The oceans have always been the trillion trillion pound gorilla in the room. It has 200 times the carbon that humans have emitted and stores so much heat that human influence isn't even in the margin of error yet all we get from alarmists is it is all about the physics and the argument is over while the gorilla just stares at them like they are idiots. The ocean is so big in fact that some clever alarmists have figured out that it can be their savior and be blamed for hiding all their missing evidence. The ocean ate my heat. The ocean moderates temperatures. CO2 is supposed to as well. It isn't particularly alarming.

hard to say what you said 3 years ago, but from a science point of view it's hardly news to say the ocean is and remains an unknown, scientists happily admit that

However nothing in Rosenthal statement suggests this is an end to warming, this sadly is the problem with denial if scientists make statements like this denier try to twist it into sad theories that dispute AGW.

Of course as a heat sink the worlds oceans hold onto heat more readily than the atmosphere if it is warming and also increasing it's CO2 level.

So you may wan't to hold off on the "NEENER NEENER NEENER." as the thermal efficiency of water means a much smaller rise in temperature can have as much of an effect.

I try hard not to insult anybody (but sometimes deniers make that difficult) but I fail to see what you think you have in this long rambling set of retorts, that the oceans where a bit of a question make is neither new information or a secret it has been referenced in many papers as scientists continue to research this going back more than the 3 years ago when you claim to asked a question about it.

Which you say you can't find a link for, odd given you have only asked 161 question it can't be that hard to find the one you claim in your own past questions list.

As Jeff stated "IPCC reports have stated specifically that it is unknown." so as I said this is hardly unknown, so I fail to see what your actual point is, other than a long rant about people insulting, while you throw insults at them.

You forget one thing. The oceans are a large part of this planet and therefore a part of the global system. What happens when the heat energy being stored in the oceans now is again returned to the surface? Anyone that did not know that the oceans are the biggest heat sink simply has not been paying attention in their science classes. What was unknown is how quickly they could absorb the extra heat energy directed back by the greenhouse gases and begin transporting this extra heat energy down to the deeper layers of the oceans. As with proverbial bad penny and Arnold, it will be back.

Added***

That is just it, Raisin Cane. As you have just stated it takes more energy to warm the water than it does to warm the air. So, where did all of this extra heat energy come from to warm the waters so much? If you look at the TSI for the past few decades you will see that the TSI has been low. So, where did all of this extra heat energy come from? ... I can give you hint, but you seem to know the physics involved with this already. Do you want to point out as to where this extra heat energy came from? Remember the conservation of energy before attempting a hasty reply. The oceans do not create nor destroy heat.

>>Aside from showing that I was entirely right 3 years ago, when I said that one reason the models were wrong, was because they failed to fully account for the ocean's ability to serve as a heat sink. <<



Even 3 years ago you were more than a decade behind everyone else. And dismissing the models as "wrong" reflects an ignorance of what models are and their role in the scientific process.

>>woulld this not mean that not only will the oceans continue to serve as a heat sink, but the increased temperature differential will make the oceans more of a heat sink and serve as a negative feedback for all future warming? <<

No, because the the heat cycles through storage and release. The 1997/98 ENSO event provides a new benchmark for rapid release. You are partially right that once we have gone through another cycle of deep ocean recharge and release, the information should contribute to future models.

Gloat all you want - you're riding on the short bus and no one cares.

It's funny but before Al Gore came along when we were doing extensive studies in environmental science it was commonly known that, forget about the oceans being a heatsink, the ocean currents determine the earths' temperature variations almost solely, with the exception of volcanic activity. If the ocean's currents shift in the North/South direction one way, you get things like a global warmup in one hemisphere or the other. If they shift the other way, then you get a freeze situation. It had nothing to do with man's influence either way. What's interesting is that this affect can take place over a short period of time, like a couple of years. For example, it sure is cold outside right now, and breaking records that eclipse our data from the time we have kept data. It is impossible to explain that using CO2 "science." It is easy to explain using earth's natural effects.

Do you find it odd that you are claiming that 3 years ago you claimed this while other completely ignored you while in 2001 the IPCC report stated that the oceans were a large heat sink.

"Because of its large heat capacity, ocean heat storage largely controls the time-scales of variability to changes in the ocean-atmosphere system, including the time-scales of adjustment to anthropogenic radiative forcing."

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/i...

AR4 goes into this further

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...

AR5 goes into it even further.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/...

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/...

I do agree that the oceans and their currents remain one of the question marks when it comes to air temperature measurements as they have not been exactly figured out. This is, of course, why the IPCC reports have stated specifically that it is unknown.

I'm also curious why you left out the very next sentence in your "0.09" statement. "If this heat were instantly transported to the lower 10km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36C". That is a whole lot of heat.

http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/PUBLICATIO... on page 5 of 5, paragraph 21.

Edit: I do not recall when you made the claim. Perhaps you can provide a link. I referenced the statement about the "0.09" because denialists often take this out of context. I'll try and look at it myself.

After a search I have found numerous times when you have called people 'alarmunists'. Perhaps that is why you were being ignored. I did find the following: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind... where you are arguing against 'runaway warming' when it wasn't even mentioned. Me, and others, have always stated that different areas of the system will warm at different rates while others will cool. We have acknowledged the PDO and I myself have even stated that some of the warming was due to the positive PDO. Me, and others, have also stated that natural ocean cycles, which serve to redistribute heat, may slow the surface warming. You are arguing against those who make claims about runaway warming. That is not me and it never has been.

You think you are the only one who knew that the oceans are a carbon sink?

The problem is that CO2 causes the ph of oceans to become more acidic. As the oceans become more acidic, this limits the ability of the oceans to continue absorbing carbon

In terms of the effect on AGW, it is the combination of both surface temps and ocean temps. If it weren't for the oceans sequestering a great deal of carbon, AGW would be much worse already.

The oceans affect the atmosphere, not the other way around.

I don't get it. What's you're question?

Note the statement of a global warming alarmist:

“We may have underestimated the efficiency of the oceans as a storehouse for heat and energy,” said Rosenthal in a statement. “It may buy us some time―how much time, I really don’t know. But it’s not going to stop climate change.”

http://science.time.com/2013/11/01/oceans-warming-faster-than-they-have-over-past-10000-years/

Aside from showing that I was entirely right 3 years ago, when I said that one reason the models were wrong, was because they failed to fully account for the ocean's ability to serve as a heat sink.

Of course I said this under the name "I expel CO2" and the reaction from the warmers is that I was a complete idiot, moron, illiterate, grade school dropout, who thinks he knows more than scientists.

Now warmers, I am not expecting an apology. I am not expecting you to admit that you were wrong. I am not even expecting you to act more respectfully in the future. I know that is asking entirely too much of you.

What I would like to look at is the future effect of the oceans. Please note that according to YOUR OWN NOAA, the temps of the oceans have only increased by 0.09 degrees for the top 2000 m and 0.18 degrees for the top 700 m over the last 50 some years.

At the same time, your claim is that the atmospheric temps have increase by more than 0.5 degrees.

Given that the oceans warm more slowly and the statement by Rosenthal, woulld this not mean that not only will the oceans continue to serve as a heat sink, but the increased temperature differential will make the oceans more of a heat sink and serve as a negative feedback for all future warming?

And altough I would like to pretend I am above gloating, NEENER NEENER NEENER.