16 year plateau in global surface temperatures puzzles climate scientists

[mashman]

Removing any single cause would make a difference, but would that difference be measurable? What cause was removed over the past 15 - 16 years? If we removed anthropogenic CO2 would that unknown cause return and confound the results?

All good things to know the answer to or at the very least attempt to find out. Isn't that the point of the research?

If no further antropogenic CO2 was added to the atmosphere would CO2 concentrations level out or even drop? I don't think so. Man is adding around 5% CO2 and that is way more than is coming from volcanos. But the biggest source of CO2 is outgassing from the oceans (so much for CO2 causing ocean acidification). Warmer water holds less CO2, and this is why CO2 concentrations follow changes in temperature, rather than leads them.

I suppose the only question to ask is, is there a tipping point that triggers the outgassing? There "must" be some form saturation point for the oceans in order for them to start spitting out CO2? or is it temperature related only?

Not really, as the oceans are the main source of CO2 it is not at all suprising.

I has shame.

[Jantar]

All good things to know the answer to or at the very least attempt to find out. Isn't that the point of the research?

Absolutely. But when analysing any results of research it is important to recognise the confounding influences and to account for them. If the accounting results in an error range that is greater than the portion you are attempting to isolate then the results are meaningless and no conclusions can be drawn.

I suppose the only question to ask is, is there a tipping point that triggers the outgassing? There "must" be some form saturation point for the oceans in order for them to start spitting out CO2? or is it temperature related only?

There is a saturation point at which no further CO2 can be absorbed, but we are nowhere near that level. The oceans are in a state of equilibrium where they absorb CO2 and release CO2. These rates are temperature dependent (High school level chemistry). As far as a tipping point at which all CO2 will be released - from memory its 100 C for fresh water, and around 103 C for sea water.

[SPman]

Anyway - bugger the CO2 - consider the Methane Clathrates in the Arctic submarine permafrost - if they start large scale melting (there is already some low level release going on) - then we'll see some real "atmospheric pollution of the warming kind", that'll make CO2 emissions seem like an amusing sideshow....assuming most current theories are correct. Sea warming, if it continues, won't affect the clathrates under sea floor sediments for centuries.

Warmer water holds less CO2, and this is why CO2 concentrations follow changes in temperature, rather than leads them.

It's sort of a "chicken or the egg" scenario in some respects - knowing the factors that alter the balancing point one way or the other - it could be said that an initial burst of anthropogenic warming on a small scale could warm the oceans slightly - enough for them to dump some CO2, which then reinforces the warming cycle, and so on......or not.....
In many ways it's a shame that processes like this become personally politicised and the real value of the combined research and findings becomes swallowed, as it often does, in a morass of ego driven, self serving, counter productive, opportunistic power struggles, which does little to address the issues, real or imagined, and often ends up being of real harm to human society as a whole.

Is anyone here remotely qualified to talk about this or a real genuine scientist? Or is it just regurgitating facts from google to support whichever side of the argument your on?

See Jantar's post - and others. "Qualification" to talk about a subject would probably quash 95% of all discourse on Earth. Personally...most of a Geology degree with an interest in Paleogeography, tectonic shifts and general paleontology and 40+ yrs of general interest in Earth Sciences and structures - reading everything available about the subjects from a wide range of opinions does tend to lead one to develop opinions, hopefully based on fact! As usual, those opinions can only be based on the quality of the facts available - and that's where, as amongst all "real genuine scientists", as amongst most "real genuine people", opinions can and do, start to diverge. I guess it then becomes the "I see your graph, and raise you a table, a list and a counter- graph.....

Of course, that still leaves those, (not just on the "global warming debate"), to whom facts are an inconvenient nuisance, to be discarded, smothered or distorted to suit their own strident mouthings.
Then - you have to follow the money ........

[mashman]

Absolutely. But when analysing any results of research it is important to recognise the confounding influences and to account for them. If the accounting results in an error range that is greater than the portion you are attempting to isolate then the results are meaningless and no conclusions can be drawn.

I agree. I guess I'm coming from the position of, AGW does it exist or not, and to finally have the scientific community agreeing without "argument". Then pedantic folk like me will have a larger degree of trust in science and to a degree the "argument" over whether to reduce emissions in response to AGW (I'd love to say would) could be addressed by all. I believe that that is what us members of the public would like to see from the scientific community, therefore allowing the pressure groups to turn up the heat on the decision makers with some form of certainty. After all, the subject affects everyone in one way or another. I have no doubt it's even more frustrating for those in the know.

There is a saturation point at which no further CO2 can be absorbed, but we are nowhere near that level. The oceans are in a state of equilibrium where they absorb CO2 and release CO2. These rates are temperature dependent (High school level chemistry). As far as a tipping point at which all CO2 will be released - from memory its 100 C for fresh water, and around 103 C for sea water.

@tipping point (I didn't do chemistry). I guess ocean equilibrium is a can of worms given the way we use it and the possible affects our actions have on CO2 (amongst other things) retention.

[Akzle]

I guess we can’t all become experts in every field, can we? Should we?

you can, but you'd have to start posting in green...

[jonbuoy]

So that was a no then? Sure we can all do some doctor google diagnosis and amateur surgery but I think I'll go to one with some real qualifications. I think your a bit deluded if you think having an interest and a reading a few Internet publications makes you an expert.

[bogan]

I think I'll go to one with some real qualifications

You know, if only there was something that made finding those sort of people easy...

Sure we can all do some doctor google diagnosis

Oh right, yes, that! Such articles found there might even be a good base with which to have a discussion

[Jantar]

So that was a no then? Sure we can all do some doctor google diagnosis and amateur surgery but I think I'll go to one with some real qualifications. I think your a bit deluded if you think having an interest and a reading a few Internet publications makes you an expert.

So what real qualifications do you require?

[puddytat]

So that was a no then? .

Yeah, was it?

or more of a yeah-nah yeah nah...

All the modern things
like cars & such
Have always existed
they've just been waiting in a mountain
for the right moment
listening to the irritating noises
of Dinosaurs & People
dabbling outside
All the modern things
have always existed
they've just been waiting
to come out
and multiply
and takeover.

Bjork.

[jonbuoy]

So what real qualifications do you require?

If anyone here was A climatologist or paleoclimatologist that would be a good start, some form of atmospheric scientist? Oceanologist?

[Jantar]

If anyone here was A climatologist or paleoclimatologist that would be a good start, some form of atmospheric scientist? Oceanologist?

Mmm. Maybe you should go back and read post #68.

My current research is on climate variabilty with reference to Clutha flow extremes.

[jonbuoy]

Mmm. Maybe you should go back and read post #68.

My current research is on climate variabilty with reference to Clutha flow extremes.

So your almost a climatologist?

[Jantar]

So your almost a climatologist?

On the cusp of climatology and hydrology. Hydrology would be my main focus if it wasn't for the fact that water comes from the sky in the form of precipitation, and preciptation relies on the climate.

[SPman]

So that was a no then? Sure we can all do some doctor google diagnosis and amateur surgery but I think I'll go to one with some real qualifications. I think your a bit deluded if you think having an interest and a reading a few Internet publications makes you an expert.

There was a world before the internet - it involved the novel concept of mass reading of books, scientific journals and magazines, exchanges of correspondence with people who are experts in their fields and discussions at relevant conventions, etc. Having an interest doesn't make you an expert, but it does give you a few more clues on your areas of interest, than those whose opinions are based solely on shock horror newspaper or (more recently) internet pieces..
Not being as dumb as a sack full of wet mice, also helps!

[Winston001]

So that was a no then? Sure we can all do some doctor google diagnosis and amateur surgery but I think I'll go to one with some real qualifications. I think your a bit deluded if you think having an interest and a reading a few Internet publications makes you an expert.

None of us need to be climatologists to hold a valid point of view. All that's required is to read the information provided by scientists and filter that through our own critical thinking.

For example, some of the scientists who argue against climate change and/or AGW are not climatologists. They may be meterologists or physicists, very clever in their field, but not experts on climate. Their views must be taken with a grain of salt.

I have friends who are scientists (including one who researches the southern ocean) and all of them are convinced that mankind is having an effect on the environment. Whether that leads to warming however is still an open question.

Scientists argue and scrap all the time - its their nature to question everything. That is why we are getting conflicting data because as we learn more, mistakes and errors are detected. That is healthy. Nevertheless the planet is experiencing extreme weather events and that is completely consistant with climate change. More energy in the atmosphere = dynamic weather outside the norm.