Global warming question 3: Why the delay in warming?

Question

Data from the Law Dome Ice core and from the atmospheric monitoring station at Mauna Loa show that atmospheric CO2 levels began to rise due to man made green house gases in 1800 and have continued to increase to this day.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law.html

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

Post industrial revolution global temperatures as measured by NASA, however, did not begin to show an increase until about 1900.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

If the current warming trend is due primarily to man made green house gases, what caused the 100 year delay?

This is the third in a series of questions related to the science involving global warmin an climate change. Please see question 1 & 2 as well.

The rulers remain:

1) Answers must be responsive to the question
2) Critisism and disagreement are welcome, but ad hominem attacks on anyone will be reported as abuse
3) Answers must be supported by referenced evidence.

Crabby,

Did you actually look at the data I cited?

What it shows is that from 1877 (just after the industrial revolution) to 1950 atmospheric CO2 went from 280 to 311 ppm for an increase of 21 ppm.

Total atmospheric CO2 increase from 1877 to present was from 291 - 382 or 91 ppm. Thus, the percentage of total increase from 1877 to 1950 was equal to 23.1%, not what I would call a trivial percentage. The cause of the delay is still unanswered.

Corrected CO2 data:

Atmospheric CO2 levels went from 284 ppm in 1796 to 312 in 1953, and increase of 28 ppm. Current atmospheric CO2 levels are 382 so the total increase from 1796 is 98 ppm. The increase in CO2 from 1796 to 1950 was 28.6% of the total increase to date.

Disgraced - The same data shows an increase of 8 ppm from 1796 to 1882. This represents 8.2 percent of the total increase attributed to man made CO2 emissions, not insignificant. From 1882 to 1899, CO2 increased another 4 ppm and yet during this period, global temperatures not only did not increase, they actually declined slightly. Wikipedia is a very poor source.

Answer 1

The data you cite do not support your claim of a delay. Here are both the temperature and CO2 records from your sources, plotted on the same graph and adjusted for scale:

http://www.columbusnavigation.com/images/CO2-Temp.gif

Other than CO2 forcing of higher temps, all I see here is normal annual temperature variations. I can see no temp lagging at all. Can you?

Answer 2

Hmm, I don't see the 100 year delay you're talking about. If you'll look at this graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png
You'll see that any significant increase in CO2 levels didn't start until about 1880.

I would put natural variability of pre-industrial revolution CO2 at 270 to 290 ppm. If you look at the data you linked to, you'll see that CO2 levels didn't increase past 300ppm until about 1912, which, judging by the temperature graph you provided, was right about the same time temperatures started to increase in earnest.

All in All, after looking at the data you provided I have to say it seems like the temperatures have followed the CO2 increase almost exactly.


:::Edit::: In response to Noone's reply.

The data also shows fluctuations of up to 9 ppm from 1010 to the 1700's. An increase of 8 ppm is still not out of CO2 pre-industrial variability, and temperatures shouldn't be expected to change noticeably until it is.

I think it's also important to note that CO2 is not the only factor effecting climate. Small yet sharp drops and rises like the one from 1882 to 1899 are most likely due to some other factor temporarily overwhelming (or adding to) the CO2 signal.

And I never use Wikipedia as a source. I only provided that graph in order to illustrate my point.

Answer 3

Try a hard one--and the answer is available at nasa.gov, among other places.

Most of the CO2 released into the atmosphere by human action has beenwithin the last 50 years. Small amounts such as were released in the 1800s are mesureable-but not large enough to have asignifigant effect. But the use of fossil fuels began to skyrocket following World War 2--and we are now seeing the effects of this realy large scale release of CO2.

Answer 4

you're in the back of the situations, my chum. international Warming isn't the subject anymore, that's climate exchange. the subject with international Warming is that if the Earth would not warmth up, the con sport is over, not greater investment, not greater new taxes, not greater regulations on our lives. the recent sport is climate exchange. Now if the Earth warms up, you fault. If the Earth cools down, your fault. greater hurricanes? You guessed it; your fault. much less hurricanes? Bingo! Your fault. As con video games go, climate exchange is bordering on wonderful. the only subject I see... are human beings truly going to be stupid adequate to fall for it? according to the different solutions on your question, it merely could artwork.

Answer 5

Before ww II Inuit's of Alaska had talked of global warming for 7 generation's!!!Double accelerattion the last 100 year's. Proof amongst us, was Ice vanishing-thinning-rain replaceing snow-permafrost melt-severe atmospheri yellow Browning from acidifying-tilkting of axis (not verified yet)-seasalt change's like el nino (my name is seasalt born in ocean, Ukivokmeow) The issue is century's old with us Inuit's (eskimo) of Alaska, and our tribal relative's of Kalait Nunat say the same thing/ Mankind doesn't recognize change unless severe trouble or hardship,awaken's.....

Answer 6

Global warming is happening naturally. Green house affects I'm sure help it along a bit. In 3 billion years, the sun will be so close to the earth, it will explode anyway.