I thought that a look at how fast temps are rising along the Florida coast would be a worthwhile endeavor. Let's start up north.

Pensacola:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425747770030&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Ft. Meyers:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425747960010&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Ft. Pierce:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425747950010&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Key West: Is the rise in temps due to global warming or concrete and blacktop since the entire island is urbanized?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425722010000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Tarpon Springs:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425722110010&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

In all of these, it looks as though it will be a few years before that 2 deg C temp rise takes place, if at all. Pensacola looks like its headed for cooler temps. Besides is the temp rise natural or is it due to concrete, asphalt, and/or urbanization?

That shows you how sill researches are.

1. Turtles bury their eggs up to 2 feet below the surface of the sand.

2. Anyone with half a brain knows that sand is a reflector of heat.

3. If you dig a hole one foot deep in sand, the sand is cool no matter what the surface temperature of the sand is.

4. Therefore its the turtles fault for not digging a deep enough hole.

Try it? Go to a beach on a 40 degree day when the sand is so hot it blisters your feet. then dig a hole 2 foot down. You will find the sand is cool.

These researchers should get another job.

Paul,
Thos Giss numbers are not actual instrument readings, but statistically scaled numbers that NOAA applies to thier data sets. They use an algorithim that computes a Time of Observation offset to the orignal instrument readings, among other things. The orginal Giss numbers are not available in any online archive as far as I know; however, the lat John Daly has the 1900-2001 instrument readings. Climate Audit found a number of interesting -if not disturbing -things that are being done to actual surface readings. The warmest decade, the 30s, has been corrected downward (ie cooler), while the 90s and later, have been increased upward ie warmer.

The UHI is accounted for, but how much, I do not know; also, nothing is being said about the recent (40 years or less) increase in reporting stations in hotter areas of N America, and a corresponding decrease in those areas in the Northern 1/3 of our continent that no longer report hourly surface temperatures. The warming trend of the last 40 years can be partially attributed to the UHI as well as the growth in reporting stations in the deep south and southwest.

Steven, it's the turtles' own fault? You can't make this stuff up.

Paul, warming is uneven across regions and Florida hasn't warmed as much as the global average during the last century, but is there some scientific reason to expect that it will warm less than the average over the next century?

Laura, you say that 2C is a big rise, but is it big at all compared to the IPCC's projected range for the next century? More importantly (see below), what might it mean for the turtles? When you make remarks like that, I really wonder if you have a very good grasp of the science, or perhaps it's a matter of not considering changes that won't happen within your lifetime to be worth worrying about much. If it's the latter, I'm afraid you have a lot of company.

This example of the turtles points out the critical aspect of the present change, which is that it's the pace of the change that's the problem. The turtles have certainly been able to put up with higher temperatures than present in the past. They evolve very slowly, and the Florida region was over 2C warmer than present for the entire existence of that turtle species up until about 3 million years ago, and has reached about that level during several subsequent interglacials. (You have to go back several hundred million years to find another cold period similar to the one we're in now.) The point is that while the turtles have been able to adapt to warmer temperatures before, it's been in circumstances where the most rapid temperature change was something like ten times slower than we are experiencing now. Is it possible to kill off the turtles by means of a far more abrupt change? (Note that a 5C increase within the next century two is entirely plausible and could wipe out the North Carolina breeding population as well.) It could be that those scientists are apoplectic because they have reason to think that might be true.

If global temperatures are on the rise might the Logger Head Sea Turtle choose to nest earlier in the season than before thus seasonal rise in temperatures may be skewed to an adequate time/temp period for incubation.

Also, coastal areas may experience more cloudy days (and more rainstorms cooling surface soil temperatures)do to rise in sea temperatures thus lowering sand temperatures (may actually contribute to the reciprocal...more females!).

Also sand temperatures are effected by core earth temperatures. A climatic change of 2 degrees air temperature would have only a fractional degree change on soil temperatures 2 feet under.

One large volcanic eruption and we'll be shoveling snow off of Florida beaches.

More over are Logger Head Sea turtles monogamous? One cattle ranch only needs one good bull.

jp

Even if the GISS records have been "corrected" and these "corrections" are dubious; we are still not seeing much of a rise, if any, of temps in the Panhandle.

I always like to use their data, it tends to make a more effective arguement. And this data is compiled and manipulated by the famed Dr. Hansen, himself.

Steve Bloom,

What makes you think it's going to warm up over the next century? Do you have evidence other than computer models that it is going to warm up? I doubt it as no one else has produced this evidence.

To Steve Bloom

I make it up as much as the global warming advocates do. Just to make it clear for you.

Sand is an insulator. A turtle will dig a nest 12 to 18 inches below the surface of the sand, lay her eggs then cover over. The eggs are now insulated from the temperature changes on the surface. The surface temperature may be 50 to 55 degrees Celcius during the day and drop to 25 degrees Celcius during the night. The eggs dont care. They are in a nice cosy home at a constant temperature. Now if the turtle doesn't dig deep enough then there will be some variation as some of the surface temp will leak to the nest. On the other hand if the turtle does not go far enough up the beach and digs too close to the water table then wet sand can draw heat away from the nest.

Whats the point of this? Ok If there is 2 degrees variation it wont be from air temperature, it can only be nest temperature.

Quote:"The gender of marine turtle offspring is determined by the temperature at which the eggs are incubated: high temperatures lead to a higher proportion of females."

The key word is INCUBATED.

Lets face it. Sand Surface temps vary by 25 degrees C in a 24 hour period during summer so 2 degrees is a drop in the bucket.

Conclusion: The researchers should get a new day job. They dont seem to understand the nature of sand.

For all you global warming people out there, explain this.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425725180040&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

This is a temp graph for Gloversville. From 1925 to 1955 the average temperature is higher then the last 10 years. WHY??? Did Global warming miss Gloversville. Did someone put up a sign "No Global Warming Allowed Here" I have trolled many locations already and get the same pattern.

Pay attention, Steve. It's been explicitly stated many times that global warming affects northern latitudes much more than southern ones. Also global warming isn't necessarily universal; in other words, there may be regional areas which don't show much warming, and this typically occurs as you approach the Equator. Global warming is just that....a rise in GLOBAL (not regional) temperatures.

Frankly, I've explained this so many times to 'skeptics' that it furthers my belief that most skeptics are very uneducated about this issue. Please stop taking your talking points from Rush Limbaugh and start doing your own research.

Thanks,
Mark

Mark

Is that the best you can do? I would hate to tell you this but Global temperatures as of December 2006 are fully 0.25 degrees BELOW 1998.

Where is the warming?