Good one Kano, Energy is being put into the oceans by the moon, or the tidal barrage generators would not work. All the energy they do not use must show up as heat somewhere. A bit like water getting warm when it goes over a waterfall. This will only be evident in coastal areas though.This could be the last hope for the warmers, a chance to grasp the last scientific straw to confirm their beliefs.

Then again – maybe it’s not the moon.

The paper you linked to is unrelated to recent the recent warming, episode it’s referencing timescales of millennia and climate change of an altogether smaller magnitude.

Tidal energy accounts for only 3 terrawatts of Earth’s overall energy budget of 174 petawatts, it’s about 0.00172%. Only over hundreds and thousand of years could this cause an appreciable warming or cooling. Assuming no energy was lost and that 0.00172% was additional to all other incoming energy and that it accumulated over 1,000 years, then you’re talking of a temperature increase of 0.55°C. At best it can’t account for any more than 2% of the warming that’s occurred in recent decades.

Besides, the 3 terrawatts of energy is not an additional or enhanced forcing, it’s been there all the time that the planet has been warming. Even if it had increased by as much as 10%, you’re still got to account for the other 99.8% of warming.

Furthermore, the moon only accounts for part of the tidal energy, the Sun is a significant contributor as are the other planets in the solar system, particularly Jupiter.

the moon is definitely not the cause of the current cooling period. However, the abstract does state that on time scale of 1000s of years tidal forcing can be the cause of some climate changes. This deals with heat redistribution rather than the energy balance of the planet I believe. While we still have quite a lot to learn about various tidal forces and so on, I don't think that the future forcings and ocean cycles have much to do with recorded measurements of ocean heat. I really have no idea how you could even come to a conclusion like that considering they are two completely separate entities.

Edit: Once again you show your ignorance. CO2 is not just 'heat redistribution'. Additional CO2 retains more energy in the atmosphere that arrives from outside sources causing it to be warmer than if the CO2 was not present. Once again you show your lack of ability to learn.

The paper was written in 2000. It is an interesting hypothesis that Keeling and Whorf proposed, but they also made a lot of assumptions as well. Keeling died in June of 2005 and Whorf in September of 2005, but do you know of any follow up work done on this? What they suggested is that if their hypothesis is true then greenhouse gases would not be needed to account for any abrupt global warming. What they do not do, or try to do, is to eliminate greenhouse gases as a source for global warming. You still cannot avoid the physics concerning greenhouse gases. No matter what else will induce a warmer climate, greenhouse gases are not eliminated from their ability to do so as well.

Would you like to see the lines of evidence concerning the current phase of global warming?