Yes, that is nonsense.
Heat from the Earth (internal and absorbed from the sun) flows into (and through) the atmosphere and out into space. Massive amounts of energy are removed from the oceans every second by evaporation, and released by condensation in the atmosphere. Cheryl Katz seems to have a weak grasp of physics. Its not a good idea to read that nonsense and conclude the idea of fossil CO2 changing climate is incorrect. Anyway, she concludes with a prediction which makes little sense, so for me this goes into the predictive model (ie. valueless) category, and is probably more political than realistic.

Hi Salta it comes from this kind of nonsense.

Yale Environmental studies:
How Long Can Oceans Continue To Absorb Earth’s Excess Heat?
The main reason soaring greenhouse gas emissions have not caused air temperatures to rise more rapidly is that oceans have soaked up much of the heat. But new evidence suggests the oceans’ heat-buffering ability may be weakening.
BY CHERYL KATZ • MARCH 30, 2015
For decades, the earth’s oceans have soaked up more than nine-tenths of the atmosphere’s excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions. By stowing that extra energy in their depths, oceans have spared the planet from feeling the full effects of humanity’s carbon overindulgence.
But as those gases build in the air, an energy overload is rising below the waves. A raft of recent research finds that the ocean has been heating faster and deeper than scientists had previously thought. And there are new signs that the oceans might be starting to release some of that pent-up thermal energy, which could contribute to significant global temperature increases in the coming years.

The ocean is not heated by the atmosphere at all. Where does that crazy idea come from? The ocean is heated directly by the Sun, and also slightly from the gradually cooling Earth.

Ignore predictions. ALL predictions are a waste of time and usually a political tool, to make people demand govmt "does something about it". Look at the past records only. (BTW you pasted this lengthy post again on this thread, please don't do that)

Salta, It's called heat exchange. Heat moves from warmer to cooler. The heat from the atmosphere is responsible for the warming of the ocean surface temperatures. However, as Dobrien points out, it takes massive amounts of heat from the atmosphere to cause that warming. Many peer reviewed studies have documented that warming.

The deeper oceans then are constantly receiving that heat as it travels from the warmer ocean surface down to the cooler deep. This continuous massive transfer of heat may be why the predictions of rapidly rising average earth temperature have failed. Nice bit of info, Dobrien.

The earth will warm at least another 2 degrees before the glacial cooling cycle takes over.

No intelligent person denies climate change. Yet so called scientists ignore and deny the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event... the 100,000 year glacial cycle. How can they call themselves scientists when they ignore over 1 million years of science?

I realize they are unable to do it, but global warming scientists need to put at least SOME effort into deciphering the math that would comprehend the reactions of the 100,000 year glacial cycle that seems to be mitigating the introduction of man caused greenhouse gasses.

Science needs to stop ignoring this the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event in their computer models. Science predicts the effect of the greenhouse gasses on the average earth temperature while ignoring, necessarily, how the complex 100,000 year glacial cycle will react.

There is obviously something that is causing the climate change predictions to fail. Based primarily upon the reaction to CO2 doubling recently from 200ppm to 400ppm, if the average earth temperature were controlled by the greenhouse gas increases, all their predictions would have come true. IT DID NOT HAPPEN!

Instead the average earth temperature remains several degrees COOLER than the highs of the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles, following the pattern of climate change of every glacial cycle as shown by the peer reviewed data from the Dome Fugi ice core samples, in the graph on the U.S. Government's NOAA web site. (Link below).

About 5 million years ago, scientists agree that the glacial cycle over powered the orbital cycle (which was mathematically predictable) as the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event. They also are in agreement that they do not have the ability to quantify the causes of that change, let alone be able to mathematically, scientifically predict its reaction to the man caused introduction of green house gasses.

So why do they wonder why their predictions miss the mark? But as the Dome Fugi highs of the past 400,000 years suggest, and the UN IPCC FINALLY agrees by their statement recently: that it has been proven that the average earth temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees... The average earth temperature continues to follow the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles.

Even at the extremely rapid parabolic rate of increase in temperature over the past 100 years or so, which falls in line with the peer reviewed Dome Fugi analysis (replicated by the Vladivostok ice core analysis)... it will take several hundred years to exceed the past highs. Additionally scientists have pointed out the pattern of extremes of colder lows and warmer highs exhibited in the 400,000 year analysis. Thus it is highly likely that the UN prediction that the temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees is finally a prediction I can believe in.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-clim...

Boy are my plants LOVING the added CO2!!! They are amazing this year!!!

No intelligent person denies climate change. Yet so called scientists ignore and deny the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event... the 100,000 year glacial cycle. How can they call themselves scientists when they ignore over 1 million years of science?

I realize they are unable to do it, but global warming scientists need to put at least SOME effort into deciphering the math that would comprehend the reactions of the 100,000 year glacial cycle that seems to be mitigating the introduction of man caused greenhouse gasses.

Science needs to stop ignoring this the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event in their computer models. Science predicts the effect of the greenhouse gasses on the average earth temperature while ignoring, necessarily, how the complex 100,000 year glacial cycle will react.

There is obviously something that is causing the climate change predictions to fail. Based primarily upon the reaction to CO2 doubling recently from 200ppm to 400ppm, if the average earth temperature were controlled by the greenhouse gas increases, all their predictions would have come true. IT DID NOT HAPPEN!

Instead the average earth temperature remains several degrees COOLER than the highs of the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles, following the pattern of climate change of every glacial cycle as shown by the peer reviewed data from the Dome Fugi ice core samples, in the graph on the U.S. Government's NOAA web site. (Link below).

About 5 million years ago, scientists agree that the glacial cycle over powered the orbital cycle (which was mathematically predictable) as the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event. They also are in agreement that they do not have the ability to quantify the causes of that change, let alone be able to mathematically, scientifically predict its reaction to the man caused introduction of green house gasses.

So why do they wonder why their predictions miss the mark? But as the Dome Fugi highs of the past 400,000 years suggest, and the UN IPCC FINALLY agrees by their statement recently: that it has been proven that the average earth temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees... The average earth temperature continues to follow the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles.

Even at the extremely rapid parabolic rate of increase in temperature over the past 100 years or so, which falls in line with the peer reviewed Dome Fugi analysis (replicated by the Vladivostok ice core analysis)... it will take several hundred years to exceed the past highs. Additionally scientists have pointed out the pattern of extremes of colder lows and warmer highs exhibited in the 400,000 year analysis. Thus it is highly likely that the UN prediction that the temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees is finally a prediction I can believe in.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-clim...

I do not see that. Over the past 400,000 years CO2 levels never reached 400ppm. According to the Dome Fugi ice core analysis and confirmed by the Vladivostok ice core analysis which can be seen illustrated in the chart on the US Government NOAA web site.

No intelligent person denies climate change. Yet so called scientists ignore and deny the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event... the 100,000 year glacial cycle. How can they call themselves scientists when they ignore over 1 million years of science?

I realize they are unable to do it, but global warming scientists need to put at least SOME effort into deciphering the math that would comprehend the reactions of the 100,000 year glacial cycle that seems to be mitigating the introduction of man caused greenhouse gasses.

Science needs to stop ignoring this the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event in their computer models. Science predicts the effect of the greenhouse gasses on the average earth temperature while ignoring, necessarily, how the complex 100,000 year glacial cycle will react.

There is obviously something that is causing the climate change predictions to fail. Based primarily upon the reaction to CO2 doubling recently from 200ppm to 400ppm, if the average earth temperature were controlled by the greenhouse gas increases, all their predictions would have come true. IT DID NOT HAPPEN!

Instead the average earth temperature remains several degrees COOLER than the highs of the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles, following the pattern of climate change of every glacial cycle as shown by the peer reviewed data from the Dome Fugi ice core samples, in the graph on the U.S. Government's NOAA web site. (Link below).

About 5 million years ago, scientists agree that the glacial cycle over powered the orbital cycle (which was mathematically predictable) as the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event. They also are in agreement that they do not have the ability to quantify the causes of that change, let alone be able to mathematically, scientifically predict its reaction to the man caused introduction of green house gasses.

So why do they wonder why their predictions miss the mark? But as the Dome Fugi highs of the past 400,000 years suggest, and the UN IPCC FINALLY agrees by their statement recently: that it has been proven that the average earth temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees... The average earth temperature continues to follow the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles.

Even at the extremely rapid parabolic rate of increase in temperature over the past 100 years or so, which falls in line with the peer reviewed Dome Fugi analysis (replicated by the Vladivostok ice core analysis)... it will take several hundred years to exceed the past highs. Additionally scientists have pointed out the pattern of extremes of colder lows and warmer highs exhibited in the 400,000 year analysis. Thus it is highly likely that the UN prediction that the temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees is finally a prediction I can believe in.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-clim...

Heat escapes to space all the time.

The CDIAC paper as presented here by AJAshinoff, thanks AJ, is substantially only two paragraphs.
The end of the second para says-

* . . at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in
phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature,
whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations. *


In my simpler words and with my interpretation in brackets:

* When there was warming, either
-CO2 increased along with temperature increases, (maybe the cause of both
increases was the same)
or
was a thousand years behind temperature changes (temperature maybe was the
cause of CO2 change, not CO2 change led to temperature change)

When there was cooling CO2 lagged, (first cooling, then CO2 dropped,
again maybe temperature increase was the driver of CO2 increase) *


This is evidence that CO2 is not a global temperature driver but rather if anything it is the other way round.
Any disagreement with my simple words, or with the CDIAC paper,
need not tell me to get out and fight socialism.

AJAshinoff says- " this deflates man made global warming entirely."
Agreed.

All I know is they have successfully diverted most real free market supporters into fighting "environmentalism" or "alarmism", sometimes even "science", INSTEAD OF fighting the real evil which is collectivism.

Just took a quick look and the link is an anonymous document, so unlikely to be valid. Choose something attributed to an actual author, ideally with at some credentials.
When you find that, ignore all natural flows of carbon (other sources), because they are not influence by humans, they are only put in docs like that to confuse you. The only data you need is the CO2 tonnage added to the atmosphere per year (peak to peak on the Hawaii chart) and the CO2 output from fossil fuels per year. You will find, I repeat again, the accumulation is about 30% - 40% of fossil output. In other words we are lucky it is being absorbed somewhere (for now) otherwise it would be increasing at almost 3 times the rate. That makes you earlier "3% contribution" out by a factor of about 100.
Think things through instead of just beieving headlines. Don't just believe me either, find the actual data for more than one source and check it.

Yes, it is "widely reported". And all that tells you is many people have the emotional response to latch onto that data alone, because it gives them the feel-good factor. It is a much easier response than to attack socialist policies for what they really are.

Environmentalism as religion comes not from reds, communism or socialism but
from blackshirt nazis and their forerunners:
http://ecofascism.com/review11.html
Rand observed that Objectivism opposes both sides.
Red, international, and black, national, politics unite in shutting down free
speech as well as individual liberty and property rights. Climate change
alarmism gives them a tool, an excuse. No basis in fact is an advantage for reds
and blacks as fabrication and emotion have freer reign. Quotations from the
political class given in this thread show how climate alarmism is being used.

Source- top of the list when I did a search was:
http://www.ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/...
(Mainstream climate alarmism). The figure comes from the last page,
note the amusing use of the word 'balance'.
(units are 10^9 tonne of CO2)
fossil fuel burning 23,
Other sources 776.
23 / (776+23) = 2.9%

The big fallacy is the word balance, that all flows are constant except that human caused. Actually the higher the inflow the higher the uptake by growing vegetation as well as calcification -the natural conversion of CO2 to calcite (limestone).

The 800 year lag is quite widely reported in the literature.
You are of course correct, the lag could be a hundred or a few thousand years. The evidence for exactly 800 is weak. A firm conclusion however, is that AlGore's proposition, that CO2 causes (leads) global temperature, is wrong.

Quoting a phrase out of context does not help your point. The rest of my sentence about the lag pointed out that the error margin in all those reports is much larger than the reported lag. So the lag might not have existed.
If you "feel" that your knowledge is better than the science papers from where you get that knowledge, you should probably think it through a bit more.

So it looks like we agree then, on the problems with the socialist policies. Your choice though, is to argue there is "no problem" instead of directly fighting the socialism.

The annual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has been between 30% and 40% of the total CO2 which fossil fuels generate. The rest is absorbed in some natural systems. In other words we "contribute" about 3 TIMES the nett atmosphere increase.
If somebody told you humans only contribute 3% of that increase, then you awere clearly being misled. Check the numbers yourself, then never trust that source again. Don't just believe propaganda, Lucky.

salta says-
'In all reports of CO2 lagging temperature, .. '
CO2 lags as it is comes out of solution as water warms. (Henry's Law).
The earth and its oceans warmed in the medieval warm period, then cooled in the
little ice age.
These changes are linked to changes in solar activity, evidenced by sun spots, -
radiation that influences Earth's cloud formation. Changes in atmospheric CO2
follow. Thus CO2 does not control temperature, it is the other way round.

These points also elaborate salta's next post.

There is no climate problem.
The big problem is from the mush heads, the moral posturing sanctimonious
twerps who claim to want to save the earth with other people's money.
Climate change and associated green claptrap are tools of the political
class and socialists who find these emotional scares useful to expand the power
of the state.

Salta says-

"the close correlation" between temperature and atmospheric CO2."
The correlation is weak. It does suggest that temperature lags CO2 concentration
in the atmosphere. "at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase
either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the
Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the
onset of the glaciations." Evidence from several other studies show a lag of
about 800 years.

"In other words, there no reason to think that the CO2 would be increasing if
not for human fossil fuel activity. I don't see any doubt."
No reason! But human activity contributes only about 3% of the increase,
the rest is from natural sources primarity from the oceans, see Henry's Law.

Movements in sea levels have been observed, the rate of increase over the past
half century is about 1.6mm pa, but this figure varies on where and how
measurements are taken. Geological, plate tectonics, movements are the best
explanation. Climate 'scientists' regard geology as the enemy.

"The surface is not being heated by the atmosphere at all, but by the sun."
Correct.
The scare relies on the supposed back radiation by which the
surface is warmed by heat from this CO2 layer - there is no such effect.

Thanks for the Svensmark info.
http://principia-scientific.org/svens...
This is possibly of interest to you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTJCY...