Eclipse, you just can't help yourself. I didn't ever say that the sea was at all times and all places warmer than the atmosphere. I said that on average it is. So the ocean warms the atmosphere, not vice versa, but there are local variations. You're making a straw case, and then you're making it worse by cherry-picking.

So you grab the average maximum temperature rather than the average temperature, and compare it to an abnormally low water temperature, and then you extrapolate to the whole globe. Take the average temperature of both over the entire period and see how far apart they are.

I assume you've heard of the Gulf Stream and how it keeps the UK much warmer than it would otherwise be. That's a much better example of how oceans and atmosphere work.

I wouldn't go relying on Q&A as he has no expertise in this area. He just pretends to have. You can tell that he doesn't because he never tackles the issue being argued.

On which point I notice no-one has tackled the graphical NASA energy budget. I presume that is because you'd rather try and confuse the issue with irrelevant examples rather than deal with the issues logically. The graph clearly shows that most of the energy hits the earth (74% of what isn't reflected)and then goes back into space via a variety of means mostly via the atmosphere. For these transference mechanisms to work you need the ocean to be hotter than its atmosphere.

The idea that there is heat from CO2 hiding in the oceans and it will come out and restart global warming is ascientific nonsense.

GrahamY,
"applied it to the whole globe"
No, that's EXACTLY what I'm criticising YOU for doing! YOU want to just assert (without linking to any source documents) that the average ocean temperature is ALWAYS higher than the troposphere.

I provided one clear link as to where it was not, so you spit the dummy and start more personal attacks.

MY MAIN POINT is that I'm at least admitting there are points where the air is warmer than the water, while you won’t. YOU want to over-simplify and generalise this, not me.

I only tried to demonstrate that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is NOT *always* a barrier to extra RFE heat moving into the oceans.

Sure seasonal variations would change the equation. Sometimes Sydney’s air is hotter than the water, and in winter it seems the water is warmer than the air. There’s latitudinal variations, with the Gulf Stream warming Europe in winter. This stuff looks incredibly complex, and I'm not going to even pretend that I sit up at night reading papers that model it.

But I will say that from my brief googling around of climate studies measuring the RFE energy imbalance also warming the ocean warming presents a theory consistent with the real world data, of those oceans warming. (Even if they do not reveal *when and where* the extra heat in the air moves into the oceans in a manner us laymen can understand).

As for global averages? If you really want to play that game then how about this?

Troposphere...
"troposphere, average atmospheric temperature .... value at the surface, about 290K (63°F; 17°C)"
http://tinyurl.com/39ewr7

Ocean
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center reported Thursday that the average global ocean temperature reached 62.6 degrees in July – replacing the previous high temperature record set in 1998.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1740691/july_global_ocean_temperatures_reach_record_high/index.html
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/aug/21/average-ocean-temperatures-highest-ever/

Ooops, the HOTTEST ocean record ever is 0.4 degrees cooler than the troposphere.

And while we are on it, how about you coming up with a nice neat counter-theory as to why the oceans are warming so consistently with the RFE? That would be great.

Eclipse, you can't repeal the laws of nature by citing studies that you either incorrectly characterise, or which are probably wrong themselves. No number of peer-reviewed studies can make the sun rise in the west, or have gravity vary at anything other than the rate of r squared. If you get a study that purports to do one of those things, discard it.

As you have trouble dealing with physical laws this link http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html might make life easier for you. They are some notes from a lecture on the subject of "Ocean-Atmosphere" coupling. In particular note the sentence: "On average the ocean is about 1 or 2 degrees warmer than the atmosphere so on average ocean heat is transferred from ocean to atmosphere by conduction." As someone who you might think of as a "real" scientist has said it perhaps you will accept it as true.

There is no way that heat can be transferred from something colder to something warmer. As heat is transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere, the atmosphere must on average be colder. If someone tells you otherwise they don't know what they are talking about.

Graham, access to OLO’s server was indeed problematic. The downtime gave me time to reflect on points you have challenged me on. At the outset; I am not an oceanographer, atmospheric physicist, biogeochemist, climatologist, paleoclimatologist etc ... I defer to those experts on various issues as they impact on my field of expertise (hydrological cycle). My research interest is in land/ocean/atmosphere coupled systems.

I am glad you looked it up. The topic you linked to for Eclispe is quite good (albeit somewhat dated).

________

Re: Wed, 30th Sept.

1. Graham, there will be more extreme ‘weather events’ with global warming. Yes, a decreased temperature differential would lead to slower air movement (all else being equal), but the inference you make is wrong.

2. The number of high temperature records has been increasingly outstripping the number of low temperature records, by a margin of between 2 and 3 to 1 over the last 10 years.

For maximum temperatures, the change in the frequency of records almost exactly matches what would be expected given the background warming trend. You can test this by seeing what would happen to the 'records' if you stripped out a trend of 0.15 C/decade. You will find that in the de-trended data there would be no trend in the records.

Interestingly, for minimum temperatures the rate of change of record-breaking is less than the mean temperature trend would suggest - it's consistent with a trend of about 0.08 C/decade rather than the 0.15 that we actually see.

_______

Re: Sat 3rd October

1. GHG emissions will not cause catastrophic climate change, yet. What we are concerned about is “squealing”;

http://www.sciencecodex.com/dead_ahead_similar_early_warning_signals_of_change_in_climate

It would be prudent to tread very carefully, don’t you think?

2. <<This tautology can be summarised as "I'm not arguing from authority because my authority is good authority, and my authority for saying that is the authority of my authority.>>

That is your opinion, Graham. I agree with the statement of the chief economist of World Vision, you obviously don’t.

Cont’d

Cont’d

3. I am reminded that you prefer the ‘non-partisan’ Jenifer’s, Joanna’s and Anthony Watts’ blog sites, I am not surprised.

4. It’s not about the science anymore Graham, it’s about politics, economics and sociology – most people have moved on to ‘debate’ adaptation and mitigation.

5. What makes you think I dispute the MWP?

_______

Re: Sat 17th October

Graham, you said “the ocean drives atmospheric temperature, not the other way around” – I cringed.

You followed this on 18th October with “It doesn't get it from the atmosphere. It gets it from the sun. It heats the atmosphere, not vice-versa.” – I cringed even more.

You repeated it again on the 24th (with more slurs and implicit flames yourself) so I rejoined the fray with my comment:

<< 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?)>>

Have another read of that syllabus Graham.

Btw (and this has nothing to do with the ‘issue’), a couple of years ago scientists on the Mir space station were able to demonstrate that heat can go from cold to hot ... amazing.

_______

Eclipse

<< 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". >>

You have to remember we are dealing with a complex non-linear (Earth) system. Of course the atmosphere can heat the oceans AND vice-versa. I suggest you read the full syllabus Graham linked to, go through the topics, and then make your case. Here it is again (and it does talk about climate change).

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/syllabus.html

Thanks GrahamY and Q&A, I enjoyed the summary article although it was more geared to explaining the *normal* processes of heat dispersal through the atmospheric and ocean cycle, and how and where that heat bounces off the earth.

The article did not account for climate change.

It DID mention 'averages' that spelt out the average normal transactions in a steady state earth, but as we know from empirical data, the ocean is warming.

Why is that Graham?

It catalogued the main way the ocean receives heat (the sun's rays) and the 3 main ways it disperses that heat. So far so good.

But when discussing "Net back radiation" it made some very interesting points about greenhouse gases, and so I can only infer that artificially increasing those gases only increases the following mechanism of warming.

"Much of the radiation from the atmospheric gases, also in the infrared range, is transmitted back to the ocean, reducing the net long wave radiation heat loss of the ocean. The warmer the ocean the warmer and more humid is the air, increasing its greenhouse abilities. Thus it is very difficult for the ocean to transmit heat by long wave radiation into the atmosphere; the greenhouse gases just kick it back, notably water vapor whose concentration is proportional to the air temperature. Net back radiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter."

The oceans are not so much being heated by greenhouse gases, but inhibited in their cooling. Is that how you read it Q&A?

Lastly, if you actually read the article you quote, although difficult good old *Conduction* of air heat to oceans is still possible where seasons and locations allow. Remember Sydney's MAXIMUM air being 5 to 9 degrees hotter than the oceans MAXIMUM temperature in January? (Interesting how 5-9 degrees warmer doesn't matter when it's maximums ;-) Heat transfer is difficult, but possible.

So why ARE the oceans warming Graham? ;-)