere affects oceans, and oceans influence the atmosphere. As the temperature of the air rises, oceans absorb some of this heat and also become warmer.

The oceans ARE getting warmer, this is an observed fact.....and, over time, they are getting warmer at greater depths.

Climate Change Indicators: Sea Surface Temperature
United States Environmental Protection Agency

This indicator describes global trends in sea surface temperature.

Figure 1. Average Global Sea Surface Temperature, 1880–2015

This graph shows how the average surface temperature of the world’s oceans has changed since 1880. This graph uses the 1971 to 2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time. The shaded band shows the range of uncertainty in the data, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the methods used.
Data source: NOAA, 2016

We know this is not the case as all LWIR from CO2 is above 15um and thus using StB its radiative temperature is below -80 deg C. Again this should cause an atmospheric hot spot, which has been shown not to exist. We also know that this wave length is incapable of oceans penetration of more than 10um or skin surface.

More denier cult myths from the cultic troll....

In the real world....

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot
PhysOrg
May 14, 2015
Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt man-made global warming to suggest climate change is not occurring as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

"Using more recent data and better analysis methods we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of warming in the upper troposphere," said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof. Steve Sherwood.

"We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the upper troposphere extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see."

The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques -- linear regression and Kriging.

"We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them," said Prof Sherwood.

"All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977."

As well as confirming the tropospheric hotspot, the researchers also found a 10% increase in winds over the Southern Ocean. The character of this increase suggests it may be the result of ozone depletion.

"I am very interested in these wind speed increases and whether they may have also played some role in slowing down the warming at the surface of the ocean," said Prof Sherwood.

"However, one thing this improved data set shows us is that we should no longer accept the claim that there is warming missing higher in the atmosphere. That warming is now clearly seen."

More information: Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenised radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUK v2) , Environmental Research Letters , iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007
Journal reference: Environmental Research Letters
Provided by: University of New South Wales

The AGW bullshit machine continues to make shit up.. The "skin" of the oceans block conduction very effectively. Very little heat is actually conducted downward. Sea spray is actually a convective cooling mechanism and does not heat the oceans.

1. Meridional heat and freshwater transfer: The ocean and atmosphere work together to move heat and freshwater across latitudes, as required to maintain a quasi-stationary climate pattern. The wind-driven and thermohaline ocean circulation accomplish this task for the ocean, by moving warm waters poleward, colder water toward the Equator. On average the ocean meridional heat flux is higher or at least equivalent to that of the atmosphere between the equator and 30° latitude, with the atmosphere becoming dominate at higher latitudes. Ocean currents of differing salinity also move freshwater from place to place to close the global hydrological budget. For example, salty water flows away from the evaporative subtropics to be replaced with lower salinity water from the tropics.
2. Fluxes across the sea-atmosphere interface: Heat exchange between ocean and atmosphere is a product of a number of processes: solar radiation heats the ocean; net long wave back radiation cools the ocean; heat transfer by conduction and convection between the air and water generally cools the ocean as does evaporation of water from the ocean surface
3. Any imbalance of the heat or freshwater budgets due to sea-atmosphere fluxes is compensated by transfer of heat and freshwater by ocean currents. Generally heat transport across latitudes is from the tropics to the polar regions, but in the South Atlantic Ocean the oceanic heat transport is directed towards the equator. This is due to the thermohaline circulation - as warm upper kilometer water is carried northward, across the equator, offsetting the southward flow of cooler North Atlantic Deep Water near 3000 m. Much of the heat lost to the atmosphere in the North Atlantic is derived from this cross equatorial heat transfer. The flux of freshwater in the North and South Atlantic is southward, as freshwater excess of the Arctic is brought into off set the net evaporation and influx of salty water from the Indian Ocean

1. 
   Funny how the experts know a lot of things differently than you think they should be..
   
   Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling

 

[IanC]

I don't think it's either a coincidence nor circular reasoning. When SSDD first came up with the IGL (from some blog I presume), I looked at the NASA site where the numbers originated. There was no explanation of how the temperature and pressure were measured or computed. But accepting that they somehow more or less accurately got those numbers, my first reaction was that, of course the ideal gas law would fit those numbers. If it didn't, something would be wrong with the numbers (or the IGL).

Let us try to understand what the IGL actually does, and does not do. If you subject a fixed amount of gas at a known temperature to increased pressure, the IGL allows you to calculate the reduction in volume. If you heat a fixed amount of gas and keep the pressure constant, the IGL calculates the resulting increase in volume. The IGL itself does not calculate the temperature of a gas subject to radiative heating, particularly if the energy input isn't showing up anywhere in the calculations. I really don't know how to explain it any better. The whole exercise is about as ridiculous as the attempt at calculating relative humidity based on a temperature reading. Yes, you might occasionally hit the mark, and yes, the concepts are somewhat related, but the determinant aspect (energy input / water content) is missing in either case.

Let's also note that the "calculation" of the earth's average temperature is off by 6°K. +/- 6°K is, of course, the difference between an ice age (most of the U.S. under a thick layer of ice) and the worst-case scenario of global warming, with temperatures not seen since the Eocene, consistent with an ice-free world, that is to say, in the longer term an end to the world as we know it.

Yes, the calculations arriving at results somewhat similar to reality is a mere fluke, particularly given the vast, enormous differences between GHG-driven temperatures on Earth and Venus, and mostly internal-heating driven temperatures on, say, Neptune (radiating out more than twice the energy it receives). Yes, there is a faint, merely indirect relation, as GHGs under high pressure are far more effective at heat trapping than they are at lower pressure. But that indirect relation works out to a valid temperature prediction only if you include energy transferred / trapped.

What then is the "merit" of the whole exercise, which amounts to little more than curve-fitting and happenstance? I see two things. First, of course, there's nothing more "compelling" than an "alternative" theory to explain the Earth's temperature, as it assures the denialings that it's all about pressure, and, as we all know, there's nothing we can do about that. Secondly, it is yet another distraction, for, as long as folks discuss yet another denialing hoax, we're not paying attention to reality. For if reality sank in, folks might get serious about climate change, and that threatens a lot of very well-filled rice bowls.

Yes, as Ian rightly remarked, there are things to learn even while dealing with SSDD's denialist humbug, even though it would be a catastrophic mistake to learn anything from the stooge.

Thanks for that second link of yours. Interesting but it did nothing to dissuade me from believing the IGL law has a very real ability to estimate the temperature at a specific pressure.

The IGL was discovered by experiment using a piston and cylinder. The relationship was found to be the constant R. The assumptions are that the molecules are points and that they are perfectly elastic and don't interact with each other.

Transferring the argument, and the relationship R, to an atmosphere is done by replacing the piston and cylinder with gravity, and using density rather than a specific amount of molecules. Local properties to universal properties. Knowing the energy input does not matter, because energy in equals energy out, only the amount of energy stored in the atmosphere as kinetic and potential counts.

This is under idea conditions, myriad complexities ensue in reality, but it is the basic framework of an atmosphere and the reason why the IGL gives decent estimates even for wildly differing planets.

 

[Olde Europe]

Knowing the energy input does not matter, because energy in equals energy out, only the amount of energy stored in the atmosphere as kinetic and potential counts.

Sorry, that's gross. Assume, if you will, the sun gets lazy, and halves her output for a few millennia. Certainly, the earth will adjust to a new equilibrium, so that "energy in equals energy out". Alternatively, she decides that the best shine bright and die young, and doubles her output. Again, there'll be an equilibrium. However, we won't see anything like the temperatures we'll see today. The energy input is crucial, and your "argument" is a non sequitur if there ever was one.

Sorry, Ian, this denialist hoax has more than over-stretched my patience, and I'll join Wuwei, and you can keep that long-dead horse.

 

[polarbear]

I discovered those American Institute of Physics articles you cited several months ago. They are very valuable. They cover everything in detail and are well cross referenced.

Yep, they're excellent, and quite readable. Add Skeptical Science and Science of Doom, and you're well prepared.

Yes, add in High Times as well because you'd have to be in an altered state to believe you've answered the "how much does temperature increase for 200ppm increase in CO2?" question

THESE Lab experiments won`t be done just like the surveys that would reveal something which does not fit the narrative will never be held either.
That`s why all the temperature graphs they publish don`t have ppm CO2 on the X-axis.
They plot CO2 and temperature as a function of time to fake a direct correlation
For a while they did update a graph which had ppm CO2 on the X-axis and the temperature as a function of X. But they stopped updating that graph just before X approached 400 ppm when they realized that the temperature started flat lining:

 

[IanC]

Knowing the energy input does not matter, because energy in equals energy out, only the amount of energy stored in the atmosphere as kinetic and potential counts.

Sorry, that's gross. Assume, if you will, the sun gets lazy, and halves her output for a few millennia. Certainly, the earth will adjust to a new equilibrium, so that "energy in equals energy out". Alternatively, she decides that the best shine bright and die young, and doubles her output. Again, there'll be an equilibrium. However, we won't see anything like the temperatures we'll see today. The energy input is crucial, and your "argument" is a non sequitur if there ever was one.

Sorry, Ian, this denialist hoax has more than over-stretched my patience, and I'll join Wuwei, and you can keep that long-dead horse.

The Sun has brightened by 25% over the course of it life, yet this planet has always had liquid water. The Goldilocks Zone.

 

[RollingThunder]

Knowing the energy input does not matter, because energy in equals energy out, only the amount of energy stored in the atmosphere as kinetic and potential counts.

Sorry, that's gross. Assume, if you will, the sun gets lazy, and halves her output for a few millennia. Certainly, the earth will adjust to a new equilibrium, so that "energy in equals energy out". Alternatively, she decides that the best shine bright and die young, and doubles her output. Again, there'll be an equilibrium. However, we won't see anything like the temperatures we'll see today. The energy input is crucial, and your "argument" is a non sequitur if there ever was one.

Sorry, Ian, this denialist hoax has more than over-stretched my patience, and I'll join Wuwei, and you can keep that long-dead horse.

The Sun has brightened by 25% over the course of it life, yet this planet has always had liquid water. The Goldilocks Zone.

When the sun was significantly dimmer, hundreds of millions of years ago, the natural CO2 levels produced by the biosphere were considerably higher, as much as 4 or 5000ppm, which kept the Earth in your "Goldilocks Zone".

 

[RollingThunder]

THESE Lab experiments won`t be done just like the surveys that would reveal something which does not fit the narrative will never be held either.
That`s why all the temperature graphs they publish don`t have ppm CO2 on the X-axis.
They plot CO2 and temperature as a function of time to fake a direct correlation
For a while they did update a graph which had ppm CO2 on the X-axis and the temperature as a function of X. But they stopped updating that graph just before X approached 400 ppm when they realized that the temperature started flat lining:

Another denier cult nutjob pops up with more bullshit propaganda, lies, and a phony graph that IS NOT sourced from the CRU.

Of course, you must have had your head shoved pretty far up your ass, PottyBear, if you missed the fact that 2014 was the hottest year on record....until it was surpassed by 2015, which was even hotter.....and then along came 2016, which was even hotter than 2015. The first seven months of 2016 were the hottest months of that name on record since 1880 (and almost certainly much, much longer according to proxie data) and August was tied with July as the hottest month ever recorded....September was only the second hottest month on record after September 2015. It is a measured and recorded scientific fact that 16 of the 17 hottest years on record have happened since 2000, the exception being 1998. Pretty good for "flat lining", you silly delusional moron.

2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record
Both NASA and NOAA declare that our planet is experiencing record-breaking warming for the third year in a row
Scientific American
By Andrea Thompson
January 18, 2017
(excerpts)
2016 was the hottest year in 137 years of record keeping and the third year in a row to take the number one slot, a mark of how much the world has warmed over the last century because of human activities, U.S. government scientists announced Wednesday.

Several spots around the globe had record heat for 2016, including Alaska and a swath of the eastern U.S. The contiguous U.S. had its second hottest year on record, according to NOAA, but with the remarkable warmth experienced by Alaska factored in, 2016 would be the hottest for the country as a whole.

The first eight months of the year were all record hot globally; in NOAA’s data, they were part of an unprecedented streak of 16 record hot months in a row.

Of the 17 hottest years on record, 16 have occurred in the 21st century (the exception being the strong El Niño year of 1998).

 

[Billy_Bob]

I discovered those American Institute of Physics articles you cited several months ago. They are very valuable. They cover everything in detail and are well cross referenced.

Yep, they're excellent, and quite readable. Add Skeptical Science and Science of Doom, and you're well prepared.

Yes, add in High Times as well because you'd have to be in an altered state to believe you've answered the "how much does temperature increase for 200ppm increase in CO2?" question

THESE Lab experiments won`t be done just like the surveys that would reveal something which does not fit the narrative will never be held either.
That`s why all the temperature graphs they publish don`t have ppm CO2 on the X-axis.
They plot CO2 and temperature as a function of time to fake a direct correlation
For a while they did update a graph which had ppm CO2 on the X-axis and the temperature as a function of X. But they stopped updating that graph just before X approached 400 ppm when they realized that the temperature started flat lining:

Kind of amazing how the decoupling of temp and CO2 rise is so dramatically seen, when it is properly shown.

 

[Olde Europe]

The Sun has brightened by 25% over the course of it life, yet this planet has always had liquid water. The Goldilocks Zone.

Heavens.

First, there's near certainty that the world was frozen over at least once.

Second, you do understand that the Goldilocks Zone looks differently for significantly brighter and dimmer stars, don't you?

Third, energy in equals energy out means two things. 1) There's no significant internal heating. 2) With constant input, temperatures do not change overall. It does NOT mean the temperature remains the same with vastly changing input levels.

Fourth, and final: I did not say that input level is the only influence on the earth's temperature. A look at Venus should clear that up. However, were the sun to cut output in half, earth would freeze over. Moreover, no one in the climate science community uses the IGL to calculate the earth's temperature. There's a reason for that. And no one lives in a bubble at 1.5 bar, because that's always a balmy 24°C. That's absurd. Enough with this nonsense already.

 

[Olde Europe]

Global air temperature anomaly, Climatic Research Unit (CRU):

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Global air temperature anomaly, Climatic Research Unit (CRU):

We had reading accurate to a tenth of a degree back in 1880...who knew?

Essay: I have confidence in the deep ocean temperature reading from 1890 because...