Does our lack of data on ocean temperatures have imlications for modelling climate change?

What makes you think we don't have good ocean data? We have ocean buoys, satellites, etc. With MANY independent scientists making measurements and checking each other.

This is not a limitation. EDIT - For understanding the basic facts.

Meadow (sensibly) asks: 'Then what does the president of the NAS mean when he says ""To my knowledge, no one is even taking the data at the right places."" ?'

The clue is in the rest of the quote "If you think about one of the biggest unknowns in climate change--the rate of ice loss and sea-level rise". He's talking about the future rates, since all scientists know we're measuring the present rate intensively.

So he's talking about our ability to predict the exact RATE at which global warming is going to happen. This is one of the remaining uncertainties, and a lot of people are working on it. He's not talking about WHETHER it's happening. Here's the NAS position:

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to begin taking steps to prepare for climate change and to slow it. Human actions over the next few decades will have a major influence on the magnitude and rate of future warming. Large, disruptive changes are much more likely if greenhouse gases are allowed to continue building up in the atmosphere at their present rate."

Unlike the basics, the rate at which it's likely to happen in the future is not "sufficiently clear". He wants to know when the large disruptive changes are likely to occur, and how much time we have to fix things. As do all other scientists. END EDIT

now that the ARGO system of 3000 diving buoys (2000 meters depth) is finally deployed & in operation we should soon be able to correct that lack of data.

http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/ (the animation requires ACDsee9 to open)

of course this will make all the old sketchy existing data obsolete & we will have to start from scratch so it will be a few years or decades before we really know if things are actually changing & which way.

as in most other areas of global warming/climate change, the argument started long before anyone actually knew what they were talking about.

maybe at least in this one area of surface to 1 mile deep sea temperatures we will eventually have some hard data that everyone will have to accept.

instead of easily influenced models & outcome driven "research"

What do you mean by 'proper data'? The NOAA and NASA datasets contain a huge amount oceanographic data, esp. the NOAA dataset, and that includes temperature data. Were you aware that NOAA maintains a large oceanographic buoy network of over 1000 buoys that relay data back via satellites? There is a NOAA website that allows you to see near realtime data from these buoys, look it up. This dataset shows the oceans have been warming in recent times. My concern, being a former oceanographer for a few years in my youth, is ocean acidification, the pH of the oceans has decreased by 0.1 in recent times due to more CO2 absorption. While 0.1 may not seem much the pH scale is logarithmic making a 0.1 decrease about a 30% increase in acidity (H+ ion concentration), although the oceans are actually alkaline with a current pH of around 8.1, used to be around 8.2 as I recollect. Google 'ocean acidification' and see its ramifications and ocean warming...the inc. in temp has caused thermal expansion of the water and this is contributing to sea level rise.

This is why I am skeptical. In thermodynamics almost every feedback from an energy source is negative. In energy or power conservation the same holds true. This is due mainly to the fact a Cold body can not heat up a warmer body. The major negative feedback which Lindzon mentioned was when CO2 absorbed energy it warms up, the it will then convect more heat to the upper atmospher and then into space and will cause more heat radiated into space by a Tn^4/Ti^4

Modeling very simple situations with accurately quantified data will yield models that diverge quickly enough.

Modeling complex systems with many loosely quantified parameters is an exercise in the shortcomings of computer modeling. Simply moving data within reasonable margins of error will give tremendously different results.

The oceans are the drivers of climate, to be sure, but the oceans are affected from below by geothermal phenomena that we may not even know about and they are affected from above by atmospheric phenomena that we barely understand.

A model based on simple trends is far more accurate than ANY of the climate models have ever been.

I'll produce a link to that soon.

There actually is an abundance of data both direct and indirect. Even the technology of data gathering has improved so we have better data now than ever before. It's a non-problem!

Well of course it does! but, the oceans Temperature is always changing. Convection currents, day/night time, and other reasons cause theTemperature to change. So, in all it would be very difficult to get data on ocean temperatures.

Of course it is. Oceans are the great conveyor belt redistributing heat and have obvious effects on climate. Geothermal energies are small potatoes in any climate calculations but ocean temperatures are vital. It is the epitome of garbage in, garbage out when models use incomplete or inaccurate data.

Of course.

But the scientists know everything. People are the only possible cause of the earth warming a half a degree in the last 100 years, and of course, that will result in horrific consequences.

What makes you think we have a lack of ocean temperature data? We have lots of data on sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content. Are you referring to deep oceans or something?