How come when even though CO2 levels are going through the roof, temperature is decreasing?

Question

Also, can I have a link to a graph (fully updated) of relations between CO2 and temperature?

Answer 1

Jill

There is a theory that the "conveyer belt" of currents that include the Gulf Stream could slow down or stop flowing, causing a sudden ice age in Europe, Eastern North America, and maybe other parts of the world.  I don't think it is considered likely by most climate scientists, but it is within the realm of possibilities.

American Grit   what you said makes no sense.  Ever hear of an accelerating rate?

  And it isn't one seventh of a degree it is 0.7 or seven tenths of a degree.  1913 was right near a multiyear low, which is why that is a little over the amount stated for the last 100 years.  Actually the latest figures I've seen are for 0.7 C change anyway.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...

Skeptic argument:

"There was global cooling in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, even while human greenhouse-gas emissions were rising. Clearly, temperature is not being driven by CO2."

Answer:

"None of the advocates of the theory of anthropogenic global warming claim that CO2 is the only factor controlling temperature in the ocean-atmosphere climate system. It is a large and complex system, responsive on many different timescales, subject to numerous forcings. AGW only makes the claim that CO2 is the primary driver of the warming trend seen over the last 100 years. This rise has not been smooth and steady -- nor would it be expected to be."

"If you look at the temperature record for the 1990s, you'll notice a sharp drop in '92, '93, and '94. This is the effect of massive amounts of SO2 ejected into the stratosphere by Mount Pinatubo's eruption. That doesn't mean CO2 took a holiday and stopped influencing global temperatures; it only means that the CO2 forcing was temporarily overwhelmed by another, opposite forcing."

"The situation is similar to the cooling seen in the '40s and '50s. During this period, the CO2 warming (a smaller forcing at the time) was temporarily overwhelmed by by other factors, perhaps foremost among them an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution. Pollution regulations and improved technology saw a decrease in this latter kind of emissions over the '60s and '70s, and as the air cleared, the CO2 signal again emerged and took over. "

Particulates and aerosols, like Sulfer dioxide end up in the stratosphere, where they act as cooling agents, which offset the effects of greenhouse gases,  because they don't let sunlight in.  We have eliminated much of that through environmental laws.

  "As the graph shows, in addition to aerosol pollution (the sulphate line), volcanic influences were increasingly negative during the period of global cooling, and solar forcing slightly declined. All forcings taken together and run through the model are a very good match for the observations."

"Rather than confounding the climate consensus, mid-century cooling is actually a good test for the climate models, one they are passing quite convincingly."

5_for_fi      no climate scientist has ever said CO2 was the only factor effecting temperatures.

Voice of Reason, warming lags CO2 concentrations as the IPCC scientists point out.  That's why they say we have to act now to slow down the warming.  There is also data showing 2005 to be warmer than 1998.

"Clearly 1998 is an anomaly and the trend has not reversed. (Even the apparent leveling at the end is not the real smoothing. The smoothed trend in 2005 depends on all of its surrounding years, including a few years still in the future.) By the way, choosing the CRU analysis is also a cherry pick -- NASA has 2005 breaking the 1998 record, though by very little."

About choosing different starting dates:

"As mentioned above, you could choose to examine the last 30 years -- that is when both surface and tropospheric readings have been available. We have experienced warming of approximately .2 degrees C/decade during this time. It would take a couple of decades trending down before we could say the recent warming ended in 1998."

"You could choose 1970 in the NASA GISS analysis -- the start of the late 20th century warming, and as such a significant feature of the temperature record. The surface temperature over this period shows .6 degrees C warming."



"You could choose 1965 in the CRU analysis -- when the recent warming started in their record. It shows around .5 degrees C warming of the smoothed trend line."

"You could choose 1855 in the CRU record -- it shows .8 degrees C warming. As with the trend above, we can not say it is over without many decades more data indicating cooling."

"You could choose to look at the entire period of time since the end of the last ice age, around 10,000 years ago. Then the conclusion is that GHG warming has reversed a long and stable period of slight downward trend, and we are now at a global temperature not experienced in the history of human civilization -- the entire Holocene. It will be many centuries until such a long view of today's climate is available. The situation is a bit more urgent than that! "

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...

Answer 2

because co2 doesnt cause the temperature to rise, its the other way around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vosto...

This graph shows the co2 level was 180 ppm during the deepest depth of the last ice age, while the temperature was 8*C below current average temps.  When the co2 level rises to 280, the average temperature goes up to modern levels.  But now that we are at 380 ppm, and it isnt 8*C warmer than when we were at 280 ppm, the AGW theory has many bullet holes in it.  They dont know how much warming is caused by co2.  Clearly they arent linked like they used to think.

And if any global warming supporters want to tell me ice ages arent caused by co2, but are caused by the differences in the eccentricity in earths orbit, then I have to ask why james hansen seems to think its "very insignificant", according to his slide show.

Answer 3

Here's a study with a few clues to that question.  While CO2 corrolates with temperature rise, it's not a really convincing corrolation as sometimes the CO2 concentration goes up while the temperature goes down.  

The UK inflation rate turns out to be a stronger corollation as it happens (not that anyone is suggesting that UK inflation is actually causing global warming, but mathematically, it is a better fit).

Answer 4

Just a quick fact Since the year 1913 the earths temp has increased by 1/7 th of a degree.  So that means in about 700 YEARS!!! we will have one whole degree of global warming so how about we focus on things that will kill us right now like terrorists and violent religious wars.

Answer 5

How much carbon is sequestered each day in the earth's landfills?

Answer 6

Decreasing?   The snowdrifts are melting outside and the birds are coming back.   Will hear the sound of lawnmowers soon instead of snowblowers.

Answer 7

Some scientists believe that Global Warming might actually have the opposite affect on the earth and that we may go in to another ice age.

Answer 8

That's like asking, "why was it colder on October 12th than it was on October 13th? Does that mean that winter is not approaching?"

CO2, as any skeptic should know, is not the only factor that determines temperature.

Answer 9

I’ve been working with the HadCRUT data sets, and temperature HAS decreased from the 1998 high – albeit very slightly – and has remained static for about 10 years.  Every single month since August 1998 has been cooler by an average of about 0.14° C (raw data values, non-accumulative).  (I chose August because it was the last warm month in 1998 before temperatures dropped to near the mean level for the past 10 years.) For the record, February 1998 was the warmest month, but I am minimizing rather than exaggerating the temperature difference.  

But what is perhaps more interesting is the mean temperatures for the past 10 years have been pretty flat at this slightly decreased temperature, despite a further increase in CO2. In Feb. 1998 (warmest year in modern times) the CO2 level was 365.82 ppm, and in Feb. 2008 it was 385.76 ppm. (These figures are from NOAA)

EDIT: This is a good question. It’s nice to see all the AGW believers finally admit that more than CO2 affects temperature. You wouldn’t know it to listen to them any other time!

Answer 10

"In short, CO2 is not the only factor which effects temperatures."

THANK YOU Dana!  You are finally beginning to realize the truth about global warming.

Answer 11

Temperature isn't decreasing.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...

If you're talking about the one month of cooling, that was due to La Nina.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2...

In short, CO2 is not the only factor which effects temperatures.

Answer 12

Temperature isn't decreasing.

Just one below average winter, which doesn't mean a thing.  It happened in 1982, 1991-1992, 1999-2000.  EVERY TIME global warming came back stronger than ever.  Proof.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

discussed in detail, with confirmation, at:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/g...

As long as we keep making greenhouse gases in enormous amounts, global warming will dominate in the long run.  It's simple physics.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/di...

The best graph I know of showing the relationship of greenhouse gases and temperature stops in 2004.  I'll keep looking for a more recent one.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

Answer 13

there are some on this website http://www.iceagenow.com

Answer 14

Global average surface temperature and CO2 levels do not have a simple 1-to-1 linear correlation, there are multiple factors involved in climate warming.  

The increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases raises the radiative energy in the system (i.e. the entire climate system of the planet).  Some of that energy (heat) will raise the air temperature, some will raise the ocean temperature, and some will melt ice.

Ocean circulations (i.e. the current La Nina) will occasionally bring a significant amount of very cold water (deep ocean water is near 0 C) to the surface.  That cold water will have a cooling affect on the air temperature, temporarily offsetting the overall warming trend of the air.

Global wind patterns are another factor.  If large masses of warmer air are blown to cooler climates, the effect may be increased ice melt in those regions, yet the overall global surface average temperature could drop during that period.

The mechanics of atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns (and the associated heat distribution) are complex and interrelated.  People who assume that if CO2 has any warming effect, we should see a constant warming simply don't understand the complexity of the climate.