How come CO2 levels are the highest they've ever been but the temperatures are not??

Question

I found this chart and I am not good with statistics. So I would like some of you to tell me if this is good stats or bad stats on how he came up with this chart. I would greatly appreciate clarification about this chart and the stats used. Also if the chart is good stats (if there is such a thing) why is the CO2 levels continuing to rise while the temperatures are not rising the same rate and we are not the warmest considering CO2 levels are the highest they've ever been. Thanks

http://www.dialup4less.com/~donald/globalwarming.html
http://members.firststep.net/donald/globalwarming.html

Jimbob: Temperature is part of climate. If you have prolonged high temps with no rain and the high temps is causing no rain then that changes your climate. So temperature is a part of climate!! Also the IPCC states that CO2 is the biggest factor of climate change so that's why this chart focuses on CO2

Dana: I'm aware of the other factors that cause climate change, so your saying that the warming in the past is due to natural causes and the warming we are seeing now is all due to CO2 released by man, so CO2 didn't play a factor in the warming in the past but just now. But shouldn't our temps be in a decent line with the CO2 level rise, that's why I wanted an explanation of the chart.

Bob: Damn Bob I struck a nerve with this one. I was just wanting someone to explain the stats used in his chart, I didn't say if it was correct or not. I was curious if the way he created this chart was voodoo stats or an actual way to represent the data!! But thanks for saying I'm thoughtful!!

Answer 1

You asked where he came up with his chart and I have to say that after 24 years in climatology I have no idea where he got his data from - it's certainly not the global representation it's supposed to be, unfortunately it doesn't appear to be mentioned in the article but I would suspect it's a single data source for a particular station. I would also guess that the data have been distorted, perhaps deliberately, perhaps accidentally.

Here's a more accurate chart based on accurate data - http://profend.com/global-warming/charts/tempco2.jpg, the first thing that strikes you is the closeness of the correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels, as one rises the other follows (it doesn't matter which comes first).

I tend to get suspicious of graphs like the one you linked to. Fair enough, it shows that CO2 levels have gone off the graph in recent years but it fails to put this into prespective, and in any discussion regarding global warming this is imperativs, failure to do so ignores one of the most basic components of the global warming theory. On the scale used the line for CO2 should not only go off the graph but off your screen and out of the top of your monitor (the last upward line of the CO2 graph should be 11 inches long).

The temperatures shown on the graph are all over the place and greatly exaggerate any warming or cooling. They vary between 53°F and 61°F, in reality temperatures have varied between 55°F and 57°F, with a couple of occasions (including now) when they've been closer to 58°F.

- - - - - - -

The relationship between temperatures and CO2 is both complex and non-exclusive. If all other factors are taken out of the equation then the relationship between the two is one of near perfect correlation on an inverted logarithmic scale (if plotted on a graph the graph would rise rapidly then tend to the maximum, a simplification but hopefully you can imagine the sort of line I'm describing).

There are of course a great many factors that lead to global warming and cooling and some of them counteract each other. It's quite possible for levels of greenhouse gases to rise whilst temperatures fall, as happened in the mid 20th century as a result of 'global dimming'. In this instance it was an anthropogenic (manmade) cause but there are natural factors involved as well - primarily the variation in the Sun's output and the way the Earth 'wobbles' in space.

I admire the guy for having a go and trying to relate warming and CO2 levels but it's been approached in a much too simplistic manner.

Answer 2

Well for starters, CO2 levels are not the highest they've ever been, but they are the highest in over 650,000 years.

The basic answer to your question is that CO2 is not the only driver of the Earth's climate. CO2 and average global temperature are very closely interrelated, but other factors such as solar variations and orbital cycles also play a role in the average global temperature.

As you can see here, they are rising at very similar rates when you compare the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases to the increase in global temperature:

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

Answer 3

The temperature used by Davison is not a global temperature. It's from the Vostok ice core in Antarctica. That's fine as far as it goes, but it's only one spot on the Earth's surface.

As it happens, there are global temperature reconstructions from the last 2000 years that draw data from a lot of different places instead of just one. Here are ten of them:
http://www.columbusnavigation.com/pictures/paleoclimate1.png

Looking at the record for the whole world instead of just one place, it's clear that the current warmth is unprecedented over the past 2000 years.

Answer 4

There's a lag time. The oceans are a huge thermal mass, like a very heavy flywheel or a locomotive train. It takes a long time for them to get going.

The data shows that, within a reasonable margin of error, that the present warming is well explained by greenhouse gases, as the most important factor.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Do you think thousands of Ph.D. climatologists are idiots, ignoring basic facts? And that donald@dialup4less is so smart he figures out something they don't? And that the media (even conservative media like Foxnews) is deliberately ignoring him, even though he has "proof" that everybody else is wrong?

Hey, I know a guy who's invented a perpetual motion machine, but he's being suppressed by the energy industry.

It's beyond ridiculous. You're usually more thoughtful than this.

EDIT - My first paragraph answers the question you asked. Others here have pointed out that this guys data is wrong.

What would you expect from someone who says he proven the laws of physics are wrong? With bicycle wheels and motors.

"In other words mankind can now bypass this law of physics when it is useful to do so."

Why do people believe these oddballs, instead of scientists?

Answer 5

Because the cycles in the sun that cause global warming have passed their maximum and the Earth will start to cool again. The Earth's temperature has not changed since 1998 and as the system slowly responds it will start to cool.

Answer 6

Because there isn't a relationship between the amount of co2 and global temps.

CO2 lags temperature by some 800 years.

The climate changes fits better with changes in solar activity.

Answer 7

This is because Co2 is not the only gas resulting in global warming. Also global warming means extreame climate not extreame temperature. It is very bad news. Now that we have started global warming it is very difficult to stop. Some people think that it is all a scandal but that is complete rubbish. Believe me we have got to stop Co2 and other greenhouse gas emissions before it is too late.

Answer 8

World demographic control is the main problem. If the world gets conscience and stop the growing of human , we will have hope . If not, then we will worsen and eventually destroy our self.