My comments (Andy S) seem to have induced some more mouth-foaming spasms amongst The Faithful (actually I am trying to provide some positive ideas rather than just trolling)

Feel free to join in.
It’s all a part of the coordinated “denialist strategy” that Frau Baxter claims on Hot Topic.

‘Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean’

Guest commentary by Peter Minnett (RSMAS) 5 September 2006

Deflates his case somewhat with a magnificent example of foot shooting in the second to last paragraph “Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2), but the objective of this exercise was to demonstrate a relationship” [and the cloudiness "relationship"?]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/

And Rob Painting’s mechanism, adapted from the RC post, takes the nuttiness to a whole new level:-

‘How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean’

by Rob Painting 18 October 2011

Steadfastly confuses heat and radiation, conflates the normal cool-skin effect with a bogus GHG skin effect and also does some foot shooting “Despite being only 0.1 to 1mm thick on average, this skin layer is the major player in the long-term warming of the oceans” [GHG LWIR interacts effectively at 0.01mm]

http://skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html

renewable guy completes the nuttiness:-

“With an ever increasing co2 being emitted into the air, this surface layer insulation helps to force heat into the lower oceans” [a thermal insulator does not "force heat", especially one only 0.01mm thick on a turbulent ocean surface]

http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/9799-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect#comment-33328

Skirmishes:-

Humidity/CO2 residency http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/9799-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect#comment-33221

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” – Hansen’s mechanism (undefined) for a GHG effect being the “dominant role” in OHC build-up as he states in H11 and a mechanism (unscientific) as espoused by Peter Minnett (RSMAS) at RealClimate and Rob Painting at SkepticalScience http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/9799-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect#comment-33095

A GHG figure minus water vapour that SkS gives prominence to http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/9799-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect#comment-33095

“Since then [1970s], the world’s surface on average has warmed, and the UK is no exception, with the Central England Temperature record, for example, showing a rise of at least 0.5C in the interim”

CET has since plummeted 2C back to 1659 level since mid 2000s:-

http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/HadCET_an.html

But I’m sure the hedgehogs are onto it.

Public request for climate hedgehog study

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16597723

Dappledwater January 19, 2012 at 9:02 pm

Bill -“I’m constantly amazed by how often I’m told we’re ‘losing the debate’. Not in f’ing science we’re not!”

I’m sure those living in La-la land truly believe it Bill. Sad isn’t it? And yet everyday I read dozens of new peer-reviewed papers which reveal global warming is here, it’s bad, and only likely to get much,much worse.

1) Are there really “dozens of new peer-reviewed papers which reveal global warming is here” published “everyday”?

2) Is Rob Painting actually able to read “dozens of new peer-reviewed papers” “everyday”?

3) If he is able, a) he either has a lot of time on his hands and/or b) he has an exceptional capacity (Waaay more time and waaaay more capacity than most folks I’m sure).

4) Is global warming really “bad” right now?

5) By “much,much worse”, does he mean the lack of global warming this century (“here” now)?

6) Is that the correct use of “which” (“which reveal”)? Shouldn’t it be “that reveal”?

http://climateaudit.org/2012/01/12/stockers-earmarks/

http://climateaudit.org/2012/01/19/neukom-and-the-steig-overunder/

“Unless you are a climate scientist, you would probably not describe the paleoclimate reconstruction as cohering particularly well with the various models, but that’s a story for another day.

In the running text of the draft AR5, Neukom et al is cited on several occasions, including as authority for the observation that SH summer temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period (you know, the one that is supposedly regionally restricted to Greenland and a few counties in England) were “mostly warmer than the 20th century climatology”:”