A four-year oceanographic survey, carried out 140 years ago by HMS Challenger, takes 263 serial water temperature observations – using then current technology. Now, using data from 3,500 free-drifting profiling Argo floats, employing current technology, a temperature differential of 1.1°F (0.59°C) since the 1870s is calculated.

View full article here

It's a nice touch to get precision to 0.01°C with error bars likely larger than 1°C

There's one thing that we can be almost certain of and that is that the data collected 140 years ago was taken by proper scientists for proper scientific purposes and not for political manipulation of the citizens so they could be robbed blind.

Without calibration of Argonauts instruments this is all bollocks. The temperature differentials are surely within any margin of error. When I was at sea i was on a few ships which sent met obs back to Bracknell. I would be very surprised if our seawater temperature readings were accurate within half a degree Celsius and I bet we had better thermometers.
Thought 'Nature' was supposed to be a serious publication?

Interesting. Were the older obbos in Centigrade of Fahrenheit? Isn't the latter a finer scale anyway? I thought we use the decimal thing just to keep the frogs happy.

Think again old friend. They haven't been a serious publication on AGW for decades.

It's another line of attack.

The alarmists are always looking for the next big headline - sea surface temps are a massive bone of contention - the PDO flips and flops, the solar influence the driver [spreading ridges - heat rising from the upper mantle - volcanicity never mentioned - but it must have an influence in some way] but what does it all mean?
To say that, the average ocean surface T's have risen is pure bollox er hearsay - we just do not know to any real calibrated accuracy.

But what anthropogenic emissions of CO2 has to do with it - is pure science fiction.

So "climate change" began long before we started burning fossil fuels.
Are we surprised?

My collar has been warming over another item in the Grauniad Environmental column - a piece by Caroline Flint (Shadow Energy and Climate Change). In this piece she exhorts activists to stop talking about theoretical science scares which never come true have no resonance with the man in the street, and instead dwell on the immediate benefits of windmills, like job creation and energy independence and reliability...

I see this as very telling. The politicians were the activist's greatest friends, prepared to implement sweeping tax grabs on the belief that the 'green scientists' knew what they were talking about, and that Armageddon was just round the corner.

It is now obvious that it isn't. And a call for a defence of 'green energy' on the grounds that it will be cheap, reliable and create jobs is obviously a call based on monumental ignorance. What do you expect from a degree in Film Studies? Most politicians are disconnected from the people; this one is disconnected from the basic laws of thermodynamics and economics.

But it is interesting to see a move away from supporting the collapsed science. I wonder if it comes as a result of a change of mind in the briefing rooms of the Labour party...?

One of the interesting things about this study is, if sceptics were ignoramuses we would be lauding it as supporting our case.
It appears we are not because it is crap.

It's not about the science obviously but it's also NOT about the data.

This is all just sleight of hand to take normal people's eyes off the main event which is the drive towards Marxist re-distribution and socialist Global governance.

Check this out: -

http://Www.globeinternational.info

Is it just a talking shop, what is actually going on here and who has any power?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry, are we to take this seriously? With John Gummer at its head?

Who are these pompous fekkin dolts, who believe that anyone is actually listening?!

Still, it is very sinister with the Chinese becoming involved [can't these clowns - Gumballs et al, sense that the Chinese at every turn are 'playing them' like the patsies they all are].

Mind you, we can laugh until the 'knock on the door' at 04.00hrs comes, then it might not be so funny.

If warming started much earlier than previously thought, when human CO2 emissions were relatively piddling, then either the warming effect is diminishing, feedbacks are bigger and more negative than the climate 'experts' think or we haven't got much to do with it.

well, who knows but they seem to work as a support arm of the UN in agreeing global policy outside national parliaments and they then seek to introduce that policy into the respective national legislation.

they have links to the club of Rome (one of the Globe chairmen is the current Secretary General of the Club of Rome)

They are 'generously supported' by (among others) the EU and our own beloved government.

Nancy Pelosi sent this message to them prior to one of their meetings at Copenhagen

“On behalf of the US Congress I send greetings to my fellow law makers”

So, none of this means that they're not simply a talking shop but the problem is that many talking shops mutate over time into NGOs that form government policy.

It does partly explain Gummer's pontifications on this subject over the last year or two . . .

The samples were taken, it appears, just before an el Nino ... the most powerful in recent history. Thus, this study could well be affected by the cyclical nature of temperature, comparing two different points on the cycle.

Of course, it is an article of faith amongst warmists that climate is not cyclical but linear ... so we are not allowed to take this possibility into account.