[QUOTE=eadler;649378]Averages are important and give an idea of what the magnitudes are of the forces you are dealing with. The earth's surface radiates on average 390W/M2 of radiation upward into the atmosphere.
Of this amount 324 is radiated back to the surface by the atmosphere. A small percentage change in the back radiation over time would make an enormous difference in the earth's surface temperatures, even with the huge heat capacity of the oceans taken into account..[/QUOTE]

Your story violates the laws of thermodynamics!!!

If the heat balance of the earth were not in some semblance of equalibrium, then the earth would perpetually warm! .. and we'd boil!!  The received heat has to leave, or it builds.  The equations for our system act sort of liky resistors.  The lower atmosphere slows the rate at which heat travels through it, thus giving us warmth, but it can't stop it completely, or there is a build up over time.

The equation you site is a snapshot equation .... it can't work over time!

At some point in time, the heat MUST leave .... or just like a pot of water, it boils!!

Getting back to the subject of the thread you started, the oceans,
here is a recent analysis of the ocean heat content measurements versus theory.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … revisions/
Measurements of the total heat content have been going up.
These measurements have had to be corrected because the measurements in the earlier part of the 20th century were not made with world climate in mind.

The newer corrections show a better agreement with sea level rise, which would result from an expansion of the oceans due to warming. They also show good agreement with climate models which take account of volcanic eruptions which reduce  the amount of the sun's radiation arriving at the earths surface.

Because there has been no trend increasing the radiation emitted by the sun over the last half century, the only way this increasing trend in total ocean heat content could have happened is a reduction of radiation the radiation of the ocean's energy into outer space.

You must accept this because you have stated that the sun's output has actually declined recently.
http://community.beliefnet.com/forums/s … hp?t=23194
"..Solar, according to Hathaway, has actually cooled since the peak of cycle 19 in the 50s. CO2 has increased. According to Realclimate ... CO2 increase cools the stratosphere .. Solar would warm it .. but as Solar has actually cooled since cycle 19 .. the solar forcing would also explain a cooling."

Since clouds on average are believed to cool the earth, if clouds are responsible for warming the oceans you would have to postulate that clouds are decreasing as the oceans get warmer, to say that clouds are responsible for the oceans warming. But the warmer ocean means more water vapor in the air, and  more of a chance of producing clouds. You have claimed that clouds are a negative feedback mechanism. Are you reversing yourself on that also?

This leaves an enhanced greenhouse effect as the agent of warming, and the CO2 content of the air has been increasing. The increased in total heat stored by the ocean cannot lie.

It is the oceans ...duh!

[QUOTE=Bodean;652201]First and foremost .. I do not take anything from Realclimate at face value.  They are agenda driven, and are more of a political organization than they are about science.

That is your belief. However the fact is that they are experts on the science and actually do the research, in contrast with JunkScience, Watts and CO2Sceptic and the like.

Second .. I do not have to accept your premise.  As I've already explained, the decreasing solar energy of the latter 20th century was still constantly above previous measurments.  As long as the energy input was above the equalibrium break point, where energy in = energy out, and considering that the ocean must move in an equalibrium equation to reach a point of equalibrium, then the ocean becomes a net absorber thoughtout that entire period.

This statement about energy input above what you call the equilibrium break point  actually causes the ocean to warm is a tautology. It adds nothing new to this discussion.
The fact is that  the total heat stored in the oceans increased in the last 50 years.

Where did the added  heat come from if as you say, the sun declined in the last 50 years?  Surely the atmosphere wasn't storing and releasing the heat on a 50 year basis. Its temperature has not declined as it should if it had sent significant amounts of stored heat to add to the oceans heat.
Besides the atmosphere has no significant heat storage capacity compared to the ocean.

At one time you were arguing that the heat added earlier is now warming the earths surface. I guess it somehow came up from the bottom of the ocean.  But the measurements are of the total heat storage in the ocean. Therefore, the heat sent into the ocean, in the 19th and early 20th centuries is not relevant since that was before the measured increase in total ocean heat during the last 50 years.

The increase in the greenhouse effect is the only answer, which as I pointed out is not storage of heat in the atmosphere, but sending heat back to the surface of the earth including the oceans.

I haven't claimed squat.  Svensmark is the one who published that work.  It's yet to be seen if he is correct.

I didn't say that you actually  claimed anything about clouds. You claim that  ocean warming  in the last 50 years isn't due  an enhanced  greenhouse effect inhibiting radiation from the oceans into space; and it isn't due to the sun which has declined in strength. It certainly wasn't warmed by the atmosphere which as little heat storage capability and so no heat to give, besides the atmosphere also got warmer.  If it  isn't those 3 things than that leaves you the explanation of  a decrease in cloudiness. Since warmer oceans mean more clouds not less, because clouds provide some negative feedback, you are left with no explanation for a warmer ocean.

Svensmark said that decreasing solar activity allows more cosmic rays into the atmosphere which creates clouds. This is would reduce not increase the flow of energy from the sun.[b] So even if he is correct, there is no way you can account for ocean warming with a declining sun, without the enhancement by the greenhouse effect.

This simply is not proven science.  Pure theory![/QUOTE]

You said this, referring to my statement that a warming ocean can only be due to an enhanced greenhouse effect, despite the fact that the measurements and our understanding of the climate leads to this conclusion.
[b]If you rule out the greenhouse effect, and the sun putting out more radiation,  it seems  impossible to explain why the oceans are warming. So you have no theory at all. If you do have one, please explain what it is.