Well ,bugger, that should be "they don't 'hide' behind a pseudonym".

I say, qanda you seem find yourself perpetually "astonished" on this thread : )

I'm even more astonished that a "trained scientist" doesn't understand that heat going into the deep ocean has to start going in somewhere, sometime, to some extent - and will have an effect.

Now we know this, have shown this, have measured this (to the relief of Trenberth & others).

Perhaps Mr Kelley wants to see the collapse of the THC before he will acknowledge the reality of the anthropocene.

Nighty-night.

OK, "Girls will be Girls",

You have had your fun,snickered like girls in the playground but you still (as usual) have avoided and not answered my question.

Once again you argue on the assumption that after deducting all the "knowns", what you are left with must be the anthropogenic contribution!

Let's toss around a few other ideas?

Is it possible that the increase in the Partial Heat Content (possibly less than 1% of the OHC) is caused by ocean currents redistributing the heat, perhaps from below?

Given the number of volcanoes that erupt from the ocean bed, might not heat enter the system from another source? For instance, wouldn't it be curious if the glacier on the Antarctic Western Shelf was actually caused by a volcano under the ice?

An awful lot of your science is predicated on assumptions that suit your argument.

And, in the end, what can you suggest we do to reverse this AGW component?

Geoffrey Kelley

Ok Geoffrey, lets act like we're in a climate science workshop and 'toss around' a few ideas that noone seems to have thought of before.

Deep ocean heat content? Looked at.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/gcj_3w.pdf
ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Ocean%20warming%20DEEP%20Kouketsu%202011.pdf

Heat tends to get 'redistributed' from regions of higher temperature to to those of lower temperature, do they not?

As for the 'hidden volcano' theory, which volcano do you reckon is doing the job in Antarctica?http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/region.cfm?rnum=19&rpage=list

Is it the one that the new world government has been hiding from us to prove their global warming theories?

How many volcanoes do you reckon it would take to heat the ocean to the degree of heating observed? If the heat is coming from below, what should the change in ocean temperature below 2000m be? Would it be larger or smaller that the levels above?

If massive amounts of warm water is rising from the ocean depths, then that shouldbe observable from ocean current data, should it not? Come on Geoffrey, lets see some real data that suggests alternative theories. I know how you love real data.

"And, in the end, what can you suggest we do to reverse this AGW component?"

One suggestion has already been made: reduce human emissions of major greenhouse gases.

I believe what you are asking is how this should be achieved?

That is a question of policy. I have found that serious discussions on the most effective means of reducing emissions is nearly impossible if one side of the discussion refuses to believe that it is required in the first place and is all a conspiracy for enacting a one world government.

Spot on, Bugsy,

ON the road to policy formulation, there is a huge hump in the shape of "funded" climate change denial.

This is achieved by funnelling money into right-wing think tanks to disseminate junk science and to sow the seeds of doubt in the general population. Geoffrey's effort here precisely displays the sort of mindset desired amongst the general population by those who craft and shape the denialist machine. (There was a study done which showed that the more savvy and intelligent the "skeptic", the more they were spurred to argue in favour of the junk [see "cohenite"] - will see if I can dig that study up)

How is society supposed to get to policy without first getting around the roadblock?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=who-funds-contrariness-on