Simply there are now many more whales since the 70’s and they are depleting the plankton, this is allowing the sun to enter the water, heat the water.

“Experts say the trend doesn’t provide proof of global warming theories, but may point to the extremes of natural weather cycles.”

From David Schwab, director of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor”
“It seems the last four or five years, perhaps the last decade, have been a little bit warmer,” Schwab said. “Whether that is something that will continue, we don’t know. It may simply be part of a 10-year, or even a 100-year, cycle.”

In addition, the study the article is based on made no statements about any of the other great lakes and only found a 2 degree increase in overall temperature up until the year 2004. Lake Superior temperatures have fallen again since 2005. Temperature is based on ice cover and 2007 saw a return to more normal levels and 2008 is also projected to have more ice than 2007 thus reducing temperature again from the 2005 levels.

There’s a slight problem with that. Neither the atmosphere nor the land masses are blackbody radiators, or anywhere near them. Boltzman’s constant does not apply. But, hey, why let a little bit of science obfuscation ruin a good ‘theory’.

Just interesting that the IPCC recognizes that geological processes warm the atmosphere… therefore they must concede the fact that they heat the oceans as well…..

That should have read:

What ocassionally cools the surface of the soup [that is being heated from the top]?
- It is the amount of stirring!

Here is another supporting article from the late Charlse Keeling:

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8321.full

Possible forcing of global temperature by the oceanic tides
Charles D. Keeling and Timothy P. Whorf
+Author Affiliations

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0220

Abstract

An approximately decadal periodicity in surface air temperature is discernable in global observations from A.D. 1855 to 1900 and since A.D. 1945, but with a periodicity of only about 6 years during the intervening period. Changes in solar irradiance related to the sunspot cycle have been proposed to account for the former, but cannot account for the latter. To explain both by a single mechanism, we propose that extreme oceanic tides may produce changes in sea surface temperature at repeat periods, which alternate between approximately one-third and one-half of the lunar nodal cycle of 18.6 years. These alternations, recurring at nearly 90-year intervals, reflect varying slight degrees of misalignment and departures from the closest approach of the Earth with the Moon and Sun at times of extreme tide raising forces. Strong forcing, consistent with observed temperature periodicities, occurred at 9-year intervals close to perihelion (solar perigee) for several decades centered on A.D. 1881 and 1974, but at 6-year intervals for several decades centered on A.D. 1923. As a physical explanation for tidal forcing of temperature we propose that the dissipation of extreme tides increases vertical mixing of sea water, thereby causing episodic cooling near the sea surface. If this mechanism correctly explains near-decadal temperature periodicities, it may also apply to variability in temperature and climate on other times-scales, even millennial and longer.

That should have read:

What ocassionally cools the surface of the soup [that is being heat from the top]?
- It is the amount of stirring!

Here is another supporting article from the late Charlse Keeling:

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8321.full

Possible forcing of global temperature by the oceanic tides
Charles D. Keeling and Timothy P. Whorf
+Author Affiliations

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0220

Abstract

An approximately decadal periodicity in surface air temperature is discernable in global observations from A.D. 1855 to 1900 and since A.D. 1945, but with a periodicity of only about 6 years during the intervening period. Changes in solar irradiance related to the sunspot cycle have been proposed to account for the former, but cannot account for the latter. To explain both by a single mechanism, we propose that extreme oceanic tides may produce changes in sea surface temperature at repeat periods, which alternate between approximately one-third and one-half of the lunar nodal cycle of 18.6 years. These alternations, recurring at nearly 90-year intervals, reflect varying slight degrees of misalignment and departures from the closest approach of the Earth with the Moon and Sun at times of extreme tide raising forces. Strong forcing, consistent with observed temperature periodicities, occurred at 9-year intervals close to perihelion (solar perigee) for several decades centered on A.D. 1881 and 1974, but at 6-year intervals for several decades centered on A.D. 1923. As a physical explanation for tidal forcing of temperature we propose that the dissipation of extreme tides increases vertical mixing of sea water, thereby causing episodic cooling near the sea surface. If this mechanism correctly explains near-decadal temperature periodicities, it may also apply to variability in temperature and climate on other times-scales, even millennial and longer.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/tide_energy_000627.html

For the original commentor sod,

The ocean surface layers are directly heated by the Sun. The mixing processes in the ocean
mix (stir) this heat into the deeper ocean and so they indirectly influence the sea surface temperatures. Thus, the the surface temperatures influence the air temperatures over the continents.

So you should have written:

What warms up the surface of the soup? – It is the amount of stirring!

“So supply the basic design parameter for a GCM please to substantiate your allegation. Easy enough to disprove me by supplying evidence of the model design.”
I’ve already given you a link to the source code for a GCM. You weren’t interested in looking at it.”

No you have not. Ever.

The idea that radioactive processes are responsible for the assumed core temperature is not based on anything but preconditioned guesses. Why do we need to assume that the earth’s core is hot?

As for electric charges reaching the earth’s surface, you will need to understand the three plasma modes -

1. Dark current mode where nothing is seen – but a good example is one of those electric air ionisers that create a mini-breeze. The solar wind is another example of electric currents operating in dark current mode. Of course the electric flow in the wires powering our electric heaters and kettles are also similar examples.

2. Glow mode – a sharp transition when the current creases in power and excites matter – Flurorescent lighting, plasma tv’s are typical examples.

3. Arc mode – another sharp transition from the glow mode – lightning is one example.

Incidentally the earth’s electric field, during quiescence, has a voltage gradient of 100 V per vertical meter.

Seems we are surrounded by electrical forces but are totally oblivious to them unless hit by a lightning bolt. Incidentally a lightning bolt is simply a dark mode electric current, (which we cannot see) being overloaded to cause the familiar lightining display.

I must also fess up that these ideas are not mine at all – I am a simple messenger. I merely deliver mail for some big gun plasma people who wish to remain anonymous and employed. So I don’t mind the flak I cop on this issue.

The only original idea I have had is to propose the mechanism of kimberlite diatreme formation – yet to be published in a peer reviewed journal since the hypothesis needs more work.

Your comments about fluctuations in the earth’s electric field prior to a lightning bolt are interesting as well. It would be interesting to see if NASA have measured the electric field of Mars – because of the fact that its atmosphere is so tenuous that the observed dust devils, reaching vertical heights of kilometers above the Martian surface cannot be explained by the fluid behavior of its atmosphere.

I also am toying around with the idea that gravity is an electrical phenomenon – and this is not my muse as well- others more competent in physics and plasma precede me, but as Galileo showed with his famous Tower of Pisa experiment, matters not whether a 1cm sphere of aluminum or 10 cm of lead are dropped, both reach the earth’s surface at the same time.

My explanation involves reducing both spheres into their atomic composition – essentially both are comprised of protons (+/- neutrons) and electrons. The difference between Al and Pb is the charge density per unit volume with Pb having a higher one.

BUT, whether you have one proton or a billion, their movement in an electrical field would be the same.

I’ll leave it here for you, and others, to think about it.

PS – I had an unnerving experience 1 year ago on a drilling operation near Whim Creek (Pilbara Coast, West Oz)) near Roebourne. About 3 pm the driller noticed that the drill rig suddenly became electrically charged to such an extent that he was getting electric shocks. Immediate procedure was to raise the drill string so that the last rod could be unscrewed, (the rest left down hole, so that the rig mast could be lowered into travel mode, ie horizontal. The we go back to camp and drink hot weather stimulants rather than rum, a good cold weather stimulant. :-)

:-)