16 year plateau in global surface temperatures puzzles climate scientists

[Ocean1]

Soooo...does that mean the dinos f*cked themselves up by eating trees and farting?

Probably.

Took them best part of 10 million years too, and we'll manage it in a couple of hundred.

Apparently.

[SPman]

Well, yes, the Mid-Atlantic trench emits more CO2 than all life has, ever, in a year...

Well - assuming you regaRD THE MID ATLANTIC TRECH AS SUBMARINE VOLCANIS ACTIVITY.......
There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO₂ emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO₂ emissions dwarf global volcanic CO₂ emissions. - Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO₂ emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO₂ that dwarfs the annual CO₂ emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).
The published estimates of the global CO₂ emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year- US Geological Service

[jonbuoy]

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?

[bogan]

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?

And what is it exactly you think 'real genuine scientists' do?

They do the research, then publish it in a transparent manner so others can use it in their research.

[mashman]

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?

That's the thing though innit. The scientists can't agree and they're using the collected data. We're just playing which side of the argument is more likely... as well as deciding the level of delusion/motivation for the side that someone with an opposing view has chosen. Gets us nowhere, but it's fuckin funny.

[Woodman]

Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things?

We are the only ones who think we are significant enough for it to matter. Just another phase in the history of the planet. Too clever for our own good.

[BMWST?]

we dont really know id its a linear process any way so to argue that the plateau invalidates the argument is also pointless

[Jantar]

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?

That depends on how you base your idea of qualified. Even scientists themselves can't agree on that one.

A paper titled "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (Doran, P. T. and M. K. Zimmerman, 2009 ) carried out a simple survey of Earth Scientists who believe the earth is warming. There were only two questions:

"When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Such simple questions with a lot that is implied. I know quite a few earth scientists (it is the field I am currently studying for my PhD in climatology/hydrology) and I don't know any could honestly answer "NO" to the first one. Similarly, I know of very few who could answer "NO" to the second. However the authors of this paper did not get the results they wanted.

They sent out the survey to 10,257 earth scientists who had published papers related to the earths temperature, and received 3146 replies. However the authors determined that anyone whose qualification was in meteorology, hydrology, oceanography, geology, mathematic or physics was not qualified to answer. They reduced the sample set that they accepted down to 77 scientists. Of those 75 answered "YES" to both questions. They therefore touted that an overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus. They do not say what the scientists they excluded thought, but I would expect the number to be around the same.

However back to your point, if 3071 out of 3146 scientists who have had papers published on Global Warming are not qualified to answer a simple survey, then what qualifications would you consider neccessay for someone to be considered qualified to comment on a bikers' forum?

Oh, I have had one paper published on the subject, another currently in preparation, and numerous confidential papers presented to my employer including a major one currently in prepararion.

[Scuba_Steve]

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?

I'm a part time "genuine scientist"

And what is it exactly you think 'real genuine scientists' do?

They do the research, then publish it in a transparent manner so others can use it in their research.

That's what they should do yes, what they do however is not so transparent.

That's the thing though innit. The scientists can't agree and they're using the collected data. We're just playing which side of the argument is more likely... as well as deciding the level of delusion/motivation for the side that someone with an opposing view has chosen. Gets us nowhere, but it's fuckin funny.

^ thats bout it in a nutshell

[mashman]

whatever

Out of curiosity. What would it take to push the argument in one direction or another? If that's at all possible. I'm assuming that you've all contemplated that at some point? Frinstance, would halting the production of unnecessary anthropogenic co2 emissions for 15/16 years tilt the scales enough for science to have a clearer idea of our affect?

[Jantar]

Out of curiosity. What would it take to push the argument in one direction or another? If that's at all possible. I'm assuming that you've all contemplated that at some point? Frinstance, would halting the production of unnecessary anthropogenic co2 emissions for 15/16 years tilt the scales enough for science to have a clearer idea of our affect?

15 - 16 years without any anthropogenic co2 emissions would not make any measurable difference in temperature trends unless we can first identify and confirm all causes of natural climate variability and measure, that is measure not model, the climate changes due to these natural causes. Only once that is done can we say for certain how much of an effect, if any, anthropogenic co2 is having on our climate.

In 16 years the CO2 concentration measure at Moana Loa has incresed from 363 ppm to 391 ppm. The IPCC models suggest that as a result the glopbal temperature should have increased by 0.6 C (+/- 0.2C). However there has been no measurable warming over that period. That means there are 3 possible conclusions.

1. Anthropogenic CO2 has no effect. I don't know any scientists who would agree with that.
2. The anthropogenic CO2 effect is masked by equal and opposite natural causes (negative feedback). This is a commonly held view.
3. Natural variability greatly outweighs any anthropogenic effect. This is also a commonly held view.

The 4th hypothesis that anthropogenic co2 emissions will cause runaway temperature increases due to positive feedbacks is now falsified.

Edit: CO2 data available at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

[oldrider]

Every man and his dog has an opinion on this subject it seems and they are all different http://blog.imva.info/world-affairs/...ing-good-news/

If we live long enough I guess we will find out the truth, if not ...... !

[mashman]

15 - 16 years without any anthropogenic co2 emissions would not make any measurable difference in temperature trends unless we can first identify and confirm all causes of natural climate variability and measure, that is measure not model, the climate changes due to these natural causes. Only once that is done can we say for certain how much of an effect, if any, anthropogenic co2 is having on our climate.

In 16 years the CO2 concentration measure at Moana Loa has incresed from 363 ppm to 391 ppm. The IPCC models suggest that as a result the glopbal temperature should have increased by 0.6 C (+/- 0.2C). However there has been no measurable warming over that period. That means there are 3 possible conclusions.

1. Anthropogenic CO2 has no effect. I don't know any scientists who would agree with that.
2. The anthropogenic CO2 effect is masked by equal and opposite natural causes (negative feedback). This is a commonly held view.
3. Natural variability greatly outweighs any anthropogenic effect. This is also a commonly held view.

The 4th hypothesis that anthropogenic co2 emissions will cause runaway temperature increases due to positive feedbacks is now falsified.

Edit: CO2 data available at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

If you have measurements from around the globe, why would removing 1 "cause" not make a measureable difference? What's the reasoning behind that hypothesis? I understand why you'd need to be able to identify every source for the emission that you're going to track, but if the post put forward by SPMan (from the US Geological Service) is a bone of contention in regard to AGW (which there certainly looks to be, given that there's 2 very different sides of that fence), wouldn't there be an obvious fall in ppm (by removing the anthropogenic element by virtue of stopping the production (yes, pie in the sky)) worldwide given their position? This would at least dis/prove the perspective of the volcanologists and potentially highlight the validity of the IPCC model? Instead of adding more variables, why not remove the supposed big one that we control/produce in order to aid the climate scientists in finding a "purer" start point for their research? I do realise that it is not that simple by any stretch of the imagination... but surely given the question of AGW affects, it could potentially clear things up?

In regards to Moana Loa, interesting "trend" given that it's an island in the middle of the ocean.

[Ocean1]

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?

Interesting that you see professional experts as exclusively qualified to hold opinions on topics within their field. Do experts tend to hold similar beliefs because they’re uniquely acquainted with the facts, or are they just behaving like other human sub-tribes?

There's evidence that academic processes discourage independent analysis of data. There’s also evidence that acceptance into a group of expert professionals becomes dependant on certain commonly held beliefs. Not really the picture of an ideal observer, let alone one who’s opinion you’d trust without at least some analysis of your own.

But then, you’re human, you’re subject to all of the same hard-wired decision making systems they are. Like your natural tendency to agree with authority, not to mention the more subtle behavioural weirdness like the Dunning - Kruger effect, now that I come to think about it.

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

[Jantar]

If you have measurements from around the globe, why would removing 1 "cause" not make a measureable difference? What's the reasoning behind that hypothesis?

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?

I understand why you'd need to be able to identify every source for the emission that you're going to track, but if the post put forward by SPMan (from the US Geological Service) is a bone of contention in regard to AGW (which there certainly looks to be, given that there's 2 very different sides of that fence), wouldn't there be an obvious fall in ppm (by removing the anthropogenic element by virtue of stopping the production (yes, pie in the sky)) worldwide given their position? This would at least dis/prove the perspective of the volcanologists and potentially highlight the validity of the IPCC model?

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.

In regards to Moana Loa, interesting "trend" given that it's an island in the middle of the ocean.

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