I am very suspicious of such results particularly when there seems to be no effort, or research into the variability of atmospheric CO2. Why rock the boat when we have the results we want? We are told there is almost perfect mixing of atmospheric gases. I wonder?

Why not have a few dozen atmospheric CO2 measuring stations around the world to check on things? (Also being done by Russians, Chinese, Indians and Brazilians etc , to avoid any possible skullduggery, like the hockey stick graph)

How does atmospheric CO2 vary radially from a coal-fired power station? What is the CO2 content of the atmosphere in the offices of the IPCC in New York?

Such research projects abound and deserve a little of the umpteen billions of dollars spent on Climate Research.

A 1998 paper by Idso (link found in the above webpage) is well worth a look. Idso describes “Eight natural experiments” which debunk the likelihood of doubling CO2 having sufficient radiative forcing to warm the planet by more than 0.5 deg C. The planet provides the evidence and the modellers havent calibrated their efforts against the actuality.

Leaving for now the endlessly disputable graphs of historical temperature, consider the fundamental physics. How can anyone believe the fairy tale that 1.6W/m2 (a tiny torch bulb) will warm 10,000 kg of air (ie 1 atm pressure) by several degrees even over a century or more, when that air is circulating and re-radiating at night? And since 1 atm air pressure is equiv to only 10m ocean depth, and oceans cover 70% of the planets surface, a tiny tiny amount of ocean absorbtion to greater depths would see any increased atmospheric heat load (assuming exchange) disappear from measurement capability. We dont even need the cloud uncertainties to see that the temp increase estimates based on CO2 radiative forcing are hugely overestimated. Idso demonstrated the evidence is already right in our face.

“If the oceans are being heated from the top down, what effect do convection mechanisms have?”

I wouldn’t think it was only from the top down. The gulf stream, for example, subject to evaporation, begins to get saltier and heavier and then it down-wells in the sea of labrador . It forms part of the great ocean conveyor. Going from a fast-moving current of maybe 20 Amazons it must become a truly huge subterranean mass that must move like toothpaste. Because it takes 1600 years to go through one cycle.

The upper oceans must be able to gain and lose a great deal of energy very quickly. Since they do so on a yearly basis in line with the earth getting closer to and then further from the sun. The rate at which this typically happens would seem to be a magnificent clue to follow up, and see how it all works. But 50 billion dollars of funding hasn’t seemed to elicit much in the way of the sort of analysis your questions are pointing to. In fact its only in the last few weeks that the leftists have started getting interested in imbedded oceanic energy. I’m not joking. The interest is as recent as that. Two and three years ago I was unable to get people to take this sort of thing seriously.

Total mass of ocean water on the planet = 1.384 × 10^21 kg
Total surface area of oceans = 361 × 10^6 km^2
Mean depth of world oceans = 3794 m

A couple of questions from a non-scientist:

At what depths are temperatures being monitored?

At what rate do the oceans lose heat when not facing the sun?

If the oceans are being heated from the top down, what effect do convection mechanisms have?

What is the effect of ocean currents, at any depth, on heat transfer within the total mass of ocean water?

Just wondering?

have at it, as your field is getting a bit crowded and you might want to rant and rail on some fresh ideas.

We have 18 foot spike, we got two inch or three inch flywire, the rumor is the NENSOs will be the biggest we caught, so the rumor goes.

They say she wallows and does the runner and we surf her wake.

Any tips, the crew is full but tips we take when we hunt the mighty ENSO.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html

and for sea level;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/30/roger-pielke-senior-on-real-climate-claims-bubkes/

1. Splendid show in Melbourne.
2. Climate sensitivity projections? The graph shows 4 projections with a lonely label “observed” in a disconnected state.

Prediction of future states of anything, is firmly in the realm of astrology and tarot card readings. Economists cannot get it right, Weather Bureaus only get it right 50/50, and so we wonder what the hubbub is about.

Economically the Austrian School economists have it right, weather wise, no one has it right, but what are we to do with the mob who think they have it right. It get’s personal when they want to relieve our wallets of our cash without our approval, and this is what it is all about.

AGW was, is and will be a possible pseudoscientific basis for subjecting us to an ecologically determined social system. It’s driven by the Fabians, despite their specious denials, and all for the common good, so we are told.

It took a world war, a totally unnecessary one according to Pat Buchanans recent book, to detail the origens of the motives of our political adversaries.

But they now control government, and we will look at what happens.