How come in the movie "an inconvient truth" when al gore was showing the graph of the relation between temp

Question

temperature and co2, the co2 lagged behind the temperature by a few hundred years? Is there a reasonable explanation to this?

I don't have a link to this so... If you want to see proof, look for a clip when al gore shows that graph.

I saw a news clip of this when they merged the co2 and temperature into one graph and it shown co2 lag behind the temperature.

[I'm not trying to prove or disprove global warming, I just want the facts]

Answer 1

The graph is from the ice core samples and proves that increases in CO2 follow natural warming periods. The deniers of natural climate will try to say the opposite because they don't like any scientific facts that contradict their AGW agenda.

I'm sure Dana and the other environmental fascists will come up with a bunch of "reasons" why Gore lied in his movie.  They don't deny that the movie is full of lies but like to retort that Gore is not a scientist, so he's allowed to lie to the public about the global warming hoax.

Not many are dumb enough to follow this flawed logic, but that won't stop them from giving links to bogus websites and quotes from proven liars and politicians.

The truth always wins in the end.  Years from now we'll all be laughing at how stupid all these AGW believers are, if they haven't already destroyed our economy by then.   Remember their real goal is to hurt the poor.

Answer 2

Because the warmings were caused by 'natural' factors (variations in the Earth's orbital cycles and solar output).  So the planet warmed for a while.  Then at a certain point, the planet got warm enough to cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 due to feedbacks like CO2 being less soluble in warmer water.  Then the increased atmospheric CO2 amplified the warming further, which is why global temperature and atmospheric CO2 follow eachother so closely for several thousand years after that initial ~800 year lag.

Basically a natural warming triggered a CO2 release which then caused further warming.  The difference now is that there's a temperature-independent source of CO2 - humans burning fossil fuels.  As we expect, this is causing global warming.

*edit* No, because the planet is now warming faster than during those 'natural' warmings.  That's why we're seeing things like methane being released from permafrost.  At the current rate, natural CO2 releases will happen in much less than 800 years.

For example, in the most recent natural warming (coming out of the last ice age), the planet warmed 8°C over 8,000 years (1°C every 1,000 years).

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precaut...

We just warmed 1°C in about 100 years, and 0.5°C over the past 30 years.  That's a rate of warming 20 times faster, and why people are so 'alarmed'.  The feedbacks are what we need to worry about, and scientists don't think it's going to take a lot more warming (on the order of 3°C more) to begin to trigger them.

Answer 3

Jeez Dana Master of Ego, your standard issue cut and past answer was less than 400 paragraphs long this time.  Are you conserving on electrons?

Answer 4

Man Bear Pig

Answer 5

Of course there's an explanation. CO2 is less soluble in warm water. Basic chemistry. It's why your soda will go flat if you leave it out in the sun. If the planet's oceans begin to warm, as they do during an interglacial period, they'll begin to emit carbon dioxide. The 800 year lag is due to the thermal inertia of the oceans; they respond to forcing much more slowly than the atmosphere does.

This doesn't mean carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas. Radiative physics dictate that it is. The CO2 emitted from the oceans during an interglacial is a positive feedback mechanism that reinforces whatever caused the warming in the first place (a change in albedo, variations in Earth's orbit, the changing position of Earth's land masses, etc.)

In fact, scientists are worried that this feedback mechanism is going to come into play as the world's oceans warm from an anthropogenically enhanced greenhouse effect.

Answer 6

At least gcnp knows enough to not try to suggest CO2 was driving climate as Ken and Dana seem to do.  I am sure they realize that CO2 must be shown to do evil or their cause is kaput.  The theory (if it even rises to the level of a theory) that CO2 is going to drive our future climate is pretty difficult to prove with our current knowledge.  In my opinion, it is more about wishful thinking on the left.  It fits their worldview that humans are responsible for everything bad in the world and even a nice warm day would be bad if humans caused it.  How can I come up with any other logical conclusion.  That is all that is left for me to conclude.

Answer 7

you are right.  I saw the graph too, it wasnt that hard to see.  It can be seen in the vostok ice samples too, the co2 rises after the temp.  Just because they move together, doesnt mean one causes the other.  I think there is good enough reason to believe co2 rises after the temperature does, based on how water absorbs and emits co2 when warmed or cooled.  

temperatures and co2 levels OBVIOUSLY dont rise proportionally.  If you look at the vostok ice core temp/co2 graph, you can see that the increase from 180 ppm of co2 to 280 ppm correlates to the 8*C increase.  Yet we only see .6*C increase when it is increased to 380 ppm today?  ITS CLEAR AS DAY, CO2's effects on temperature are minimal while temperatures effects on co2 are VERY SIGNIFICANT.

edit: Ken, then why cant this be observed in a graph like the one I posted.  The co2 level seems to skyrocket, and stops rising when the temperature stops instead of causing the temperature to continue to rise like you say.

Answer 8

many years ago there was a giant flood... it could not be predicted by the science of our day. It is even denied by evolutionists of our day! But there is more scientific evidence of a flood than most any claims in science! If we can deny it happened, then we can deny many facts and believe what we want! Global warming will increase dramatically and we can do all and will make no difference! We are not doing it and that is the usual with the U.N. and anyone that is Liberal, such as Al Gore! They will believe what they want and support what they want to believe.. facts are just in the way, but many times, politics are not! If we look at the big depressions that have occurred throughout the world we see the evidence of a flood.. These are put aside as not confiding in what one wants to believe! This is a minor thing compared to all that supports a flood! But by our words, we  excuse them, we can call that q***r science! When will we have a real science that says facts are most important, we may tell the truth? Earl

Answer 9

Here is a decent explanation of what was going on in a non-anthropogenically forced climate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

The difference is that in this situation in the paleoclimate, CO2 is a feedback, not a forcing.  (The difference, sort of, is that if CO2 is a feedback, it is not the prime driver changing the climate, but amplifies a change set in motion by other causes (paleo ice ages are caused mainly by subtle changes in the Earth's inclination).  When CO2 is a forcing, its buildup in the atmosphere changes the radiative transfer and alters climate.)  

There are times in paleoclimate (maybe 500 million years ago) when CO2 is believed to have operated as a forcing, not a feedback.  In those cases, the source of CO2 causing the atmospheric increase was volcanoes.  But in that situation there was very little weathering of rock to remove atmospheric CO2 and the buildup was over millions of years, not several decades.  

http://www.snowballearth.org/

provides a more detailed explanation of this theory.

Answer 10

The most widely accepted explanation I've read is that the initial warming was caused by Milankovitch cycles (orbital variations) which heat up the ocean, causing a release of CO2.  Once the CO2 is in the atmosphere, it then continues the warming process.  So basically, one thing starts the warming, which increases the atmospheric CO2, which then causes more warming.

This link deals directly with it in relation to Gores movie:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

The other links below are good as well.

Answer 11

Sscientific studies have shown that CO2 lags behind the temp by several hundreds of years. The thought is that as the temperature heats up, the oceans heat up and release more CO2 (the ocean is the biggest CO2 sink).

Al Gore should have known this when he made the movie as scientist had already published this data. It would appear he knew this, but chose to ignore the scientific data as it did not support his agenda.

Answer 12

They can't have a graph going back 500 years in the first place... sorry. He made it up :*-(

Answer 13

Exactly - And this information also shows that the "science" of global warming is reactive.  -  First you see the data, then you write a explanation that fits the data to what you believe.

This is why "global warming" causes record low temperatures and snows.