An Inconvenient Graph
Perhaps someone could explain this?
Now the engineer in me questions the temperature measurements, since I really have no idea how you could be all that accurate over that length of time. But that CO2 curve looks to be objective and based off a sample. So a change of a couple hundred PPM of CO2 looks like it's a fairly regular occurrence. Was there a stone age equivalent of Halliburton, then?
H/T Mike's America for the link.
UPDATE: Major ouch moment here. Dr. Roy Spencer has a stinging set of questions for Al. At this point, Al's movie may actually have the opposite effect that he intended. It may actually bring the real debate into the open. Is man the primary cause of the recent warming or just a component? Or not even all that much of a player in forces much, much greater than what man's puny efforts can do? (Frankly, that graph above, from the UN itself, makes a lot of the "human based" arguments very problematic).
By Mike's America, Thursday, 25 May , 2006 @ 10:47 pm
Isn’t it amazing how the left, and Al Gore, have made a cottage industry propagandizing and politicizing this issue and it’s underlying science?
And it’s not amazing, but astounding that on the basis of such dubious science the left wants to completely restructure the world’s economy (or at least the Western half).
By Gaius, Friday, 26 May , 2006 @ 4:36 am
ONLY the western half and only in a negative diection, I think.
By Jim O'Hara, Friday, 26 May , 2006 @ 7:42 am
Not sure what year is “year 0″ is in the graphs, but in 2005 CO2 levels were at 380 ppmv, a record level. That said, it still doensn’t mean that CO2 levels drive global temperature. It’s very possible that higher temperature release CO2 from the oceans and CO2 laden frozen swamps that thaw during higher global temperatures.
What is needed is a third graph that plots solar activity. The sun follows regular solar cycles. Russian scientists have shown solar cycles are corolated to .97 with global temperatures! There is even a $10,000 bet between Russian scientists and American scientists over what will happen global temperature-wise over the next few years.
It’s undeniable that human activity has increased global CO2 levels, and it’s possible that the 380ppmv last year represents a new record. But keep in mind we are coming off a peak period of solar activity (2000-2005), and are going into a lull period. If global temperatures decrease this year as CO2 levels remain high, it will blow the human caused CO2 gas release being a direct driver of global warming.
Jim
By JJ, Wednesday, 14 June , 2006 @ 1:07 pm
Did the engineer in you even take a look at the present year of the graph? 1950? How incredible disingenious of you take make an arguement on old data.
Here is a more recent graph that illustrates Al Gore’s arguement. Please use it from now on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png
By Gaius, Wednesday, 14 June , 2006 @ 1:29 pm
THant would be the UN data point. Your problem with it is what? Your wikipedia reference has no provenance.
By JJ, Wednesday, 14 June , 2006 @ 2:14 pm
You obviously didn’t watch the movie, because Al Gore cleary addresses your point.
CO2 naturally has gone up and down. That graph above illustrates the normal cycle and range of CO2 levels that we have seen in the past. What the graph fails to show you is what happened in the past fifty or so years from 1950 on. From viewing just that graph the assumption is made that CO2 levels must be following the normal range when infact it has not. CO2 levels have reached record levels of 380 ppm and is predicted to reach 450-550 ppm by 2050.
By Gaius, Wednesday, 14 June , 2006 @ 2:23 pm
And there is no proof whatsoever that concentrations elevated by a few hundred PPM can or is causing the increases in temperature we are seeing. Those few hundred PPM do not change the overall percentage of CO2 relative to the other gases that make up the atmosphere one iota.
By JJ, Wednesday, 14 June , 2006 @ 2:57 pm
The evidence lies in the graph you displayed above. It illustrates that whenever CO2 levels have gone up, so has the temperature and when the CO2 levels have gone down so has the temperature.
By Gaius, Wednesday, 14 June , 2006 @ 3:11 pm
Nonsense. It shows no such thing. It shows there is a correlation, it does not show causality. It could easily be argued, by your own logic, that the rising temperatures cause increased levels of CO2.