16 year plateau in global surface temperatures puzzles climate scientists

[mashman]

We have a Carbon Tax over here now. My power bill almost doubled last quarter.
Everybody has just put or is putting their prices up to cover it.

Make it too expensive meaning that people use less so that there's capacity for growth

I see we still have evidence for and against man influenced climate change and panic when a butterfly farts in China because it means that there's a 50% chance of there being a hotter year that "normal" next year S'ok though, throw more money at analysis and we'll get the answers we want.

[Scuba_Steve]

The oceans soak up a lot of CO2 which is good but there is a price. CO2 + water = acid (consider how Coke will strip paint) which is very bad news for calcium carbonate organisms - shell fish, corals, and plankton. So reducing our carbon output helps reduce pollution.

That argument doesn't fly. Coke strips paint, cleans coins, dissolves bones etc, Carbonated water does not! in-fact it does shit all of nothing. Hell not even cokes main competition Pepsi does anywhere as much damage as Coke manages.

[DEATH_INC.]

I think we should just accept that no-one knows what the hell is happening. And that wimpy sugar water they call coke now is shit for cleaning stuff.
Just keep paying them and we'll all be happy

[Jantar]

...
The oceans soak up a lot of CO2 which is good but there is a price. CO2 + water = acid (consider how Coke will strip paint) which is very bad news for calcium carbonate organisms - shell fish, corals, and plankton. So reducing our carbon output helps reduce pollution. ......

Pure water has a ph of 7.0, acid is a ph less than 7, and alkaline is ph of greater than 7. Sea water has an average value of 8.1 which makes it alkaline, not acidic. An increase of ph from 8.1 to 8 is not more acidic as some would claim, it is merely less akaline. An analogy is that if you improve your bank balance from $1000 OD to $900 OD is it correct to say that you are 10% wealthier? Or are you 10% less in debt?

The ph of our oceans has an average value of around 8.1, but varies quite considerably in various parts of the world. It can also vary greatly in single locations due to weather effects. Sites in central Oregon, for example, can drop from a pH of 8.1 to 7.6 during periods of ‘upwelling’. This is a much greater range than any change in ph due to added CO2. The global range is from 7.5 to 8.8.

This chart may help put things into perpective. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ale.svg&page=1

[SPman]

I assure you that 2010 is NOT the most recent one. They have released data up to September 2012. not disputed - the data is in but that chart is all that was to hand

And why do you persist in showing the full range of data when the claim is only about the trend since 1997?Maybe its because no-one disputes the temperature has climbed ever since we came out of the LIA and showing the last 16 years embedded inside the last 160 years hides the plateau
At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analysis. In fact, it was not just a record year, it blew away the previous record by .2 C. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Any scientist in pretty much any field knows that you can't extract any meaningful information about trends in noisy data from single-year end points. Very convenient year to cherry pick - all figures look downhill or flat from there, as you can see by the graph spike, then it drops off, but then starts to climb again.

Locally, this year is shaping up to be a very cool one. One of the coldest octobers on record already. (only 83 years of data available). Locally for me is Alexandra, what is locally for you? Oh, and I get my local data from http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/. Where are you getting your data from?

Local for me currently, is South West Australia.

CO2 is not pollution it's one of the fundamental building blocks of life. Plants love elevated levels of CO2. Milder temperatures, higher levels of CO2 and the biosphere blooms... it's going to be great!

Up to a point! Then, like all things going out of range, it becomes deadly to life on earth as we know it. But, we won't be here, so, party up like there's no tomorrow........

[schrodingers cat]

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/20dc9be...ed_science.png

10 Characters

[Road kill]

I'll worry about it tomorrow.

[James Deuce]

Still waiting for this morning's frost to clear.

[Ocean1]

That argument doesn't fly. Coke strips paint, cleans coins, dissolves bones etc, Carbonated water does not! in-fact it does shit all of nothing. Hell not even cokes main competition Pepsi does anywhere as much damage as Coke manages.

No, he's right. Carbon and water in certain conditions combine to make carbonic acid. It's the cause of acid rain. It's also a reaction that's part of a natural cycle which, as far as research has gone hasn't changed since the industrial revolution.

[george formby]

That argument doesn't fly. Coke strips paint, cleans coins, dissolves bones etc, Carbonated water does not! in-fact it does shit all of nothing. Hell not even cokes main competition Pepsi does anywhere as much damage as Coke manages.

Coke dissolves because of THIS. Used to use it to dissolve mineral build up in my pool pump.

[Jantar]

.....not disputed - the data is in but that chart is all that was to hand
........

The raw data is available on the CRU website and you can use any tool you like to show a graph of it. Excel works fine, but to make a pic of the graph I use wood for trees. I gave a link to this chart in a previous post, but here it is anyway.



As for choosing 1997 as a start point, that isn't cheery picking. The start point is right now, and we work back the period of time required for the plateau to be significant. The IPCC claimed it was at least 15 years for a trend to be significant; Santer claimed 17 years (we are almost there); Jones said more than 15 - 16 years (we are right at that point now); How many years do you wish to see?

[huff3r]

I hardly think it's fair to compare global trends over several decades, considering the quality and quantity of temperature measurement systems has increased so much.

In 1840 could they accurately measure 0.1 of a degree? Or even 1 degree? I don't think so. The Earths history is full of hots and colds, so what if it's warming up?

Does the Human Race have to bloody meddle in everything? Try and control the temperature, the size of the ocean, the movement of the continents? Are we gonna try cool down the sun next to prevent the inevitable supernova?

[Akzle]

I hardly think it's fair to compare global trends over several decades, considering the quality and quantity of temperature measurement systems has increased so much.

In 1840 could they accurately measure 0.1 of a degree? Or even 1 degree? I don't think so. The Earths history is full of hots and colds, so what if it's warming up?

Does the Human Race have to bloody meddle in everything? Try and control the temperature, the size of the ocean, the movement of the continents? Are we gonna try cool down the sun next to prevent the inevitable supernova?

dude. and you live in hamilton.. you must be godlike down there...
((although i reckon turning the sun down a bit is a f*ing good idea - i reckon we should have pumped all or CO2 out of the 'sphere into the sun - hit the "global warming problem" from two angles.))

[DEATH_INC.]

Are we gonna try cool down the sun next to prevent the inevitable supernova?

Shuddup FFS, they'll start taxing us to pay for the study to decide how much tax we gotta pay for it!

[puddytat]

So...if there is a rise in Global CO2 because of one thing OR the other thing, has there been a fall in Global oxygen levels due to man made deforestation/increased burning of plant matter & industrialisation?