Global Warming is a Scam

I think that this is the central point that is ignored in the climate change "debate". The denialists seem (at least to me) to be taking a position that if it can be shown that human activity is not a major contributing factor then we can ignore the consequences.As you have pointed out the changes in global climate ARE having an effect on where and how much water we have access to, where and how we can grow crops, where and how we can build our 'monkey hives', etc. This is regardless of the reason behind the climate changes. As I have said before on this issue, I think the following quote sums it up best: "Only a fool fights in a burning house"

Just a few comments to make here.... Now this is fascinating, I may have to rethink my whole opinion on climate change.... oh wait, just looked, this is bullshitFrom Page not found | Argo But what do they know, I mean they are only the people actually looking at ocean temps. I did notice that a good amount of your post is from:THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans (I assume your writing?)Now on the Robertson & Watson (1992) paper from Nature. You might have a point if research on the subject ended there. I am sure in your exhaustive research on sea surface temperatures you must have seen the paper by McGillis and Wanninkhof (2006) suggesting that local increases in CO2 solubility due to wind driven evaporative cooling (not sure why you thought that infrared radiation caused this, but okay) and decreases in CO2 solubility when there is no wind and infrared radiation is warming the skin-layer have both been overestimated and the overall effect is negligible. Takahashi et al (2009) showed that because of evaporation the micro-increase in salinity at this skin-layer cancelled out the increased solubility effect of lowered temperatures.I cannot access the 2012 Humlum paper from where I am at, but I will take a look when I return from the field. If it is anything like his Humlum et al (2011) paper I do not expect to be impressed. You remember that one, right? Where the authors suggest that the moon is an important cause of global warming?Humlum, O., J. Solheim, and K. Stordahl (2011) Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change, Global and Planetary Change, vol. 79, pp. 145-156.McGillis, W. R. and R. Wanninkhof, (2006), Aqueous CO2 gradients for air-sea flux estimates, Marine Chemistry 98 (1), 100-108.Takahashi, T., S. C. Sutherland, R. Wanninkhof, C. Sweeney, et al. (2009), Climatological mean and decadal change in surface ocean pCO2, and net sea-air CO2 flux over the global oceans, Deep Sea Research (II) 56 (8-10), 554-577.

Alright, I will do my best to leave the snark out. No promises, but I will try... According to the ARGO data from the link above, in 2003 the OHC (oceanic heat content) was 9 x 10^22 J. In 2004 it was 12 x 10^22 J. In 2005 it was 14 x 10^22 J. In 2006 it was 13 x 10^22 J (decreased!). In 2007 14 x 10^22 J, 2008 13 x 10^22 J, then back up to 14.5 x 10^22 J in 2009. I really do not understand how the ARGO data can be interpreted as an OHC decrease since 2003. Is it possible that you are referring to the Lyman et al (2006) article I see cited by several climate change skeptics? That paper did use ARGO data (in part) to show a OHC decrease. However, I have yet to see a single 'skeptic' source that includes the correction by Willis et al. (2007) IOW, the oceanic cooling trend reported was an error and one corrected by the scientists who published the original research. Okay, I do see that. This is not intended to be accusatory, but is important for this discussion: Did you read the sources you referenced (Robertson & Watson 1992, Clark 2010, Humlum 2012) or did you cull the refs from the Hockeyshtick post (and others similar)? The difference is pretty important for a number of reasons. Again, I am not asking for some kind of 'gotcha' thing, I just do not want to spend time discussing how Robertson & Watson (for example) do not support your point if all you know about that paper is a few quote mines from anti-AGW blogs and do not actually have it in hand (or at least have read it thoroughly).You made the claim that "your point still stands" (regarding research since Robertson & Watson). I find this to be a pretty unusual claim as your point didn't even stand using the original paper. Let me clarify: Are you claiming that Robertson & Watson are claiming infrared radiation actually cools the ocean? Not only do they not make this claim, the research since then has shown that any thermal skin effects are likely to be unimportant in the global oceanic carbon budget. It is exactly this kind of statement that makes me question whether or not you read the source you claim to be using or are just taking hockeyschtick's word on what it says.Finally, on the Humlum 2012 paper. I am sorry for the snark and sarcasm. My confidence level in the new paper was not bolstered by the fact that the specific claims you presented were exactly the same claims he had made in the 2011 paper. Since I haven't read the paper, and you have, please explain to me what new evidence or research Humlum is presenting that is not a rehashing of his 2011 work. I should have a copy in under a week, and would be more than happy to discuss it thenNote: The references below are included as I made reference to them in the post above. These are not intended as an unspecified refutation of your points but as support for mine. I apologize if that was unclear in my previous post.Lyman, J. M., J. K. Willis, and G. C. Johnson (2006) Recent cooling of the upper ocean. Geophysical Research Letters 33: L18604Robertson, J. E., and A. J. Watson (1992) Thermal skin effect of the surface ocean and its implications for CO2 uptake. Nature 358: 738-740Willis, J. K., J. M. Lyman, G. C. Johnson, and J. Gilson (2007) Correction to "Recent cooling of the upper ocean". Geophysical Research Letters 34: L16601