biffvernon

But the physics tell us that's where it should go, especially in La Nina times. If you can find that heat has defied the physics and gone somewhere else then explain how, why and where.

Nope. But what do you mean by your 'it's'? What has been stable? We don't have thermometers in the deep ocean (well, not many) but the overturning currents transfer heat energy about. We know from the physics that increasing greenhouse gasses traps more heat and if it isn't where we can measure it easily, in the atmosphere or sea surface, then it will have gone below. But all the spare heat sure can't keep going down forever.

I've checked it carefully but could only find a typo in the spelling of 'fundamental'. Is there a problem with the science, Bushy?

Where's number 4? 4, Earth System Scientists and those who accept that Earth System Scientists are probably right. AGW is real, serious, and if we don't do something about it pdq we're all off to Hell in a handcart. And no, Bluecon, when you say "So let us stop quibbling about whether there has been a slight warming, cooling and say the temperature has remained steady for the last ten years." The ocean-atmosphere temperature has not remained steady for the last ten years. It's temperature has risen, largely as a result of man-made greenhouse gasses. It is not something to quibble over. It is fundemental to life as we know it. No amount of denial will make the problem go away.

No real warming where? In the limited temporal and spatial locations of that data set or in the whole ocean-atmosphere system. Remember, most of the thermal energy is deep under the waves, beyond the reach of thermometers. (Did I mention that before?)

Perhaps it's best to stick to the science rather than to ascribe motives and emotions to writers on the basis of how a piece comes across. Interesting graph but I wonder how it would look if the dashed lines had not beed added, or more importantly, if the x-axis started before 2002 and thus showed more data.

This is probably the most resent piece on the subject: http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/19/this...over/#more-2881

No, because the Earth has not cooled slightly, as you would know if you followed the science.

Thankyou, Snowbear, you are quite right. Perhaps you could explain to Bluecon why CO2 is a forcing greenhouse gas and therefore very dangeroaus, while Water Vapour is a feedback greenhouse gas and we therefore do not need to worry about it in the same way.In the meantime, Bluecon, search on RealCLimate.com and you will find excellent explanations as to the difference between forcing and feedback. They explain it so much better than I can. Here are a couple of articles to go at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...n-6-easy-steps/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...gassy-argument/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...or-water-vapor/

Just tired of explaining the difference between forcing and feedback. It's all been said before.

Looks like some folk still haven't understood the difference between forcing and feedback. It's phsics, dear boys, physics.

:lol: :lol:

Thank you, I'll take our word for it, and as Devonian said "the atmospheres are about 93,000 times different". Which is why I said "The distance does not make as much difference as one might expect."

The distance does not make as much difference as one might expect. Try (you will fail) drawing a scale diagram of the Sun, Venus and Mars at the right distances and the right diameters and note how much of the sun's rays are intercepted by the two planets and what difference their distances make.

Could be. But Occam's razor demands we take the simplest explanation first. I think we humans are very good at finding patterns, and we sometimes like to see patterns where none exist. Chaotic systems can give rise to patterns that repeat - until, unexpectedly, they stop repeating.

That's a valid point, up to a point. Ocean currents and weather systems are both features of chaotic fluid dynamic systems (and a great deal is known about such systems) and they exhibit fractal characteristics, with analogous patterns operating on a hierachy of scales. The large ocean currents can appropriately be mapped against large atmospheric currents such as the trade winds, but there are smaller scale variabilities, eddies, in the seas just as there are smaller scale eddies, from hurricanes on a scale of 1000 km to little breezes on a scale of metres and less. My point is that within such systems one can often observe periodicity, for example one depression following another, sometimes with depressing regularity. But this periodicity comes and goes - haven't we been having nice weather lately - and is not fundemental to the system. We know that because the timescales are so short, observation soon scotches any such ideas. In the oceans it takes so much longer and one can become beguiled by observations of apparent decadal periodicity.

There is just no way one can have a scientific conversation with folk who take that view :lol:

Neither would I if CO2 were harmless.

Cycle, oscillation, predictable etc., these are not words that are helpful in the study of chaotic fluid-dynamic systems, of which the ocean currents are a biggie. I mean, say you noticed four depressions crossing Britain at three day intervals. Would you declare for the bi-weekly barometric oscillation and predict another depression for Tuesday?

I wonder if some folk forget that the ocean currents are, like atmospheric currents, part of a chaotic system and our forecasting ability will always be limited. The butterfly may flap its wing while the sardine flips it tail. We may observe what occurs, and because things move more slowly in water, can forecast on a timescale of months rather than days, but talk of longer term predictions, with or without such mythical beasts as PDOs, is not going to be useful. And of course it has no bearing on global warming in the long term.

Sorry, Snowbear, you didn't get the joke. I'm all too aware of who runs Climateaudit but I'm trying really hard not to launch into vitriolic ad hominem attacks, but they really are a bunch of... no, no, behave yourself.

Perhaps you'd like to explain who or what 'climate audit' is?

It's over 40 C in my conservatory right now. Definite confirmation of global warming. We're all doomed.

William Connolley, an excellent guy, got in there first last Thursday: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/05/who_am_i.php

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1215 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Gray_(scientist)