What is the relationship between global atmospheric CO2 concentrations and mean global atmospheric...........?

Question

What is the relationship between global atmospheric CO2 concentrations and mean global atmospheric temperature over the past 600, 000 years?
Al Gore said it's like the fit of South American and African contients, what does he mean by that?

Answer 1

CO2 lags temps by some 800 years. This means that the temps start to rise while CO2 continues to decline. After about 800 years, both are rising. Then at some time, temps start to decline while CO2 continues to increase. After about 800 years, the level of CO2 starts to decline like the temps.

This proves that warming is good for life, and CO2 is not the cause of warming.

Answer 2

The relationship is shown graphically here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg and this is what Algore was having a fit about. Perhaps his fit was due to the fact that not once, in 450,000 years, did a rise in CO2 precede a rise in temperature. The data shows conclusively that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration makes a good thermometer. When the temperature rises, the CO2 concentration rises. When the temperature drops, the CO2 concentartion drops. Just like the mercury in a thermometer. Only there are very few twits that will tell you that putting more mercury in your thermometer will make the room warm up.

Note, specifically, the period immediately after each of the temperature/CO2 peaks (remember that the plot is "backward" in that time goes from right to left) Note that in all cases, the CO2 remains high while the temperature drops. How, in the name of the Global Warming Sun God, does this happen if elevated CO2 concentrations cause the atmosphere to warm up?

Gloworms crack me up.

Answer 3

Last part first, continental drift is what is occurring, the world is like a battered jigsaw puzzle, in some areas, you can still fit some of the pieces together, sort of.
There was once a giant continent, then, due to underground pressures, (crust floating on magma), it started to break apart. Even now it is moving around, and will for quite a while yet.
OK, first part, there is a link, of course, higher concentrations means more heat trap, but.....you also need to take into consideration things like water vapour and other gasses in the atmosphere and amount of dust thrown up by volcanic action, ocean temperatures and much, much more.

Answer 4

you will no longer get a properly reasoned answer from the believers in this communicate board by using fact they do no longer reason, they seek for something that concurs with their pre-latest ideals and brush off something that doesn't. Dana as an occasion refuses to settle for Henry's regulation that concentration of a dissolved gas is proportional to the partial tension and fairly keeps that the oceans are becomming saturated. in certainty that the oceans are in equilibrium, so as that they have got continually been saturated, yet while the concentration of CO2 in the ambience will strengthen, the equilibrium concentration modifications. besides to respond to your question, the value of outgassing reduces linearly with partial tension (in accordance with Henry's regulation) and will strengthen approximately linearly with temperature (in the form of temperatures seen). Now to that end, the end results of temperature is quite minor while in comparison with the end results of partial tension. the value of upward thrust of atmospheric CO2 with comprehend to time in accordance on your information contraptions is increasing so the value of CO2 being absorbed via the oceans is increasing additionally.

Answer 5

He means they follow quite closely. There's a clear correlation, as you can see here:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

An important note is that historically, global warming started before the increase in atmospheric CO2 (by about 800 years), but then after that 800 year delay, they rose together (because CO2 was amplifying the existing global warming).

The fact that historically global warming began prior to the CO2 increase does not mean that CO2 can't cause global warming. The fact that CO2 subsequently amplified the existing global warming shows that CO2 can indeed cause global warming, if there's a source emitting CO2. Now there is - humans burning fossil fuels.

Answer 6

What he was trying to do was say that as CO2 levels rise, the temperature also would rise.

However, the truth is that historically, CO2 levels actually trail behind temperature rise. Scientific studies have shown that temperatures rise first, then the CO2 follows the temperature. The complete opposite of what Al Gore said. Of course, just about everything in Al Gore's movie was either wrong or mis-stated.

Answer 7

He was referring to the blue and green curves on this graph:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Vostok_Plot_png

But it's best if you don't get your science from Al Gore, who's not a scientist. He's good for getting you interested, but if you want science go here:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

EDIT - All the people saying that, historically, CO2 rises lagged behind temperature rises are actually proving this particular warming is man made.

In the past warming started for natural reasons (mostly changes in the Sun). The warming caused CO2 to be released from the oceans (warm water can hold less CO2). That process takes hundreds of years as deep ocean waters slowly circulate.

But this time CO2 and temperature are going up simultaneously. It one is many proofs that this warming is mostly caused by CO2.

Answer 8

I suggest you look at the data and decide for your self. I would not take Al Gore's word for it as he is a know serial exaggerator and also has a political axe to grind.