Lynn said:
This is what I meant when I accused Roger of "cherry picking". In just about any field of research I have delved in to, there is always conflicting evidence. There is never a concensus (sic), and always room for alternative explanations.

Welcome to the whacky world of climate science. Nearly all alternative explanations have been discounted and kept out of the literature. However, we have had recent successes with my alternative explanation which has gained some traction and has been taken up by an eminent physicist. The gatekeepers at one prestigious journal rejected the papers but they have now been published in the excellent and impactful Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, so things are looking up.

Here's the cite and link to the abstract.

Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation
throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter–Saturn tidal frequencies plus the
11-year solar dynamo cycle
Nicola Scafetta,
ACRIM (Active Cavity Radiometer Solar Irradiance Monitor Lab) & Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81–82 (2012) 27–40
Received 29 October 2011. Revised 17 February 2012. Accepted 22 February 2012. Available online 8 March 2012
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000648

This paper is based on the work done by a small team of researchers (including me) over the last three years culminating in this key posting on my website:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/jackpot-jupiter-and-saturn-solar-cycle-link-confirmed/

And here's another paper by the same author which provides a viable physical mechanism to underpin the theoretical model.

Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation.
Nicola Scafetta, 2012.
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81–82, 27–40.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612001034

Links to the full papers can be found on my website for those who genuinely do want to weigh up alternatives to AGW, rather than just pay lip service to them.
If anyone doubts that the Author of the papers has been working in contact with us they can refer to this climate discussion paper which provides a link to my website in the bibliography in section 12.

Climate Change and Its Causes: A Discussion About Some Key Issues
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/climate_change_cause.pdf

It's a document well worth studying if you are not familiar with the background to the way the IPCC went about marginalising the Sun as a major climate factor. It covers a lot of ground and has a lot of interesting charts, diagrams and graphs. It's a 13MB download.

"Overall, the decline of Arctic sea ice has happened faster than projected by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change five years ago, according to NSIDC data ( http://nsidc.org/news/images/20070430Figure1.png ).

To Scambos, these are clear signs of climate change spurred by human activities, notably the emission of heat-trapping greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide.

"Everything about this points in the same direction: we've made the Earth warmer," he said."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0821/Arctic-ice-to-reach-record-lows-say-scientists

"Is it possible that the lilies are struggling because of a mismatch in their timing with their pollinators? And does that, in turn, point to trouble as the climate changes?"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018958638_rainier21m.html

"It's not easy trying to overcome the programming of someone as thoroughly committed to the cult of global warming as Dan is, but I'll keep trying."

soooo bent on helping out with a vast wealth of knowledge, yet doesn't even acknowledge someone drawing a distinction time & time again. Rog employs calculated logistics or ego fueled bias, either way, it would make Goebbels blush

"Are you suggesting that Rog debate with actual climate science experts instead of ultralightweight backpacking enthusiasts? Hmmmmmm."

^this LOL - but I would miss sharing his posts with drunk environmentalists, d*mn hippies need a shot in the arm

"Welcome to the whacky world of climate science. Nearly all alternative explanations have been discounted and kept out of the literature."

Whacky indeed. It is very unusual in this day and age where a paper gets published that does not acknowledge those that had significant input into the publication with authorship. As to a publication bias, we will have to take your word for it. In my field, a lack of publication is mainly due to a lack of appropriate experiments, controls, or whacky interpretation of the data. Though most of the shunned scientists will blame it on 'grudge' tactics, when you read the peer comments, the peers mostly have some very good points.

However, I will take you at your word that, even though you are not an author on that paper, you had significant input into it. I will take you at your word that there is a grudge happening which keeps your ideas out of the literature. I will even take the paper you cited at it's word that there is a solar maximum that is contributing heat to our planet. However, I will not take you at your word that this is the only thing driving global warming. I guess all we can do now is sit and wait for 3-15 years and see what happens with global temps, in the mean time hoping you are right. Seems that's what we are doing anyway, as the major governments are doing nothing to curbs global emissions of potentially damaging greenhouse gases. Again, whether you turn out to be right or wrong, I see and urgency to take action now to reduce our reliance on the use of polluting carbon sources which are going to run out anyway. I see an urgency to take the incentive of ever increasing oil exploration out of the environmental equation. I see an urgency to reduce our desire for eating livestock that contribute to deforestation, are polluting, and a heavy burden on fresh water, not to mention emission of large amounts of methane. Either that, or we need a mechanism to dramatically reduce global population to allow those of us that remain to carry on with business-as-usual.

Rog, you showed a chart of sea surface ice anomilies and you mentioned ocean surface temps. I was speaking of the entire depth of the ocean circling Antarctica. I think things down there in Antarctica can be counter-intuitive. With such a cold atmospheric environment, it is no wonder that the ocean surface can be colder in a place where the water fairly continually circles the continent and is exposed to the immediate atmosphere, but down below there are more significant currents that do connect to others from warmer areas. I have read where the ozone depletion contributes to cooling the surface also - a localized phenom. There is much more going on than the surface. Most of the warming and heat is in the deeper ocean. We all know warmer water can freeze faster than a colder water as well which can create a sea surface ice anomoly - possibly more sea surface ice even though things in general are warming. I noticed too that you deleted your "go Figure" comment after I brought notice to it in regard to you admitting that the Antarctic penninsula is in fact warming.

Also, I would like for you to explain why you even brought up the volcanic gas pressure theme in the context of climate change if as you say you were speaking of geologic time only.

Rog, you did not mean to ignor the King Crab invasion of Antarctica did you? I posted a link before. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110419191022.htm

http://news.discovery.com/animals/king-crabs-antarctic-waters-110208.html

Edited by wildlife on 08/21/2012 19:48:22 MDT.

Hi Dan: This study of ocean-air heat flux is relevant to the question of southern ocean heat content - just published. One year's data isn't anything we can draw long term conclusions from, but it's all we have to go on.

First air-sea flux mooring measurements in the Southern Ocean

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L16606, 8 PP., Aug 20 2012
doi:10.1029/2012GL052290 E. W. Schulz, S. A. Josey, and R. Verein

"The Southern Ocean is a key component of the global climate system: insulating the Antarctic polar region from the subtropics, transferring climate signals throughout the world’s oceans and forming the southern component of the global overturning circulation. However, the air-sea fluxes that drive these processes are severely under-observed due to the harsh and remote location. This paucity of reference observations has resulted in large uncertainties in ship-based, numerical weather prediction, satellite and derived flux products. Here, we report observations from the Southern Ocean Flux Station (SOFS); the first successful air-sea flux mooring deployment in this ocean. The mooring was deployed at 47°S, 142°E for March 2010 to March 2011 and returned measurements of near surface meteorological variables and radiative components of the heat exchange. These observations enable the first accurate quantification of the annual cycle of net air-sea heat exchange and wind stress from a Southern Ocean location. They reveal a high degree of variability in the net heat flux with extreme turbulent heat loss events, reaching −470 Wm−2 in the daily mean, associated with cold air flowing from higher southern latitudes. The observed annual mean net air-sea heat flux is a small net ocean heat loss of −10 Wm−2, with seasonal extrema of 139 Wm−2 in January and −79 Wm−2 in July. The novel observations made with the SOFS mooring provide a key point of reference for addressing the high level of uncertainty that currently exists in Southern Ocean air-sea flux datasets."

Just to put "a small net ocean heat loss of −10 Wm−2" into context, it's around 6 times bigger than the claimed co2 forcing, and of the opposite sign.

Edit to add: You are the post-edit king and my "go figure" comment is still in my unedited post (second from bottom p139). I am by now heartily tired of your false accusations and inability to read what I wrote so please raise your game and debate like an adult.

Edited by tallbloke on 08/22/2012 01:03:05 MDT.

Lynn says:
I will even take the paper you cited at it's word that there is a solar maximum that is contributing heat to our planet. However, I will not take you at your word that this is the only thing driving global warming. I guess all we can do now is sit and wait for 3-15 years and see what happens with global temps

There was a solar maximum from ~1930 to ~2003. Now the Sun has gone into a funk, as it does every time the centre of mass of the solar system is coincident with the solar surface for more than a few years.

We are now likely to have a run of low solar cycles, with activity levels starting to recover from around 2035. Excess heat from the Sun stored in the oceans during the grand maximum is now coming back out of the oceans and has been keeping the surface air temperature up. Judging by the way the ocean behaved last time the solar activity fell sharply near the end of the C19th, we might have another couple of years to go before the annual average temperatures fall sharply. We've had a few harsh winters already.

So since global surface temperatures aren't rising and haven't been for a decade or so (according to the more reliable metrics), sitting back and waiting to find out how well or badly AGW theory fares against reality seems like the sensible option considering it's not looking good right now.

.

If solar activity remains low as I expect it will, and surface temperatures do fall or 0-700m ocean heat content diminishes markedly, it will be proof enough that the IPCC got it wrong regarding the relative strength of co2 and solar forcing. If I turn out to be wrong I'll admit it and start getting ready to hand Dean his $1000 in 2020. :-)

Lynn says:
whether you turn out to be right or wrong, I see and urgency to take action now to reduce our reliance on the use of polluting carbon sources which are going to run out anyway. I see an urgency to take the incentive of ever increasing oil exploration out of the environmental equation. I see an urgency to reduce our desire for eating livestock that contribute to deforestation, are polluting, and a heavy burden on fresh water, not to mention emission of large amounts of methane. Either that, or we need a mechanism to dramatically reduce global population to allow those of us that remain to carry on with business-as-usual.

Well if I turn out to be right we can stop worrying about co2 and methane, but I agree we need to husband resources and environment more carefully anyway while we develop truly viable alternative means of energy generation. However, livestock are necessary to provide natural fertilisation of the land (unless you want to use more petrochemical fertiliser). I chose not to have kids myself so I don't need to get into a barney with you about population control. ;-)

Edited by tallbloke on 08/22/2012 07:46:08 MDT.

Rog, NOAA is predicting a peak in the current Maximum solar cycle we are in at 2013 yet you say we are in somekind of minimum still from several years ago. Why is there so much disparity in what you say and those guys? From what I have learned, the last decade was the hottest on record even though we were in a solar minimum for much of it - Co2 being the factor that made things hotter than they otherwise would have been. Now since we actually are in a maximum, things have been warming as one might expect. It is easy for people like you to take the relatively flat rate of increase during the last decade to say there was no heating, yet it stayed hot despite a solar minimum. You like to say there was no increase in heating so that you can ignor that it was the hottest decade on record so far. Based on what has been happening with the new record ice melt in the Arctic this year - after a number of near record years and a previous record in 2007 (2007 was the first year the King Crab invasion was noticed in Antarctica), I'm going to believe NOAA and not you. None of what you say jives with what is going on - there are probably many here at BPL wondering why that is;

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/arctic-ice-melting-to-a-record-low-scientists-warn-8070049.html


Here is more on the King Crab invasion that has been studied since 2007 in Antarctica;

http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contentHandler.cfm?id=2305

From the website;

" Since the 1950s, the average winter temperature in the region has spiked by 6 degrees centigrade, reducing the duration of sea ice in the area by three months. Over roughly the same time period, the average ocean temperature has ticked up about 1 degree centigrade.

It might not seem like much of an increase, but scientists believe the freezing cold temperatures of the peninsula’s continental shelf waters have served as a barrier to the cold-blooded crabs. Deeper seawater is slightly warmer because of its saline characteristics."

Edited by wildlife on 08/22/2012 14:16:30 MDT.

Richard Aronson, the main protagonist in Dan's article got a grant of over $400,000 to study the crabs, but it seems that since the expensive expedition to the Ross Sea's slope in 2010, nothing much has come of it. In March 2011 we find him mentioning King Crabs in this publication:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05926.x/full
But rather than any quantification of his findings from the voyage, we get the standard AGW caveat that:
"Lithodid lineages that radiated through the deep sea over geologic time are preadapted to cold-water conditions in Antarctica. Lecithotrophy enables them to decouple larval development from the strong seasonality of primary production in the Southern Ocean. The adults are also able to subsist at cold temperatures in a torpid, hypometabolic state. These features are prerequisites for thriving in Antarctic waters and may allow Southern Ocean species to invade shelf habitats over the next 50–100 years as [If] waters warm.19"

But he could have told us this without going to Antarctica and spending $400,000+ at all.

Since March 2011, Richard Aronson has published two papers - about coral reefs.

Maybe he prefers working in Belize. I know I would.

Edit to add: Regarding the temperature spike of 6C in winter temps, I doubt Dan is aware of just how little energy would be required to cause that at average Antarctic temperatures. A decadal change in wind direction could easily account for it. Since 90% of Antarctica has been cooling or stable over the last 35 years as the diagram I posted on p140 shows, I doubt it's anything to do with co2.

You ready to apologize for accusing me of editing my post to remove something you complained about yet Dan? Or are you a coward as well as a fool?

Edited by tallbloke on 08/22/2012 14:34:39 MDT.

"Well if I turn out to be right we can stop worrying about co2 and methane, but I agree we need to husband resources and environment more carefully anyway while we develop truly viable alternative means of energy generation. However, livestock are necessary to provide natural fertilisation of the land (unless you want to use more petrochemical fertiliser). I chose not to have kids myself so I don't need to get into a barney with you about population control. ;-)"

Roger, I suspect we agree on many more things than disagree, and a need for alternative energy sources and a stop to mindless breeding are clearly two of them.

As for "livestock are necessary to provide natural fertilisation of the land", here I totally disagree. When you consider how much of that land has be "reclaimed" from forests, and how much more destructive those livestock are to the land than the forests that were there, or even the same land given over to growing grains, fruits and veggies, not to mention the huge amount of fresh water needed to raise livestock, I don't see this as a healthy or sustainable foodsource-with existing populations-. The soils will naturally fertilise themselves, given an opportunity, through plants that can fix nitrogen and use less water, and reduction of soil erosion. Now I admit, some livestock practices are better than others, such as mixed forestry models where a lot of edible legumes are planted, along with other trees and shrubs that help protect the land from erosion, but this is not the mainstream practice. So methane aside, large-scale production of livestock just doesn't make ecological sense to me.

Hi Lynn,

I certainly agree that if we 'westerners' all ate less meat, then we could all eat better quality meat, the animals could lead better quality lives, and land could be better used.

However in poor Afrcan countries for example, stock animals are an essential part of agriculture and act as an insurance policy for the farmer and population against failed crops.

I see Dan has edited his post to add some FUD about the solar situation. Briefly; the peak of the current solar cycle is set to be the lowest in a century, temperatures have been maintained following the long C20th grand maximum in solar activty as excess heat absorbed by the ocean re-emerges, and this release of energy will peter out in another few years, causing surface temperatures to fall rapidly if my prediction is correct.

Time will tell

Anyway Rog, by your own admission, the Antarctic Penninsula is warming. Care to mention the record melt happening in the Arctic - all of this happening during what you claim to be a solar minimum?

This warming is from ever increasing amounts of heat in the oceans - enough to even start heating Antarctica. There is increased oil exploration going on now in the Arctic by numerous countries. I doubt they are spending their millions with the idea in mind that the warming is just temporary as Rog suggests. I doubt Rex Tillerson at Exxon/Mobil thinks it is temporary. Those guys know what is going on. Rog, if what you say is true, you should notify them immediately and start your oil consulting career.

Oh, the irony of it all!

Edited by wildlife on 08/22/2012 17:32:56 MDT.

"temperatures have been maintained following the long C20th grand maximum in solar activty as excess heat absorbed by the ocean re-emerges,"

OK, that may or may not be so. But if it's true, then wouldn't we expect to have seen an increase in global ocean temperatures, even (maybe especially) the southern oceans? The truth is, no one knows whether or not the southern oceans are warming. It is only recently that we've had the means to monitor the deeper southern ocean, through tagged seals, so as yet we have nothing historically to compare it to. Has the southern ocean warmed (though you say it hasn't) and is now giving back that heat, or is some other ocean responsible?

Lynn,
What we've seen since the last high solar cycle (23) and the onset of the long minimum and current low cycle (24) currently nearing it's maximum, is that sea surface temperatures have fallen along with overall global ocean heat content. But the energy released has maintained near surface and lower tropospheric air temperatures at warm levels so far.

ARGO measurements of southern ocean heat content are problematic because many of the floats are iced over half the year. I hadn't heard of the seals thing, that sounds interesting if you have a linky.

Satellite measurements of the southern ocean surface temperature show a gradual fall since 1988. The study I quoted for Dan above showed a year on year loss of 10W/m^2. The alarmists have an unconvincing argument that 'the missing heat' (from non-existent co2 warming) has somehow been hidden in the depths to deep for us to measure, but this is highly unlikely for several reasons.

For one thing, the exchange of energy at those depths is very slow.
For another, the thermal energy would have to make it's way down through 750m of cooling upper ocean. Thermodynamics doesn't work like that.

So in summary, the heat built up in the ocean over the solar-active C20th is coming out and keeping the air warm since the sun went quiet in 2003. This is fooling people into thinking we still have warming as usual. The party is nearly over because analysis of solar activity and surface temperature shows that the solar effect shows up in the climate system around one cycle (~11 years) later. That means we should expect to see temps falling by around the end of next year.

I'll add the caveat that the C20th grand maximum in solar activity was a prolonged event, so it could be that there is enough extra energy absorbed in the ocean to keep the surface air relatively warm for longer than 11 years. Nonetheless, I would still expect the upper ocean to cool as it gives up heat to the atmosphere and the winters to get harder and longer.

Bad news for Canadian and Russian wheat growers. We need to plan for food production in a cooler climate regime now, if not sooner.

Edit to add for reference, sunspot numbers since 1900

.

Edited by tallbloke on 08/22/2012 18:00:27 MDT.

First Rog makes a fool of Kevin Trenberth and laughs at him when he says the 'missing' heat from CO2 warming is in the oceans and now Rog is saying the ocean heat is re-emerging. This is hilarious.

Rog, if things have not cooled apprecialbly since 2003, the cooling is not suddenly going to accelerate enough that you will be convincing Midwest and Russian farmers they need to suddenly plan for a new ice age.

This is fun - keep it up. :>)

Edited by wildlife on 08/22/2012 18:09:32 MDT.

As I explained to you before Dan, sunlight penetrates 100m or more into the ocean and warms it. Downwelling Longwave Radiation from co2 can't penetrate the ocean surface much beyond its own wavelength.

The ocean surface is warmer than the air above it on average. Transfer of energy is heading upwards.

That's the reality of the physics.

The heat in that 100 meters of ocean has not all stayed at the surface just because that's the limit of short wave penetration. It gets pulled down and warms deeper levels, especially during the time scales you are talking about. Just like the Gulf Stream - it goes north, lets off some of it's heat but not all and then descends to deeper ocean levels and continues it's journey south. Gosh, it even crosses the equator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Deep_Water

Edited by wildlife on 08/22/2012 18:49:40 MDT.

OK, I'm certainly not a physicist, so my confusion is increasing with the length of this thread :(

Is/has the southern ocean warmed in recent decades, or not? And given the now accepted vortexes discovered in the southern ocean, how is it that the CO2 and be sucked to greater depths, but not the warmth from the upper layes?

I also think there is growing evidence that changes, be they at the surface initially, are definitely having an impact on deeper Antarctic waters. For instance:

May 21, 2012

reduction in the amount of Antarctic Bottom Water found off the coast of Antarctica. Comparing detailed measurements taken during the Australian Antarctic program's 2012 Southern Ocean marine science voyage to historical data dating back to 1970, scientists estimate there has been as much as a 60 per cent reduction in the volume of Antarctic Bottom Water, the cold dense water that drives global ocean currents.

In an intensive and arduous 25-day observing program, temperature and salinity samples were collected at 77 sites between Antarctica and Fremantle. Such ship transects provide the only means to detect changes in the deep ocean.

The new measurements, which have not yet been published, suggest the densest waters in the world ocean are gradually disappearing and being replaced by less dense waters.

"The amount of dense Antarctic Bottom Water has contracted each time we've measured it since the 1970s," said Dr Steve Rintoul, of CSIRO and the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC. "There is now only about 40 per cent as much dense water present as observed in 1970."

The ocean profiles also show that the dense water formed around Antarctica has become less saline since 1970.

"It's a clear signal to us that the oceans are responding rapidly to variations in climate in polar regions. The sinking of dense water around Antarctica is part of a global pattern of ocean currents that has a strong influence on climate, so evidence that these waters are changing is important," Dr Rintoul said.

The research was carried out by more than 50 scientists on the Australian Antarctic Division's research and resupply vessel Aurora Australis, which sailed to Commonwealth Bay, west along the Antarctic coast, and returned into Fremantle.

The Australian Antarctic Division's Chief Scientist, Dr Nick Gales, said the findings of the oceanographic study are profoundly important.

"Not only will this research improve our understanding of ocean currents, but will also feed into our knowledge of how the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic continent drives the world's climate processes," Dr Gales said.

Dr Rintoul was Chief Scientist on the recent voyage and has made a dozen voyages to the Southern Ocean. "When we speak of global warming, we really mean ocean warming: more than 90 per cent of the extra heat energy stored by the earth over the last 50 years has gone into warming up the ocean.

The Southern Ocean is particularly important because it stores more heat and carbon dioxide released by human activities than any other region, and so helps to slow the rate of climate change" Dr Rintoul said. "A key goal of our work is to determine if the Southern Ocean will continue to play this role in the future."

While the final analysis is yet to be completed by his team, Rintoul believes increased melt of floating glacial ice is likely to be the largest contributor to these salinity changes.

“Changes in snowfall or sea ice seem to be too small or have the wrong distribution to explain the changes we have measured in the deep ocean.

“The composition of the water also provides a clue: water that comes from melting glacial ice has a particular isotope signature, allowing us to track input of melt water. The isotopic measurements back up the story that there’s been an increase in the amount of melting of floating glacial ice around the edge of Antarctica,” he says.

Hi Lynn,

As you can see from the quick check I made on Dan's king crab non-story, the reality behind science by press release is often underwhelming. The churnalists who uncritically republish what the University press offices send them get lazier and lazier, while the spinmeisters get cleverer and cleverer at telling us less and less while making the the portents more and more ominous.

As you pointed out earlier, we know very little about the southern ocean. The number of detailed studies done in taking transects is small, and almost non-existent prior to the satellite age (1980).

"The new measurements, which have not yet been published"

I'll wait until they are before I make a full assessment. In the meantime, here are a couple of observations on the article:

"When we speak of global warming, we really mean ocean warming: more than 90 per cent of the extra heat energy stored by the earth over the last 50 years has gone into warming up the ocean."

So far so good, as long as we understand this is solar derived heat caused by the ISCCP measured drop in cloud cover, never mentioned by co2 theorists, which allowed more sunlight to penetrate the top 100m and get mixed down by internal tides etc. Cloud cover change is AGW's cherry un-picked graph.

"The Southern Ocean is particularly important because it stores more heat and carbon dioxide released by human activities than any other region, and so helps to slow the rate of climate change"

Weasel words. Yes, the southern ocean is a sink for co2, some small percentage of which will be from human emissions. But, heat released by human activities mostly goes straight up into the atmosphere and out to space. I very much doubt the southern ocean "stores more heat" than any other region. This is unscientific parlance anyway. Thermal energy raises the temperature of cold water more than the same amount of energy raises the temperature of warmer water, but this doesn't mean more 'heat' is being 'stored'. 'Heat' is energy in transition from one form of 'stored' energy to another. Energy in transit. The southern ocean looks big on a Mercator projection map of the world, but in reality covers a much smaller area than the Pacific.

""It's a clear signal to us that the oceans are responding rapidly to variations in climate in polar regions. The sinking of dense water around Antarctica is part of a global pattern of ocean currents that has a strong influence on climate, so evidence that these waters are changing is important," Dr Rintoul said."

We only have any measurements for the second (warming) half of the last ~60 year oceanic cycle. This cycle causes bigger changes in currents, heat content, salinity etc than any change in co2 is capable of, as evidenced by the fact that global ocean heat content in the top 2000m has been stable or slightly declining for the last 9 years while the airborne co2 fraction continues to rise. We won't know for another 30 years what the changing currents look like over the full cycle, or how different they'll look to when we first started measuring this stuff at the end of the '70's. Even then, because of the much changed solar outlook, we won't have any definitive set of data going forward.