I have a question about CO2

[mhaze]

Point is that none of us 'warmers' have claimed that it's an important process, so you're poking holes in climate science that don't exist, which is about as strawman as you get. David Rodale just tried to construct such an argument and (seemingly inadvertently) dropped a major physics blooper in the process. And you still don't seem to be able to grasp the major error in what he said, which is what I'm having fun having a prod at. That and some of the rubbish you've come out with trying to dig yourself out.



Hey, I just thought you might want to learn the terms we actually use in atmospheric science. We call them all 'particles' irrespective of phase but you could call them grapefruit for all I care.



What on earth are you wittering about? You admit the top 2mm is warmed by IR. The top 2mm is part of the ocean. Therefore, IR warms the ocean. It doesn't directly warm the whole thing, but since when did anyone claim that?
Good grief. My 'fantastic claim' isn't and has never been that downwelling IR emitted from atmospheric CO2 is a major source of heat in the ocean. In all probability, it could be pretty tiny in the grand scheme of things (but I don't have the numbers to hand). However, that doesn't render incorrect the statement that IR radiation heats the ocean, so you owe Cuddles an apology.

Of course my 2 mm was way generous, we could explore that and look at the actual physics, the inverse relation between emission and absorption, and what percentage is emitted versus absorbed in that tiny fraction of the 2 mm layer, how that affects evaporation at the boundary. But hey, I have no problem with some arbitrary statement such as "IR heats the top 1x10^6 inch of ocean and over 1x10^22 years this heats the remainder of the cosmic dust that used to be the planet we all knew". Fine. An apology to Cuddles? Gee, beats me, he's a bit on the rude side. IR heating ocean just came up, I didn't bring it up, you know.

Yep, let's move on. It wasn't your fantastic claim, true.

I'm curious about aerosols.

Traditional AGW theory holds that CO2 should cause a steady increase in temperature, part of which is immediate and part of which is "in the pipeline" but that this can be temporarily cooled by volcanos and other aerosols with the aerosol primary and secondary effects. Further (and this is important to AGW theory) the 1940 to 1970 "cool period" was cool because of aerosols, then with the Montreal treaty and the subsequent reductions in smokestack particulates etc, we "cleaned up our act" and thus the warming trend started with a vengence from 1970 to present.

Now, I've never really heard a decent explanation for why aerosols suddenly started cooling the planet in 1940, and why they stopped doing so in 1970. I'm well aware that this theory of "Aerosol cooling 1940-1970"predates the discovery of the PDO and it's effects as well as other natural mechanisms that affect planet temperature.

Feel free to correct my summary of "Traditional AGW theory" or replace it with whatever is more accurate, but if possible avoid referencing Realclimate.org as an authority or the IPCC (a selective literature review machine, essentially).

I'm just curious how the calculation of the 1940-1970 change in radiative balance due to changing tonnage of aerosols of various types was arrived at and with what error bounds, caveats and also, what controversy there may be therein.

 

[David Rodale]

Aerosol concentrations have been decreasing over mainland Europe for some time, so an increase in solar radiation hitting the ground in Europe is expected. Of course, the reason they're decreasing is because of emission controls, which is human activity still.

That doesn't mean to say the climate models are wrong; they include treatments of aerosols and they find it is necessary if you want to catch some of the kinks in the temperature trend. What this means is that if the aerosols hadn't been there, the big rise in temperature in the 80s wouldn't have happened because the temperature would already be high as it is.



OK, so they say that you can simulate the temperature variations over land by just exerting the influence of the sea, but then use a prescribed temperature trend for the ocean. They state that "The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences" so despite their big claims about CO2 and stuff, they're not actually explaining how the extra heat is getting into the ocean. To that end, there's been no changes in solar irradiance or cloud cover that can explain the increase in SST over the years.

ETA: The more I think about that article, the more the conclusions don't make sense to me. There are continuously big heat interchanges between the land, the lower troposphere and the sea surface. If you fix the trend on one of these and then turn off the external warming effects on the others, of course the fixed one is going to lead the others because in effect, you are defining it as the source of the warming.

To reiterate: you can't do any climate change attribution unless you model the complete system.



I think it's Spencer that has the explaining to do.



IR goes into the water. It warms it. What's so hard to understand about that?

What makes you think I don't know about the RC blog entry?

[FONT=&quot]Spencer did address the bilge spewed from RealClimate, but not on their weblog as the editors there are well known for snipping and filtering posts, not to mention their standard procedure of character assassination and ad hominen attacks of respected scientists.......and of course dissemination of propaganda. RealClimate has about as much credibility as the tabloid trash at the grocery store newsstands. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

A Response to Ray Pierrehumbert’s Real Climate Post of May 21, 2008 by Roy Spencer

[FONT=&quot]Since Ray Pierrehumbert has decided to critique some of my published work (and unpublished musings) on global warming over at RealClimate.org, I thought I’d offer some rebuttal. The main theme of his objections to our new paper and what it demonstrates is clearly wrong - and leading IPCC experts have agreed with me on this.[/FONT]

Follow-up to The Response to Ray Pierrehumbert’s Real Climate Post by Roy Spencer


[FONT=&quot]

OK, so they say that you can simulate the temperature variations over land by just exerting the influence of the sea, but then use a prescribed temperature trend for the ocean. They state that "The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences" so despite their big claims about CO2 and stuff, they're not actually explaining how the extra heat is getting into the ocean. To that end, there's been no changes in solar irradiance or cloud cover that can explain the increase in SST over the years.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Liquid water absorbs ~1000x the heat than in gaseous form and as such the oceans are responsible for ~80-90% of "global" warming. In order to attribute global warming caused by increased atmospheric CO2 (a minor gas), you must believe re-emitting IR in that little sliver of bandwidth has a greater power than shortwave solar radiation which reaches depths of ~100 meters into the oceans.
[/FONT]
It is a bit of a Perpetuum Mobile to simply assume CO2 has such magical powers.

[FONT=&quot]Somehow without explanation, beginning in 1993, AGW decided to take off and warm the oceans, but now according to Warmologists is on a short hiatus, again without explanation. We are expected to believe this is due to "natural causes" masking AGW (whatever that means), yet the mantra for the last two decades was "natural causes" have been overrun run by AGW. These ex post facto statements by AGW “scientists” do not go unnoticed by everyone. [/FONT]

 

[David Rodale]

Point is that none of us 'warmers' have claimed that it's an important process, so you're poking holes in climate science that don't exist, which is about as strawman as you get. David Rodale just tried to construct such an argument and (seemingly inadvertently) dropped a major physics blooper in the process. And you still don't seem to be able to grasp the major error in what he said, which is what I'm having fun having a prod at. That and some of the rubbish you've come out with trying to dig yourself out.



Hey, I just thought you might want to learn the terms we actually use in atmospheric science. We call them all 'particles' irrespective of phase but you could call them grapefruit for all I care.



What on earth are you wittering about? You admit the top 2mm is warmed by IR. The top 2mm is part of the ocean. Therefore, IR warms the ocean. It doesn't directly warm the whole thing, but since when did anyone claim that?



Good grief. My 'fantastic claim' isn't and has never been that downwelling IR emitted from atmospheric CO2 is a major source of heat in the ocean. In all probability, it could be pretty tiny in the grand scheme of things (but I don't have the numbers to hand). However, that doesn't render incorrect the statement that IR radiation heats the ocean, so you owe Cuddles an apology.

Good grief. My 'fantastic claim' isn't and has never been that downwelling IR emitted from atmospheric CO2 is a major source of heat in the ocean. In all probability, it could be pretty tiny in the grand scheme of things (but I don't have the numbers to hand). However, that doesn't render incorrect the statement that IR radiation heats the ocean, so you owe Cuddles an apology.

Really? CO2 is but a minor player in global warming now? That doesn't leave much left for what actually does warm the oceans then now does it?

I remind you:
Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications

Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 W/m2 more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include: (i) expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.

So what you say? Well, that is the basis in IPCC AR4 to which the conclusion that increasing human made GHG emissions (namely CO2) was "unequivocally" the cause for the increase in OHC, hence global warming. Hansen himself has stated it is the oceans that tell the story, and they are not gaining more heat and there is no "heat in the pipepline" (another fairytale) waiting in the shadows.

As the abstract and the body of the article states, should GHG emissions stop dead in their tracks, the so-called "heat in the pipeline" will still bring about an additional .6C warming of land surfaces. And of course it could be as long as many decades for this to materialize because the bogeyman, CO2, will keep trapping and re-emiting this dreaded heat until it finally escapes to space.

We are now witnessing that boondoggle being falsified.

Neither you or anyone else has yet to identify one source in IPCC AR4 that allows for anything but a constant upward increase of heat in the oceans and surface temperatures. As it continues to fail to warm as predicted projected hypothesized, we will be treated to more ex post facto excuses as to why.

Once again:

 

[David Rodale]

Funny, that, isn't it?

I ask again, does the GHG effect exist or not? A simple yes or no will suffice for now.

Does it act just like a real glass greenhouse? That is the conundrum isn't it?

 

[bobdroege7]

Does it act just like a real glass greenhouse? That is the conundrum isn't it?

No, that is irrelevant.

 

[Spud1k]

Traditional AGW theory holds that CO2 should cause a steady increase in temperature, part of which is immediate and part of which is "in the pipeline" but that this can be temporarily cooled by volcanos and other aerosols with the aerosol primary and secondary effects. Further (and this is important to AGW theory) the 1940 to 1970 "cool period" was cool because of aerosols, then with the Montreal treaty and the subsequent reductions in smokestack particulates etc, we "cleaned up our act" and thus the warming trend started with a vengence from 1970 to present.

Now, I've never really heard a decent explanation for why aerosols suddenly started cooling the planet in 1940, and why they stopped doing so in 1970. I'm well aware that this theory of "Aerosol cooling 1940-1970"predates the discovery of the PDO and it's effects as well as other natural mechanisms that affect planet temperature.

Feel free to correct my summary of "Traditional AGW theory" or replace it with whatever is more accurate, but if possible avoid referencing Realclimate.org as an authority or the IPCC (a selective literature review machine, essentially).

I'm just curious how the calculation of the 1940-1970 change in radiative balance due to changing tonnage of aerosols of various types was arrived at and with what error bounds, caveats and also, what controversy there may be therein.

As I've said before, the main reason I keep linking to those is because they're open-access. I also see them as pretty reliable as well; you say what you like but the IPCC report is a pretty good assessment of the state of the science at the time it was written and as for Realclimate, that's actually written by climate scientists, so I consider it more authoritative than other blogs on the subject and yes, that does include a huge number of pro AGW sources as well.

First up, the Montreal protocol was about reducing ozone-destroying chemicals. That's something completely different. The main motivator behind reducing aerosol loadings was because of the health problems they cause and later on, acid rain. However, it is worth noting that while aerosol concentrations have been going down in Europe, other places have seen big increases, so the effects of changing aerosol composition are specific to different regions of the globe.

Second, aerosols have to be included in climate models, otherwise you don't properly recreate the 'kinks' you see in the 20th century. Does that mean it caused them directly? No. Like all things when dealing with a complex system, there are a whole bunch of factors that interplay between each other that are only really properly captured when you make the effort to model the entire system. You won't drag me into making any sweeping comments about their precise effects on climate because they happen to currently be the least certain aspect of radiative forcing. What you can say is that if it weren't for changes in aerosol composition, the trend would have come out differently.

 

[Spud1k]

Really? CO2 is but a minor player in global warming now? That doesn't leave much left for what actually does warm the oceans then now does it?

I remind you:
Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications



So what you say? Well, that is the basis in IPCC AR4 to which the conclusion that increasing human made GHG emissions (namely CO2) was "unequivocally" the cause for the increase in OHC, hence global warming. Hansen himself has stated it is the oceans that tell the story, and they are not gaining more heat and there is no "heat in the pipepline" (another fairytale) waiting in the shadows.

As the abstract and the body of the article states, should GHG emissions stop dead in their tracks, the so-called "heat in the pipeline" will still bring about an additional .6C warming of land surfaces. And of course it could be as long as many decades for this to materialize because the bogeyman, CO2, will keep trapping and re-emiting this dreaded heat until it finally escapes to space.

We are now witnessing that boondoggle being falsified.


Neither you or anyone else has yet to identify one source in IPCC AR4 that allows for anything but a constant upward increase of heat in the oceans and surface temperatures. As it continues to fail to warm as predicted projected hypothesized, we will be treated to more ex post facto excuses as to why.

Sigh... I hate repeating myself but here goes anyway...

Contrary to the explanation often given to schoolkids, the main warming effect of CO2 is not to 'reflect' IR back down to earth. That appears to be the backbone of all your downwelling IR strawman mumbo jumbo. CO2 absorbs upwelling IR, causing the atmosphere to warm, which in due course transfers heat back to the surface via sensible heat transfer and precipitation.

Once again:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032348a6471b92533.jpg[/qimg]

Once again, the effects of climate forcing occur over decadal timescales with plenty of blips that occur in the interim. If that trend continues through the next 5-10 years or so, then we'll talk.

 

[Spud1k]

What makes you think I don't know about the RC blog entry?

Nothing, but it doesn't make it any less valid. In any scientific research, after something gets published, the next stage is for someone to replicate the result. Given that it was shown you couldn't replicate the result without being consciously selective about the data, his work falls at the second hurdle.

Climate science (and all the related disciplines) is full of people from all quarters claiming this is a big effect and this isn't a big effect. People can make all the claims they want about specific processes and so on, but including them in a GCM is the real acid test. Wake me up when Spencer's work comes up trumps there.

 

[Ocelot]

Yeah this thread's jumped the shark. Unsubbing. Bye all.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Does it act just like a real glass greenhouse? That is the conundrum isn't it?

Is it? No. Do you imagine that anyone thinks it does?

Anyway, the question was directed to mhaze. I have asked him several times.

 

[TrueSceptic]

What makes you think I don't know about the RC blog entry?

[FONT=&quot]Spencer did address the bilge spewed from RealClimate, but not on their weblog as the editors there are well known for snipping and filtering posts, not to mention their standard procedure of character assassination and ad hominen attacks of respected scientists.......and of course dissemination of propaganda. RealClimate has about as much credibility as the tabloid trash at the grocery store newsstands. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Once more, Rodale claims an exact reversal of the true situation.

 

[mhaze]

As I've said before, the main reason I keep linking to those is because they're open-access. I also see them as pretty reliable as well; you say what you like but the IPCC report is a pretty good assessment of the state of the science at the time it was written and as for Realclimate, that's actually written by climate scientists, so I consider it more authoritative than other blogs on the subject and yes, that does include a huge number of pro AGW sources as well.

Realclimate is not affirmatively an unbiased site as it's very reason for existence was to defend the Hockey Stick paradimn against quite reasonable criticisms from the scientific community. This later morphed into sort of a weird mandate to criticize "Any articles skeptical of climate science" which of course meant only critical of THEIR version of it. So of course you can consider Realclimate an authoritative spokesperson for one sect of the Church of Warmology:

Unbiased, scientific Realclimate has never been. Even the tone of many of the articles does not qualify.

Further, as you choose not to state, numerous skeptical blogs are ran by climate scientists.

......Second, aerosols have to be included in climate models, otherwise you don't properly recreate the 'kinks' you see in the 20th century. Does that mean it caused them directly? No. Like all things when dealing with a complex system, there are a whole bunch of factors that interplay between each other that are only really properly captured when you make the effort to model the entire system. You won't drag me into making any sweeping comments about their precise effects on climate because they happen to currently be the least certain aspect of radiative forcing. What you can say is that if it weren't for changes in aerosol composition, the trend would have come out differently.

Yes, the computer models require a high climate sensitivity for CO2 to produce recent temperature trends, and then to produce the 1940-1970 cool period, a high sensitivity to aerosol cooling must be introduced. My question is not about these (incorrect) assumptions and (slugged) parameters but about the actual tonnages of various aerosols and how anybody could figure that somehow they were high between 1940-1970, having a pronounced effect then, and suddenly got cleared up or overwhelmed by CO2 driven AGW after 1970.

This is one part of the standard AGW exposition that I've never seen well quantified. Lot of hand waving about computer models is not an explanation. We aren't going down the road of considering a believable answer to a question to be "believe the models". A background related to computer modeling makes the hype very unimpressive. Most of the questions raised by skeptics and "deniers" such as you rather foolishly choose to ridicule (including those points I raise) are questions of the validity of the assumptions underying the models.

Do you assert the models prove their own underlying assumptions? This isn't a good road to go down.

Dr. Scott Armstrong audited Chapter 8 of the IPCC and found no credible predictions or forecasts therein.Armstrong has spoke on this subject at Congressional hearings. The published paper "Global Warming: Scientific Forecasts or Forecasts by Scientists?". - an excerpt:

We are not suggesting that climate change cannot be forecast, only that this has yet to be demonstrated. We expect that such methods as the naive model with drift, rule-based forecasting, well-specified causal models, and combined forecasts might prove useful. All of these methods are discussed in Armstrong (2001). To our knowledge, none of these methods has been examined to date.

Others are invited to provide audits of Chapter 8 or other studies relating to climate forecasting. Audits should also be done for other studies in an attempt to find climate studies that do not violate evidence-based methods for forecasting.


​

 

[Spud1k]

Unbiased, scientific Realclimate has never been. Even the tone of many of the articles does not qualify.

Further, as you choose not to state, numerous skeptical blogs are ran by climate scientists.

Whatever. I'm not expecting you to agree with me on that point. But if I link something on there that you disagree with, attack the argument, not the source.

Yes, the computer models require a high climate sensitivity for CO2 to produce recent temperature trends, and then to produce the 1940-1970 cool period, a high sensitivity to aerosol cooling must be introduced. My question is not about these (incorrect) assumptions and (slugged) parameters but about the actual tonnages of various aerosols and how anybody could figure that somehow they were high between 1940-1970, having a pronounced effect then, and suddenly got cleared up or overwhelmed by CO2 driven AGW after 1970.

This is one part of the standard AGW exposition that I've never seen well quantified. Lot of hand waving about computer models is not an explanation. We aren't going down the road of considering a believable answer to a question to be "believe the models". A background related to computer modeling makes the hype very unimpressive. Most of the questions raised by skeptics and "deniers" such as you rather foolishly choose to ridicule (including those points I raise) are questions of the validity of the assumptions underying the models.

You've already made it abundantly clear that you don't believe the models and somehow I don't think anything I (or anyone else) could say on the topic will convince you otherwise.

ETA: I'd venture that the instant someone produces a credible GCM that attributes warming to something other than CO2, you'll be all up for that. Not that that's happened yet, of course.

Do you assert the models prove their own underlying assumptions? This isn't a good road to go down.

Dr. Scott Armstrong audited Chapter 8 of the IPCC and found no credible predictions or forecasts therein.Armstrong has spoke on this subject at Congressional hearings. The published paper "Global Warming: Scientific Forecasts or Forecasts by Scientists?". - an excerpt:

We are not suggesting that climate change cannot be forecast, only that this has yet to be demonstrated. We expect that such methods as the naive model with drift, rule-based forecasting, well-specified causal models, and combined forecasts might prove useful. All of these methods are discussed in Armstrong (2001). To our knowledge, none of these methods has been examined to date.

Others are invited to provide audits of Chapter 8 or other studies relating to climate forecasting. Audits should also be done for other studies in an attempt to find climate studies that do not violate evidence-based methods for forecasting.
​

Now you're confusing attribution with forecasting, which are two different modelling exercises entirely. While you use the same models for both, the questions are different, so therefore the models are applied differently and the accuracy of the results has to be treated differently. Not saying I agree with your point, but using shortcomings in forecasting to undermine their attribution outputs is a non-starter.

Anyway, if this is going to dissolve into another 'don't believe the models' flinging match, I'm kind of thinking Ocelot has the right idea. Unless you've got something new to add to the OP, I'll see you on another thread.

 

[mhaze]

Sigh... I hate repeating myself but here goes anyway...Contrary to the explanation often given to schoolkids, the main warming effect of CO2 is not to 'reflect' IR back down to earth. That appears to be the backbone of all your downwelling IR strawman mumbo jumbo. CO2 absorbs upwelling IR, causing the atmosphere to warm, which in due course transfers heat back to the surface via sensible heat transfer and precipitation.

Once again, the effects of climate forcing occur over decadal timescales with plenty of blips that occur in the interim. If that trend continues through the next 5-10 years or so, then we'll talk.

Well, we do agree that this is the only plausible way the "Greenhouse effect" can actually work, via conduction and convection, not radiative transfers. (Shall we toss out the IPCC "Radiative Forcings since 1750" chart, then, as unscientific?)

The "Strawman", as you put it of "IR warming oceans" is a common error of Warmers on the "Greenhouse effect". Skeptics bringing the matter up, such as been seen in this relatively simple thread, are met with derision, insults and scorn: Yet at the tail end you agree, they were right.

Can the air warm the oceans? I think it must be the other way around. At any arbitrary moment, massive energy in visible light hit the ocean. Heat moves from the hotter to the cooler side. The only way your assertion can have validity is to look at the large convective currents, such as those which move warm air from the equatorial regions to the poles. These clearly move heat to a cooler region - of air. This does not immediately or necessarily yield the conclusion that the heat is moved to the ground or ocean.

And this leads us back to why empirical evidence of the absence of the (predicted by computer models) equatorial tropospheric hotspot matters.

 

[Spud1k]

Shall we toss out the IPCC "Radiative Forcings since 1750" chart, then, as unscientific?

No, stop trying to mix it up. That's in effect how many watts per square metre it stops leaving the earth system, not how much it radiates to the surface.

The "Strawman", as you put it of "IR warming oceans" is a common error of Warmers on the "Greenhouse effect". Skeptics bringing the matter up, such as been seen in this relatively simple thread, are met with derision, insults and scorn: Yet at the tail end you agree, they were right.

I thought you just admitted you were wrong on that? Dang, I thought we were getting somewhere.

Can the air warm the oceans? I think it must be the other way around. At any arbitrary moment, massive energy in visible light hit the ocean. Heat moves from the hotter to the cooler side. The only way your assertion can have validity is to look at the large convective currents, such as those which move warm air from the equatorial regions to the poles. These clearly move heat to a cooler region - of air. This does not immediately or necessarily yield the conclusion that the heat is moved to the ground or ocean.

Ermmm.... The ocean warms the air and vice versa. Heat goes both ways and the more heat in the system, the hotter the system is overall. It's just basic thermodynamics.

And this leads us back to why empirical evidence of the absence of the (predicted by computer models) equatorial tropospheric hotspot matters.

Oh, not that old chestnut. That one's been solved; it was bad radiosonde data. But stop changing the subject, please. It's getting tedious.

 

[Dancing David]

Wow, way to go Spud!

this is much worse than plasma cosmology. You are one cool potato.

 

[a_unique_person]

I thought you just admitted you were wrong on that? Dang, I thought we were getting somewhere.

I have a friend who works as a climate modeler. He says he gave up debating deniers years ago when he realised that no matter what he said, he would never change their mind.

He's also smarter than me.

 

[mhaze]

----....Ermmm.... The ocean warms the air and vice versa. Heat goes both ways and the more heat ....

So air heats the oceans?

The implications of a practical real world effect:

Can warm air significantly increase the heat content of the oceans?

• Time frame: 1 year, 10 years, 100 years.
• Average steady temperature difference due to Warmology hypothesized "greenhouse effect" = Air 0.5C warmer than ocean.
• disregard day vs night, winter vs summer
• let's say...0.1C increase in ocean average temp is "significant".

Under these real world scenarios can you support your claim?

(If you don't like the scenario, change it)

 

[a_unique_person]

And from Graeme Bird, in case any one is curious how he is going.

You stupid stupid stupid filthy dumb MORON.

 

[Spud1k]

So air heats the oceans?

The implications of a practical real world effect:

Can warm air significantly increase the heat content of the oceans?

• Time frame: 1 year, 10 years, 100 years.
• Average steady temperature difference due to Warmology hypothesized "greenhouse effect" = Air 0.5C warmer than ocean.
• disregard day vs night, winter vs summer
• let's say...0.1C increase in ocean average temp is "significant".

Under these real world scenarios can you support your claim?

(If you don't like the scenario, change it)

This is getting stupid. What you are trying to throw the full weight of your ignorance at happens to be a key field of study for micrometeorologists. Look up 'marine sensible heat fluxes' and come back when you've learned something.