Eclipse, none of those links that you provide has any bearing on the issue. The oceans heat the atmosphere, and not vice-versa. That oceans have got hotter says nothing about the relationship, and that is the most that any of these links says.

You don't seem to have even a basic grasp of climate science. And no idea about physics. You can't disguise that by more or less randomly reproducing quotes from websites that just happen to mention the terms in dispute. Here is a diagram with an energy budget http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif. You will see that most of the energy is absorbed by the sea and the earth. Most of the increase in atmospheric temperature comes from the reradiation of that energy back into space. A small proportion comes directly from the sun.

If the atmosphere was hotter than the surface you would get no transfer of heat outwards, it would go inwards!

Should you have problems understanding this I have a perpetual motion machine you might like to buy.

The problem with this debate is that so many flat earthers like you have climbed on board and run around the Internet abusing people who are trying to make sense of it calling them "denialists" because the climate change narrative fits their prejudices.

Eclipse, a number of points.

1. Radiative forcing due to human activity is currently about 1.6 Watts/m2 of Earth’s surface. You know the significance, others either don’t want to know or latch on to a ‘new’ paper that would dispute it (as we have seen) even though the ‘new’ paper has not had the chance to withstand the rigors of the scientific review process. Some of these 'new' papers are only published in the 'blogosphere'.

2. The best ballpark figure of climate sensitivity (and there is robust research being done, despite claims and counter-claims by all and sundry that “the science is settled” or “AGW is a hoax”) is 0.8 degrees C warming for each W/m2 forcing. This would lead to an expected current 1.3 degrees C warming since the 19th century. However, “we” have not attained this level of warming because climate sensitivity refers to the warming after equilibrium with the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere has been established (another point implicit in your ‘defence’, more commonly known as ‘warming still in the pipeline’).

3. Based on models and observed ocean heat uptake data, we are only seeing 50-70% of the warming (at the current rate of GHG emissions) because of the inertia of the oceans. Put simply, if we plug the numbers into the equations, we get 0.7 to 0.9 degrees C anthropogenic (isotope studies) warming since the 19th century. Guess what, observed global warming since the 19th century falls within that range.

4. Mark Lawson rabbets on about the ‘climate models’ knowing full well that there are many climate models (not all using the same parameters) to derive some ‘temperature’ somewhere. Guess what, they all show similar trends to the observed and recorded data. This is covered well in the AR4. I think it very disingenuous that the author infer that ‘climate scientists’ don’t have a clue of what they’re doing or contradict each other’s findings when he himself can’t understand or report correctly (even if tangentially) what the scientists are saying.

Cont’d

Cont’d

5. Having said that, it is important (for all sorts of reasons) why we would like to ‘predict’ weather patterns a few years out, particularly if we can do it region by region. Unfortunately, at these time scales, noise masks the signal. It is not surprising that the ‘deny-n-delay brigade’ will use these bumps and wiggles to foist their ‘science’ on an already confused and afraid society.

________

<<none of those links that you provide has any bearing on the issue>> pot, meet kettle.

The “issue” got lost way back. It seems the ‘current’ issue is rubbing EN in doggy-doo.

In my opinion, GrahamY and Eclipse are 2 sides of the same coin – neither have the expertise in any of the ‘climate sciences’ but both purport to know enough about the “issue” to slam-dunk each other.

Graham, you again accuse others of the very things you engage in yourself – to others, this could appear a tad hypocritical, particularly on matters of your hobby horse.

<<The oceans heat the atmosphere, and not vice-versa>>

Graham, you still don’t have a grasp of coupled land/ocean/atmosphere systems. Please stop pretending that you do. I might be able to have a meaningful discussion with you when you have demonstrated an understanding that it works both ways (remember the Hadley and Walker Circulation cells?)

Should you have problems understanding this (land/ocean/atmosphere coupled system) I have a perpetual motion machine ... yada yada yada.

<<The problem with this debate is that so many flat earthers like you have climbed on board and run around the Internet abusing people who are trying to make sense of it calling them "denialists" because the climate change narrative fits their prejudices.>> Bravo Graham, another example of the aforesaid.

I know you are not a “denialist” Graham and I understand you are trying to make sense out of very complex science ... but, just because you don’t understand it as well as you think you do doesn’t make it less robust

Eclipse,

Well done on showing you do have some understanding of the concepts of "before' and "after".

Sigh, as I understand it, Latif was talking about th epossibility of short term variability (up to even two decades) within longer term trends, while conceding his models have little predictive strength beyond the short term (2015). (There's a lot that could be investigated in that alone).

This is a problem for you as it quite allows for any recent plateauing that you simultaneously blindly deny while expressing no interest in little wiggles (?), you state that a short term wiggle in 2010 and 2011 will makes "denialists" look like idiots (?), and ask me whether I will I admit I'm wrong (about what?) "around" 2015-2020. Dog's breakfast anyone?

And if Latif is an example of a rigorous climate scientist incorporating the latest data, great. Without this data, weren't those curious about plateauing thus quite justified in the absence of it? Why the denial, unless it's not about science but agenda driven dogma?

Q&A,

"It seems the ‘current’ issue is rubbing EN in doggy-doo."

Do you think it could perhaps be a coupled system? Or maybe we're just rubbing his nose in his own doggy-doo.

Witmus,
I'm done wasting time on you.
Latif nailed your kind.

Hi Q&A,
I appreciate your posts and gladly agree that I'm no expert. The only reason I post is when I see something that is so patently absurd that I've seen debunked by the real experts, or that is just so obviously not true from life experience.

For instance, if I'm to understand Graham's fixation with the oceans, he's trying to argue that the 2nd law of thermodynamics means the oceans CAN'T EVER be warmed by the atmosphere. This is an example of where I just have to call "rubbish".

"The average maximum (daytime) temperature at Observatory Hill was 26.4°C, or 0.4°C above the historic average1of 26.0°C, making it the 7th consecutive January with above average maximum temperatures. "

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/nsw/archive/200701.sydney.shtml

and then...

"Unusually cool water temperatures were experienced off Sydney's beaches during January.  Water temperatures recorded by Manly Hydraulics Laboratory's waverider buoy (MHL, data funded by Department of Natural Resources), located 12km NE of Sydney Heads, have been well below normal for this time of year, hovering around 17 - 21°C for most of the month, compared to the usual 22°C for January.  The water temperature fell to 17.3°C on 8 January, the lowest recorded in January since MHL records commenced in 1992."

Ooops. Gosh, so the whole month of January the ATMOSPHERE was warmer than the OCEANS by about 5 to 9 degrees? What was that 2nd law of thermodynamics again, and why does it prevent the atmosphere ever warming the oceans? ;-)

Graham, just turn off your Denialist computer and go for a walk along the beach tonight. It will cool down your overheated head, and you might even meet a 350 protester to help you out with a few facts.

No doubt sea, land and air interactions are incredibly complicated with a variety of temperature differentials in different locations to model. I just wanted to point out Graham's basic contention seems completely implausible to anyone who has ever body-surfed.