|
Post by steve on Nov 26, 2009 16:45:55 GMT
The graph is not an excellent correlation, but there is a temperature rises after the CO2 rise. I would say the temperature starts rising about 1910, but the CO2 has already risen 20-odd ppm.
Perhaps you are asking the wrong question?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 26, 2009 17:18:40 GMT
No, not the wrong question. The temp rose, then co2 rose. easy to see from your graph. And as the temp continues to rise, co2 rises.
I still see no proof that co2 leads a temp rise.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 26, 2009 17:41:16 GMT
Obviously, the question you're really asking is "What's a good way to build a straw man?"
Even so there is a temperature rises after the CO2 rise. I would say the temperature starts rising about 1910, but the CO2 has already risen 20-odd ppm.
|
|
|
Post by dwerth on Nov 26, 2009 18:22:38 GMT
Steve wrote-
Steve -
You are almost correct. The temperature seems does rise about 1910ish, seemingly following the CO2 trend. However, what about the period before that, where temperatures are going down and the CO2 is increasing, (largest divergence on there)?
In addition, this requires us to use the "corrected" data that ignores the FACT that the properly measured CO2 levels in the 1800s were higher than what is commonly accepted. This divergence from actual, experimental data is a real travesty.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 26, 2009 18:48:02 GMT
Steve wrote- Steve - You are almost correct. The temperature seems does rise about 1910ish, seemingly following the CO2 trend. However, what about the period before that, where temperatures are going down and the CO2 is increasing, (largest divergence on there)? In addition, this requires us to use the "corrected" data that ignores the FACT that the properly measured CO2 levels in the 1800s were higher than what is commonly accepted. This divergence from actual, experimental data is a real travesty. What??? You mean that co2 levels were higher in the 1800's? But...how can that be? That just can't be possible. They must have been using stone age tech, full or errors and prob breathing on the hockey stick before they hit the puck.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Nov 26, 2009 19:20:05 GMT
It is possible to show that CO2 precedes temperatures if you pick an extremely short period to establish trend. All other trend observations show that CO2 follows higher temperatures. My guess would be that the complexity of the cycling of CO2 means that it takes time for the influence of warmth to evidence itself in the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 26, 2009 22:13:20 GMT
In addition, this requires us to use the "corrected" data that ignores the FACT that the properly measured CO2 levels in the 1800s were higher than what is commonly accepted. Answer: They weren't properly measured.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 26, 2009 22:39:28 GMT
If this is the graph being discussed, I wonder where the underlying data was obtained. University of East Anglia perhaps? " Caution: The match of the CO2 and temperature graph above is somewhat deceptive. Since one is temperature and one is CO2 they cannot be graphed on the same axis, so the two axes have been adjusted to align the two. However this process does not change the fact that temperature rose faster from 1975 to now than from 1880 to 1975, and so did CO2. It also cannot change the fact the temperature has been highest recently and so has CO2.
The slight downward trend in temperature from about 1945 until about 1975 is due to the increase in Sulfate Aerosols (SO4), largely produced by burning coal that contains sulfur. These cool the earth, and their increase during these years largely canceled the increase in CO2 during the same period. "
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Nov 27, 2009 1:35:00 GMT
How come the graph only goes to year 2003? What happened to the last 6 years? And why are there spikes downward, every 10 or 11 years? And why did temp be higher during the 30's and 40's and then suddenly drop in the 50's? From the graph, it took 40 years to reach the high from the 1940's? Sulfates? We had buring coal with sulfer. Then what caused the first big run up in the 1940's?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 27, 2009 10:19:55 GMT
How come the graph only goes to year 2003? What happened to the last 6 years? And why are there spikes downward, every 10 or 11 years? And why did temp be higher during the 30's and 40's and then suddenly drop in the 50's? From the graph, it took 40 years to reach the high from the 1940's? Sulfates? We had buring coal with sulfer. Then what caused the first big run up in the 1940's? Sigurdur asked for a plot that showed temperatures rising after CO2 rises. This is a plot that shows temperatures rising after CO2 rises. The plot is a reasonably accurate representation of the data, and it is supported by other independently generated plots. But all I did was do a search of Google images and grab the first plot I found. So please don't read to much in end points etc. Yes, there is natural variability and other changes which means periods of cooling atmosphere temperatures even while CO2 increases. If it really isn't obvious to people, I think that Sigurdur is building a strawman argument that says because there is evidence from the past is that temperature rises/falls preceded CO2 rises/falls, that empirically, CO2 is not the cause of current warming. Fortunately CO2 does not rely on such evidence alone. There is experimental observational support that shows a reduction in outgoing radiation when CO2 levels rise, which supports all the lab experiments and model results. Also, it is quite clear that no reasonable explanation exists for the wide variation in the earth's temperature that does not include the effects of greenhouse gases and, in particular, positive feedback effects some of which seem likely to relate to increases in the strongest greenhouse gas, water vapour. You should accept that CO2 is likely to cause temperature rises - even Lindzen, Spencer and Pat Michaels accept this.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 27, 2009 12:49:47 GMT
Natural variability? Cooling while CO2 increases? Surely not?
I wish I had the scientific background to understand that. Are you agreeing that there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and climate/temperature fluctuations?
I had almost forgotten about water vapour. What proportion of GHGs is that again? Correction: Likely cause of (some portion of) temperature rises
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 27, 2009 13:57:44 GMT
From the other thread - this graph is more interesting isn't it Steve. I could be wrong but this looks suspiciously like: Discard actual CO 2 measurements and use proxies instead to show steady rise in CO 2 from a low base correlating to steady rise in temps - then when the temperature proxies diverge discard them and go back to actual temperature measurements But we know this cannot be true as climate 'scientists' are ethical statistics experts and are in any case subject to strict peer review.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 27, 2009 15:12:44 GMT
Ratty
No. There is a strong link between CO2 levels and temperatures which, for various complex reasons, goes both ways.
You're going to get Sigurdur's strawman all wet you know.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 27, 2009 15:19:05 GMT
Nautonnier, don't you think it strange that CO2 measurements were all over the place till they started being measured carefully at multiple independent and isolated locations. Then all of a sudden, CO2 has been rising steadily and gently at about 1-2ppm per year for over 50 years.
Isn't it odd that CO2 levels have risen and fallen by 100ppm in short periods without any huge natural disruption (such as a three or four Yellowstone/Deccan traps like volcanoes going off at once, or the Amazon Rainforest going up in smoke and then growing back quickly).
You do yourself little credit in promulgating this plot.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 27, 2009 16:01:43 GMT
Nautonnier, don't you think it strange that CO2 measurements were all over the place till they started being measured carefully at multiple independent and isolated locations. Then all of a sudden, CO2 has been rising steadily and gently at about 1-2ppm per year for over 50 years. Isn't it odd that CO2 levels have risen and fallen by 100ppm in short periods without any huge natural disruption (such as a three or four Yellowstone/Deccan traps like volcanoes going off at once, or the Amazon Rainforest going up in smoke and then growing back quickly). You do yourself little credit in promulgating this plot. Steve: As in all of the science, new ideas and new studies should not be discredited out of hand. 1. The levels of co2, prior to Keeling, show a wide variability. Instead of accepting Keeling, there appears to be a genuine interest to learn why they were variable. This is genuine science. NOT thinking of the desired outcome from measurements, but rather exploring WHY the measurements were variable. There are papers that dispute Keelings findings, with justification. 2. The co2 proxies from ice core data have been shown to not be realiable. Another thing wrong with ice core data is the point source. 3. IT is very productive to be discussing this, as it should be discussed. 4. NO one says co2 is not a greenhouse gas. The huge debate has been how much it actually DOES influence temps. There have been ohhhh so many lab experiments that work in a lab, actually introduced with great fanfare, and failed miserably in the world wide application. Just because it works in a lab, does NOT mean it will be applicable to the world as most world systems are chaotic. 5. The straw got wet..it won't burn....the man stands. Funny thing about that.
|
|