Global warming skeptics - can you account for this?

Question

Here are some facts that everyone should accept:

1) Historically, atmospheric CO2 increases have lagged behind (and amplified) global temperature increases by several centuries. This is an argument man-made GW skeptics often make, and it's true.

2) Currently, atmospheric CO2 concentrations and avg. global temperature are increasing at roughly the same time and rate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

3) As a greenhouse gas, CO2 causes GW. It doesn't necessarily INITIATE GW - if something else has already initiated GW then CO2 will act as a feedback and amplify it - but increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations will cause GW to increase.

Now, if CO2 lags behind GW by centuries when something else initiates it, and CO2 and GW are currently increasing at the same time and rate, how do you account for this discrepancy if the current GW isn't primarily caused by humans?

I guess Nickolass can't account for it. MWP was 1000 years ago, by the way.

My data is based on measurements within the last 50 years (facts 2 and 3) and historical measurements of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature which go back over 100,000 years (fact 1) and are accepted by skeptics and used as evidence that GW is not caused by CO2. These plots were presented in "An Inconvenient Truth" as evidence that CO2 does cause GW, then skeptics pointed out the centuries-long lag between temperatures and CO2.

Brian - you're making my point for me, and not accounting for the discrepancy.

I guess jim z can't account for it either. The 1970s global cooling has been explained here many, many times. Here's one of them:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgS2qOApqjAAlFJiUIa8Hyfty6IX?qid=20070604111016AAytIOp

Mt. Zion - http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

"Notice how CO2 concentration rises vertically at the end of the time series. The increase appears vertical because of the large time scale, but it actually occurs over the past 150 years, which corresponds to the age of fossil fuels (the modern industrial age). Notice too that there hasn't been a corresponding increase in temperature during this time period. This is probably due to the ability of the oceans to function as a heat sink, and thereby delay the increase in atmospheric temperatures. However, there are recent indications that the oceans are now warming, which will reduce their ability to act as a heat sink."

Wow so many bad answers to address.

Mc - Of course the graphs are not the same because there's more than one contributor to global climate. The point is that the trends are the same (because CO2 currently dominates), as you admit.

ya - any skeptics who can't account for the discrepancy get a thumbs-down. So far that's all of them.

Galt - I can't even figure out what your incoherent babbling is supposed to say.

Eric - Fact #3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus can't be independent of temperature. Especially since it either follows or leads temperature exactly (sometimes with a lag). You're making no sense at all. Sun variations don't account for global warming. I refer you all to my usual model plot which answers all your questions and misunderstandings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Oh come on Mark! Misinterpret the data and then accuse me of the same? That's freaking weak.

1) 1 plot is temperature, the other is CO2. Duh.
2) Why are you just looking at temperature and CO2 in the last plot? The model is the sum of all components. In 1910 CO2 wasn't the dominant component so of course temp didn't follow like it does now.
3) I'm so sorry I said black instead of brown.

Learn to read data before you accuse others of not being able to.

Answer 1

They have ice core samples from the last 650.000 years. Now, the ice traps small bubbles of atmosphere that provide information about CO2 levels and temperature.

Answer 2

) Historically, atmospheric CO2 increases have lagged behind (and amplified) global temperature increases by several centuries. This is an argument man-made GW skeptics often make, and it's true.

Yes

2) Currently, atmospheric CO2 concentrations and avg. global temperature are increasing at roughly the same time and rate:

Such a short time span is statistically meaningless and not very useful in determinining past, present, or future trends

3) As a greenhouse gas, CO2 causes GW. It doesn't necessarily INITIATE GW - if something else has already initiated GW then CO2 will act as a feedback and amplify it - but increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations will cause GW to increase.

Wrong assumption. You make a wild leap of "FAITH" that GW results from CO2, either primarily or significantly IMO. There are other feedback mechanisms that act in the reverse buffering our climate. Your focus on CO2 is because those that push CO2 climate change can use that to try to blame man.


Now, if CO2 lags behind GW by centuries when something else initiates it, and CO2 and GW are currently increasing at the same time and rate, how do you account for this discrepancy if the current GW isn't primarily caused by humans?

How do you account for the cooling between 1940 to 1970s. I know I am a broken record, but I am a broken record that never gets answered because the answer is that it blows away the CO2 is responsible for everything bad in the world argument.

By the way, it has been shown that the Rainforests are not the lungs of the earth. It seems this slogan science of the environmentalists always goes on without regard to the truth.

Answer 3

1) You know that atmospheric CO2 increases have lagged behind (and amplified) global temperature increases by several centuries because you were there? Did you have some one collecting accurate date with equally accurate devices? Or is this based on ''core samples'' or some other equally inaccurate method? Isn't this just theory? By definition it is.

2) Currently, atmospheric CO2 concentrations and avg. global temperature may be increasing at roughly the same time and rate caused by any one of a million different reasons. Fungi, for instance produces CO2, any idea just how much? Or hasn't anyone told you this little tidbit? Fret not, it is as I said, just one of perhaps millions.

3) Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as are many others.

There is no doubt however a warming going on. Over time it will be followed by a cooling, which in turn will be followed by yet another warming and so on. There is nothing to panic about. The world as we know it will not end. We are not all going to perish as a result of this warming trend. Just about everything we understand to date has a pattern. This wave pattern occurs often in nature, including ocean waves, sound waves, and light waves.All of these can be graphed or illustrated with a sine wave, and as a result can then be monitored and analyzed. In the case of global temperature we just don't have enough accurate data yet to ''plot'' a pattern which would help us predict coming changes. Don't forget, the only accurate recorded data we have dates back only about 100 years, everything else is just theories and guesswork. So you see, it's just a natural cycle. In fact, if we could and did change global warming we may in fact do greater damage to the Earth's future as this current warming may be vital to it's ecosystem! Have you even concidered this possibility?

Answer 4

As nickolassc pretty much says, you cannot make a valid comparison between direct measurements and indirect (historical) measurements. We don't know if there is any real lag between present day temperature and CO2 concentrations in ice core samples.

Does an ice core sample tell you what the global temperature is at the time that the water is frozen? Does an ice core sample tell you how quickly or at what time of the day and year the water was frozen? More than the partial pressure of CO2 in the ambient atmosphere, the temperature of the water before freezing will determine the amount of CO2 trapped in the ice. Also of a greater determining factor is the length of time it takes for the water to freeze; solubility increases as the temperature decreases - all the way down to the freezing point. Historical samples get us in the ballpark, but should only be used to make a qualitative (not quantitative) comparison to present day conditions.

Keep on posting the Mauna Loa graph with its erroneous attribution of annual fluctuations to CO2 uptake by land plants. Wrong! Just another example of how alarmists play fast and loose with scientific principles.

And do we have to get one more person saying that land plants produce the majority of the oxygen in the atmosphere. 95% from rainforests? Total contribution of land plants is about a quarter of the globe's O2. Don't misinterpret this as thinking I'm OK with the tragic deforestation loss of valuable rainforest - I'm definitely not. But I'm not going to let my feelings get in the way of what is or isn't valid science. If only all people felt that way...

Answer 5

All that means is that co2 acts independent of temperature, and causes little warming. In other words the fact that co2 has increased does not necessarily mean that is the reason temperatures have risen. If you claim that it amplifies it, that is a theory that has not be proved.

Your argument on global cooling on your follow ups. It was not during the seventies, but from 1940-1975. look at the chart at the answer you choose as best answer. If smog or sulphates were the cause of the cooling, why did temperatures rise starting at around 1910 when sulphate levels were high, but co2 levels were low?

How do I account for this discrepancy? It is the sun. This site explain the theory behind sunspots, solar flares, cosmic rays, cloud formation and temperatures. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/The_Geologic_Record_and_Climate_Change.pdf
Notice how at around 1910 sun spots and temperatures both start to rise. Notice at around 1940 they both start to fall. Are you saying that is a coincidence?

Answer 6

I see you gave everyone a thumbs down that didn't agree with you. Can't handle the truth, can we? The reason why scientist are split on GW, is because there are rational scientists and then there are liberal hippie scientists.
http://www.iceagenow.com/17000_Scientists.htm
Yes I believe we need to lower pollution levels. But not because of GW. If you were alive in the 70s you would understand what harm polluting the Earth can cause. And today you can see the progress that we've made. Right now the Earth nearing the end of a warm cycle. That's the reason for the population explosion we've seen in the last 1000 years. Within the next 10,000 years( yes, that means it could start tomorrow) the Earth will enter the next ice age. And there is nothing we humans can do about it. The Earth's population will be drastically reduced. Humans will survive the ice age and the cycle will repeat again. The Earth will warm and the population will explode again.

.
For "Trevor"

The reason you ever answer questions is so you can make yourself feel good by believing you are more intelligent than others.

Yes, your statement is correct, but. And that's a "big" but. Have you ever heard about a gas called carbon dioxide? It's a heavy gas that can collect in low lying areas(i.e. valleys, depressions, etc.) and can cause immediate death of any lifeform that comes in contact with it.

[quote] "The CO2-rich cloud was expelled rapidly from the southern floor of Lake Nyos. It rose as a jet with a speed of about 100 km per hour. The cloud quickly enveloped houses within the crater that were 120 meters above the shoreline of the lake. Because CO2 is about 1.5 times the density of air, the gaseous mass hugged the ground surface and descended down valleys along the north side of the crater. The deadly cloud was about 50 meters thick and it advanced downslope at a rate of 20 to 50 km per hour. This deadly mist persisted in a concentrated form over a distance of 23 km, bringing sudden death to the villages of Nyos, Kam, Cha, and Subum." [quote]

[quote] "The gas laden water from the bottom of the lake surges to the surface, releasing billions of cubic metres of gas; this settles like a huge toxic blanket over the surrounding area.

It is heavier than air so all the oxygen is forced out and all life is suffocated.

This is what happened at Lake Nyos in Cameroon in 1986, when 1,700 people were killed.

Lake Kivu is hundreds of times bigger than Lake Nyos and it is estimated that more than two million people would die." [quote]


.

Answer 7

Your graphs are not the right ones. They are graphs of Temp vs year only. They do not show CO2 concentrations. This is easy to identify as each axis of the graph is labeled. Are you sure these are the graphs you wanted discussed?

However, in your last correction (to Eric) you do linjk to a graph on Wikipedia. I look at that and see a temperature minimum at about 1910 (resolution of graph is kind of low) followed by a rather quick increase in temperature until about 1950 or so. When I look at the blue line, I see that CO2 remains about steady during that time period. After which, the CO2 forcing increases as temperature increases. The black line is increasing while the blue line remains essentially flat. A rough estimate of the slopes of yields a value of .0125 degrees/year for the black line (Temperature) and a slope of 0.0025 degrees/year for the blue line (CO2 forcing).

I used the simple rise/run = slope equation. I defined the run as 40 years (1910 to 1950). I defined the rise of the black line as 0.5 degrees (that is to say 0.3 - -0.2 = 0.5) and the rise of the blue line as (0.1 - 0.0 = 0.1)

What I see on this graph is a lag of about 40 years. The temperature peaked around 1950, then CO2 began to increase.

The data that you have presented here does not support you argument. I need not account for the premise that you have presented, as it can be argued that your premise is faulty using the data you presented here.


------EDIT-----
Regarding this graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

You stated in an earlier answer that the black line is the sum of the colored lines. That is incorrect. The black line is labeled observed, hence, it is the observed temperature change. You will also note that the observed line actually lies outside of the 68% certainty shading of the light gray modeled temperature change data at a variety of points. That hints at poor modelling.

Poor interpretation of the graphs and poor modelling. Your position seems to be weak.

Answer 8

Dana, Dana, Dana. Ya just don't get it yet do you. lets make a couple points. How many years have we been "destroying your earth" with CO2? what is it 200-300 years? In that time how many degree increase in global temperature? All I could find has been what 1 degree over 100 years? So lets just say that over 300 years since all this CO2 build up, 3 degree temperature change occurred. Now I know this is actually higher than reality, but even with 3 degree temperature change in 300 you are talking a typical day in 1706 and 2006 varying only 3 degrees temperature. instead of 76 we have 79, your kidding me right? is this your horrid end of the world crisis? better get my sun block on now, when I am one hundred years older its going to be 80 degrees.

Answer 9

The feedback respond from the fear mongers is the most absurd answer to keep Co2 the culprit. If you look at the last 650000 years of temperature and Co2 there are times that temperature falls while Co2 is increasing.

Case closed fear mongers. Move on to something else.

The lag of Co2 to temperature is the time that it takes for the oceans to warm. As the oceans get warmer they release more Co2, and vice versa.

What causes temperatures to increase and decrease is solar activity. I am amazed that people try to discount the most powerful thing in the universe.

http://www.knowingtruth.com/

Answer 10

Did you even look at your own graphs?

The CO2 is increasing at a very steady rate with the normal seasonal variations.
The temperature graph is moving up and down all the time, these ups and downs are not seasonal they last for years.
If CO2 is causing global warming then why is CO2 increasing at a relatively constant speed while temperature is moving up and down wildly with no pattern.
The only thing the two graphs have in common is that they both have a general upward trend, however apart form that they look nothing alike, the CO2 is increasing faster than temperature.

Answer 11

U need to check on the CO2 increase it is not there the plants have done a great job. If CO2 had increased that much u should see a drop in O2 which u have not. For every C atom u should have 2 of oxygen. Where has it all gone. CO2 is so heavy it is on the ground 95% in 6 ft of the ground and that heavy it would of filled a valey where some small town would die. It is not happening.