Flying Binghi -
..and
De_flieger, dont yer want to have a closer look-see at the NASA links yer referenced..
A recap....
"...the NASA proof fer AGW..."
De_flieger, just to speed things up fer this dumb old hill farmer could you post some quotes from the "relevant papers" seems ah caint find them...
Ok. I had hoped you'd look at the link I posted, where there are a number of pages which cite findings and where to find the relevant papers if they arent directly linked - often you will be taken to the authors or institutions publication listing from which the papers are available - but anyway...
Here is the abstract of the paper "Global Temperature Change", authored by Hansen, Sato et. al. Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Vol 103, pages 14288-14293 and available to download here:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/...sen_etal_1.pdf
Global surface temperature has increased ≈0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West-East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within ≈1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than ≈1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute "dangerous" climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.
As for warming ocean temperatures, one of the articles cited was "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems", by Levitus et. al., published in Geophysics Research Letters, Vol 36, April 2009. Available to download by googling the title, it is the first result that is returned. The paper opens with:
We provide estimates of the warming of the world ocean for 1955 – 2008 based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, correcting for instrumental biases of bathythermograph data, and correcting or excluding some Argo float data. The strong interdecadal variability of global ocean heat content reported previously by us is reduced in magnitude but the linear trend in ocean heat content remain similar to our earlier estimate.
And some of the abstract of the paper "Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants.", by Root et. al. and published in Nature, edition 421, pages 57-60, available to download here:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Root_etal.pdf
Over the past 100 years, the global average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6°C and is projected to continue to rise at a rapid rate. Although species have responded to climatic changes throughout their evolutionary history, a primary concern for wild species and their ecosystems is this rapid rate of change. We gathered information on species and global warming from 143 studies for our meta-analyses. These analyses reveal a consistent temperature-related shift, or 'fingerprint', in species ranging from molluscs to mammals and from grasses to trees. Indeed, more than 80% of the species that show changes are shifting in the direction expected on the basis of known physiological constraints of species. Consequently, the balance of evidence from these studies strongly suggests that a significant impact of global warming is already discernible in animal and plant populations.
All these are good, solid peer reviewed science - there are plenty more papers available by looking through the "citations" section at the bottom of the NASA link and its subsidiary pages that I gave you earlier.
Im really not sure why you keep coming back to the urban heat island effect though. It is a red herring in the context of this discussion. I'll summarise here:
Is there an urban heat island effect? Yes.
Is it affecting global temperature measurements and giving them the impression of climate change where otherwise one isnt present? No.
How do we know? Research by the Berkely Earth Surface Temperature group, among others, has shown this definitively. Here is the abstract of the paper "Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average Using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications", available to download from here:
http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-uhi.pdf
The effect of urban heating on estimates of global average land surface temperature is studied by applying an urban-rural classification based on MODIS satellite data to the Berkeley Earth temperature dataset compilation of 39,028 sites from 10 different publicly available sources. We compare the distribution of linear temperature trends for these sites to the distribution for a rural subset of 16,132 sites chosen to be distant from all MODIS- identified urban areas. While the trend distributions are broad, with one-third of the stations in the US and worldwide having a negative trend, both distributions show significant warming. Time series of the Earth’s average land temperature are estimated using the Berkeley Earth methodology applied to the full dataset and the rural subset; the difference of these shows a slight negative slope over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.19°C ± 0.19 / 100yr (95% confidence), opposite in sign to that expected if the urban heat island effect was adding anomalous warming to the record. The small size, and its negative sign, supports the key conclusion of prior groups that urban warming does not unduly bias estimates of recent global temperature change.
(my italics).