Dear Loudmouth,

Yup your figures are wrong.

Here is the Berkeley Earth summary for 2018.
http://berkeleyearth.org/2018-temperatures/

Who is Berkeley Earth?

“Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012. Berkeley Earth became an independent non-profit 501(c)(3) in February 2013.”

I find them pretty even handed.

You will see that there is a graph showing the land and ocean temperatures separately revealing that land based temperature increases sit at around 2C.

As for the sea level you are incorrect agin.

“Thus, these results indicate about 11–14 cm (4–5 inches) of GMSL rise from 1901 to 1990. Tide gauge analyses indicate that GMSL rose at a considerably faster rate of about 3 mm/year ... since 1993, a result supported by satellite data indicating a trend of 3.4 ± 0.4 mm/year ... over 1993–2015 … . These results indicate an additional GMSL rise of about 7 cm ... since 1990 ... and about 16–21 cm ... since 1900.

http://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/12/

Let me know if you need any clarification on these figures.

Thanks SR,

So a rise of two degrees Celsius in the last century ? And six to eight inches of sea-level rise since 1900 ?

Right, now we have something to go on.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

As you can see the increases are accelerating. For instance from 1901 to 1990 sea level rise was about half and inch per decade but it now sits at around 1 1/3 inches per decade.

No No No Loudmouth,

Don't be misled by SR's inability to follow the data.

"So a rise of two degrees Celsius in the last century"

That's not true, and its not even what Berkeley said. (I'd also point out that Berkeley isn't really considered to be one of the top databases on this issue...but let's go with it for the moment).

Here's what Berkeley said..."In our estimation, temperatures in 2018 were around 1.16 °C (2.09 °F) above the average temperature of the late 19th century, from 1850-1900". So 1.16c above the average for 1850-1900. Therefore 1.16c rise in around 150yrs or around 0.77c per century. In fact the trend line for Berkeley from 1850 to 2018 is 0.64 ±0.06 °C/century.

"So a rise of two degrees Celsius in the last century" is actually about 0.7c per century using 1850 as the start date.

To be fair SR's 2c number wasn't global but just for land temperatures. But it was for 170yrs not a century. And it is exaggerated compared to other more reliable databases. eg GHCN shows a land rises of around 0.9c per century.

But why use land only temperatures anyway? To exaggerate the rise? It should be noted that the raw land temperatures are changed a lot more than the raw ocean temperatures but that the reliability of the ocean temperatures before 1950 or so is highly contested.

So if you want a number for the global temperature rises per century use 0.7c/per century which is around the average of all the terrestrial databases.

To SteeleRedux.

Like I said earlier, it's your choice what you do or don't do. I'm not going to play the game you said this, but you meant that. In the end it doesn't matter if you said you'd look over one argument and have since changed your mind because it's too much time. Or if you meant that you'd look at one reference and there was a miscommunication. Either way, what you do is your choice.

Instead, I'll just say what I've said before. The narrative in the global warming issues has always been we have a limited amount of time, and an exaggeratedly negitive fate of the world. The time lines for these predictions are continually wrong based on what we can see in the world around us, and/or the consquences that are predicted are just wrong. It is wrong either because the science doesn't yet understand the scope of the factors in the world that haven't lived up to the predictions, or because the people pushing this narrative are pushing lies.

Thankfully at least some scientist in the field of climiteologists admit that there is an error in the models and have tried to come up with better ones, or just admit that there is an error in the models and understand that politics involving international growth as well as domestic growth should not be based on flatly climate models. That is what I've gleaned from the references in argument #10. It's a refreshing breath of fresh air.

Hi Mhaze,

So the land temperature rise has been around 0.7 degrees Celsius a century for the past 150 years. Could the urban heat-island effect have something to do with that ? Not much of that out over the oceans, so has the average land-and-sea temperature combined rise been somewhat lower than 0.7 degrees ? Say, 0.5 degree ? One degree Fahrenheit ?

And sea-level has risen by six inches, 15 cm, over that same time ? Gosh.

Cheers,

Joe