Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Your Global Warming Data-point for the Day


This graph correlates CO2 levels and temperature.

By looking at atmospheric CO2 levels trapped in ice cores, scientists can determine the level of green house gases and correlate them to temperature over the last several hundred thousand years.

Note the current spike in CO2 levels, and the recent rise in temps.

I hope the correlation doesn't continue to hold...

24 comments:

Za said...

Evening.
Although rather irrelevant to this post, I figured that it was the latest one, so probably the best place to comment.

I'm Za (apparently the resident Antichrist of Right-Wing Right-Minded, since I'm their regular devil's advocate), and I was hoping to get your permission to link to your journal from mine.

You have a lot of good stuff, and actually bother to stop and think about things, which is something I value.

Reign of Reason said...

Please feel free Za... I'll check out your site too.

mrsleep said...

Right on. I have nothing but contempt for the rabble for reinforce the quack junk science that questions Global warming.

We should handcuff the wingnuts with beachfront property to their porch railings, and when the sea levels rise another 10 feet, we won't have to worry about them anymore.

Sodium Pentothal said...

Nice graph... shows a spike in CO2 without a spike in temperature. Score one for environmentalist dumbasses!

Za said...

On topic, there're a few things worth mentioning.

There IS a temperature spike (I live in Australia, we just had the hottest year on record EVER with no El Nino effect to explain it). This is due to numerous factors - like the sun getting hotter (even Mars is going through a global warming because of that), similarly the CO2 we produce is trapping in the heat we give off.

Combine this with the fact that the CO2 also causes less light from hitting the ground (a recorded phenominon), means that we're in for the upper atmosphere heating up, the lower atmosphere cooling down, and then some massively crazy weather because of it.

Reign of Reason said...

SP - again, apparently you have no understanding of science, statistics or the definition of a ‘correlation’.

Look at the graph, it encompasses 400,000 years. The CO2 spike we see has occurred in the last 40 years or so. The correlation isn't perfect (i.e. its not 1.0) -- there are other factors involved.

However, the correlation is very high. Given the data trend it would be logical to deduce that global temperatures will follow (in a relatively short amount of time) the CO2 trend as they have for the last 400,000 years.

If this is true, we’re in for a big change.

So given our best estimate that global warming is “real”, why not prepare for it and challenge our society (i.e. – business base) to prepare for it. If we do, we could be in the position to sell these technologies to the rest of the world (e.g.- China, India) when they are needed.

However, if we continue on the course folks like you advocate, well – we’ll just head off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings.

Sodium Pentothal said...

The correlation isn't perfect (i.e. its not 1.0) -- there are other factors involved.

LOL! Well if there are so many other factors involved, how do you know what our effect is to begin with? Too funny...

If you want to believe that measurements taken from hundreds/thousands/hundreds of thousands of years ago can be anywhere near accurate, that's up to you. Empirically there is *no* evidence that man is effecting the temperature.

As I have shown, it warms more when we pollute less, and it warms less when we pollute more.

For the last 8 years the temperature has dropped even though pollution is at an all time high. You guys have nothing.

Reign of Reason said...

"LOL! Well if there are so many other factors involved, how do you know what our effect is to begin with? Too funny..."

Well, let me tell you something about my field: orbit analysis. It’s not quite analogous, but it’ll give you some idea how engineers and scientists can models systems with hundreds of “perturbing forces”…

Using statistical methods we can determine (and predict) the orbit of a satellite (moving at more than 17,000 mph) with an accuracy of a few centimeters. How? We model the earth's geopotential by dividing it up into zonal and tesseral section and using an infinite series to model the forces produced by the rock/ocean/atmosphere in that block.

We also model atmospheric drag (all the out to several thousand miles altitude -- where you normally wouldn't think about an atmosphere, but there are still some atoms floating around up there).

We also model the effects of solar radiation pressure on a satellite… as well as earth albedo (reflected light pressure). All of these models are updated by gathering information on the actual trajectory of the satellite compared to predictions. There are literally hundreds of effects to account for – some of them highly correlated.

However, since we ARE successful in accurately predicting the satellites track, we have proof the methods work.

Of course, the earth is the major perturber in this situation, and the models demonstrate that obvious fact… Just as the graph of historical CO2 levels is one of the MAJOR factors which determines global temperature. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.. that is not “theory” – CO2 traps heat. The effect isn’t necessarily an instantaneous rise in temperature: some of that heat is used to: melt glaciers (which have been ‘retreating’ for decades now), power storms (hurricanes), etc. etc.

Just because temperature doesn’t increase in a 1-1 fashion with CO2 levels doesn’t mean the science is wrong.

You may want to read more before you laugh off science. Again, it’s given you everything you have around you…

Besides, what do you want to base policy on?? The best predictions of scientists who study the problem – or you “gut” feel, along with the opinions of a VERY VERY few dissenting scientists?

Reign of Reason said...

Maybe we should still "pray" over people with pneumonia instead of giving them antibiotics.. .there are a few docs out there who prefer that treatment.

As for hard data, here's more than you probably care to peruse:

http://www4.nationalacademies.or...16? OpenDocument
"Despite differences in temperature data, strong evidence exists to show that the warming of the Earth's surface is "undoubtedly real," and that surface temperatures in the past two decades have risen at a rate substantially greater than average for the past 100 years, says a new report by the National Research Council of the National Academies."

http://dels.nas.edu/globalchange/

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ clim...balwarming.html

Za said...

Empirically there is *no* evidence that man is effecting the temperature.
This is false. As I stated, Australia had its hottest year on record last year - with no El Nino.

What that means in logistical terms is that the usual cycle that brings a blast of hot air down from the equator didn't come (in all probability, due to the massive tsunami causing large shifts in the weather patterns). And yet we still managed to have the hottest year on record. There is no explanation except global warming in that case.

The other thing, which I find highly amusing about your links about what you've "proven", is that you continuously cite political advantage. Well how's about the fact that Bush himself came out and said that global warming is a problem, and that we need to deal with it. Just once - back in 2002. And yet the instant Limbaugh calls him "George W. Algore", the statement is retracted?

But I guess this is just reality's well known liberal bias.

Sodium Pentothal said...

As I stated, Australia had its hottest year on record last year - with no El Nino.

So? As usual, global warming nutcases respond with an argument that doesn't make any sense.

Nobody is debating the fact that the Earth is warming, just the level of human influence. My response to RoR can be found in the comments section here.

Reign of Reason said...

SP- CO2 is an undisputed greenhouse gas: it allows radiative energy in, but tends to capture/reflect IR energy.

If we have pumped UNPRECIDENTED amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, what do you think it'll do?

jj said...

SP- The Bushco goes out of their way to hide the cause and effects of global warming because it would cut into profits for big business.

So you think Nasa is wrong. Do you know something NASA doesnt
They say-A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect.

more from NASA site= that some "greenhouse skeptics" subvert the scientific process, ceasing to act as objective scientists, rather presenting only one side, as if they were lawyers hired to defend a particular viewpoint.


I don't think anyone seriously doubts humans are affecting the climate or maybe I should say I don't think anyone that is serious doubts humans are changing the climate.

Sodium Pentothal said...

If we have pumped UNPRECIDENTED amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, what do you think it'll do?

This is another way of saying "we don't have any evidence that it will change the climate, but we sure think it will!" Get back to me when you have actual data.

Do you know something NASA doesnt

I don't know anything that NASA doesn't. They admit to a complete lack of evidence by posting none on the very website that is supposed to convince people of it. How smart is that? Second, if a majority believes it, does that make it true?

I don't think anyone seriously doubts humans are affecting the climate

Then you need to get out more. I doubt most people believe this shit. Either that or they don't care. Every day I see gas-guzzling machines. Even the celebs who pretend to care fly around in private jets that burn more fuel on a single flight than you do in a year of driving.

I will conclude by stating that posting opinions without evidence in an attempt to convince a non-believer is flat-out stupid. Until you can provide the neccessary data, I don't want to hear about it.

Reign of Reason said...

So have you read the papers from the National Academy of Sciences that I pointed you at?? How do you discredit those?

CO2 is a green house gas: it is a fact... as I said; it traps/reflects IR energy.

But believe as you will... I guess quantum mechanics must be wrong too since we can't reconcile some of it's principles with gravity (ignore the fact that QED has been tested and verified to a higher degree than any other branch of physics).

Again, because a scientist can't answer all of your questions with 100% certainty doesn't mean you should heed the evidence. What would you propose we use as the basis for policy? Witchcraft and spittle?

Reign of Reason said...

Try this link:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/

R

Reign of Reason said...

Best data source: the horses mouth, so to speak --
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

jj said...

SP~ I doubt most people believe this shit. Either that or they don't care. Every day I see gas-guzzling machines. Even the celebs who pretend to care fly around in private jets that burn


Believing and changing habits are two different things. The habits will change just not soon enough.

If you you haven't read enough from the site ROR posted there is more here from Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)

Za said...

Nobody is debating the fact that the Earth is warming, just the level of human influence.
Actually, you did. But I'm glad to argue with someone who can't keep their arguments straight.

I also like the fact that you ignore that even Bush said it was a problem, but because of political advantage he had the statement retracted.

Sodium Pentothal said...

Actually, you did. But I'm glad to argue with someone who can't keep their arguments straight.

Actually, I didn't. The temp. has gone down since 1998, but the overall trend over the past century is upward, of course.

I also like the fact that you ignore that even Bush said it was a problem

Again, what does opinion have to do with fact? You people only post opinions. If you want to be taken seriously, you could at least try to show some data. But since there is none, what can ya do? Pity.

Reign of Reason said...

SP- I posted links to the official 2001 international report on your site.

I'm sure you noticed.

more data there than I'm sure you care to review...

Sodium Pentothal said...

Again, I do not allow hyperlink debating on my blog, nor will I respond to it elsewhere. Am I to refute an entire website of bullshit?

If you can't post specific data instead of ctrl-v-ing a web addy, do not expect a response.

The good part for you is this allows you an easy escape and you can claim victory simply by posting a link. The bad part for you is that any unbiased person will know you're just full of shit.

Reign of Reason said...

SP,

You are amazing… you construct you little world and live in it: good for you! Keep making up those rules to support your point!

I linked you to the formal international scientific committee that generated the final report (in 2001) on global warming and to data on the National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration and the National Academy of Sciences. If you want data, those are the authoritative place to see it. Perhaps I should summarize it for you in a nice XL spreadsheet?

But you probably believe that’s possible. And that’s why I should do the smart thing and make this my last response to your intellectual drool.

If you want to be intellectually lazy you have that right. You can also side with the one dentist who didn’t side with the “Nine out of 10 dentists surveyed who recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum”. I’m sure you do.

Yeah – I’m “claiming victory” by posting a link. My links are to national and international science boards and committees. Your “site/post” is essentially the ranting of a right-wing zealot who gets his “data” from Rush Limbaugh.

Sodium Pentothal said...

Your links are generalized arguments that are impossible to refute. Of course, I could always just cut and paste http://www.junkscience.com/ , but that would be far too easy.

Intellectually lazy is allowing others to write your opinions for you. Closed-minded liberals such as yourself take that back door escape.