Is it fair to argue that global temperatures have stopped following the CO2 increase?

Question

A frequent argument we hear from anthropogenic global warming (AGW) 'skeptics' is that while CO2 levels continue to increase, global temperatures have plateaued recently. Since the 'skeptics' believe the AGW theory requires global temps and CO2 to follow eachother perfectly all the time, they believe this disproves the theory. Here is a plot from a Newsbuster (right-wing news website) article which makes this argument:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/co2temp.jpg

However, as discussed in the Open Mind blog, this argument zooms in on the past 10 years of data:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/tempco2_3.jpg

Instead of looking at all available data:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/tempco2_2.jpg

When looking at all the data, it becomes clear that CO2 and global temperatures are increasing at a very similar rate in the long-term.

Considering all the data, do you think it's fair to argue that global temperatures have stopped following CO2?

Answer 1

No, the skeptics are simply trying to revive the "global cooling" myth, which didn't have any credibility the first time around and has far less now.

The measured warming rate of about 0.1 degree per decade isn't going to override natural weather variations and ocean current changes such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Arctic Oscillation (AO), which can temporarily hide or accentuate the subtle and gradual underlying warming trend.

For example, 1998 was simply a hot year when a particularly strong El Nino warming in North America.  Then 2005 was the hottest year globally, aparently not due to a particularly strong ENSO effect (consistent with continued CO2-driven global warming).  That the next strong La Nina cooling year, 2007, was one of the hottest years on record globally is a cause for concern (and also consistent with continued CO2-driven global warming).

There are a number of these regional ocean current changes that can move a lot of heat from the ocean around.  It will take some time to study them further to better understand how they may interfere with the global warming signal that is being measured.

Arctic ocean currents shown to affect polar climate more than global warming

http://www.tgdaily.com/index2.php?option...

So it works both ways: natural cycles and hide or accentuate the warming trend (Greenland and Arctic ice melt may be accelerated by a current warm AO trend), but they can't repeal the laws of physics, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

It's highly ironic that people who label themselves skeptics can be fond of saying that natural forces may account for 120+ years of global warming, but they seem unable to consider that natural cycles may be responsible for temporary hiding new record temperatures from view for a few years out of the last decade.  Their implied assumption that "global warming must mean that temperatures must march forward incrementally from year to year" is seriously flawed.  When their home values decline below the size of their mortgage, their jobs are gone, and food prices are sky high, some of these skeptics will wish they had payed attention earlier so they could make better financial preparations.  Some of them however will be stuck in denial, looking for some scapegoat other than themselves, until their last breath.

As serious as CO2 emissions may be, it's becoming clear that greenhouse gases aren't the only anthropogenic factor driving global warming, so while the CO2 issue needs to be addressed, it may be more accurate to say that global warming follows world population.

Black carbon pollution emerges as major player in global warming - PhysOrg

http://www.physorg.com/news125500721.htm...

"Black carbon, a form of particulate air pollution most often produced from biomass burning, cooking with solid fuels and diesel exhaust, has a warming effect in the atmosphere three to four times greater than prevailing estimates..."

The problem will not be solved by focusing on CO2 alone, or by focusing on developed nations.

Edit -

selena.starr - Yes, let's look at the last 5000 years, when dramaticly accelerated glacier melt only occurs at a high rate only after atmospheric CO2 has been elevated sharply.  (What kind of source do you get your information from?)

New Research Confirms Antarctic Thaw Fears - Spiegel Online

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk...

"...the Pine Island Glacier has shrunk by an average of 3.8 centimeters annually over the past 4,700 years. But the Smith and Pope glaciers have only lost 2.3 centimeters of their thickness annually during the past 14,500 years. Satellite measurements taken between 1992 and 1996, though, show a loss of 1.6 meters in thickness per year on the Pine Island Glacier -- a figure that represents 42 times the average melt of the past 4,700 years."

---

Answer 2

I don't think so.  I think you have too much time on your hands.  AGW or GW if it were real, would pose no real harmful threat to the earth even over the next 10,000 years.  

While you have all this time:  Have there been any record heat in the Sahara?  Oh, that's right, it snowed there this past year.

Still have ice on the lakes here where I live, latest ice out in over 100 years...    Must be disconcerting to hear of all the cold we had this last winter, and how the news keeps saying we have been getting colder since 1998.

AGW and GW - what a waste of time...  Why not put all that effort into feeding the kids in the Sudan, or figuring out how to enhance free speech in China now that they are the #1 polluter in the world.

AGW and GW - a joke.

Answer 3

no...global climate change is getting worse

Answer 4

Based on your comments, you clearly believe that CO2 (less than 3% of greenhouse gases) and more specifically man-made CO2 (less than 0.02% of greenhouse gases) is driving temperature change.  

I would try to argue that if you look at the graphs you site closely enough you will see that there is indeed a difference between the CO2 graph and the temperature graph.  You guessed it, the CO2 levels, which do indeed mimic the temperature, lagg the temperature by about 80 years (not 800).  However, I am just a geologist who actually makes a living as an environmental consultant, so what do I know.

To make up for my shortcomings I would like you to follow the link bellow to some serious researchers (not people with real jobs like me) who seem to agree with me.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-w...

Enjoy the read, and keep an open mind

Answer 5

It is absolutely fair.  Why does Tomino not show the 20th century correlation between co2 and temperatures?  Maybe because it looks something like this?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Refere...

(page three)

So what caused the early 20th century warming.  It cannot be the sun accord, because according to you the sun has played no role in the late 20th century warming because you confuse  levels with trends.  Yes there is a slight downward trend.  But the levels are still high.  Look at the level of sun activity in the 80's and 30's.  So how can the sun be responsible for the warming until 1940 (when co2 levels were low) and not be responsible for any of the warming up until the present?  Because if the sun has played a role that will affect the climate models on what future temperatures will be.

Answer 6

No, hardly.  The link between CO2 and heat is well understood at this point.  I think the argument that is being made is the same as if you looked at the last 10 years of a sports team's record versus it's entire record.  The people who are so concerned with the last 10 years seem to forget that without AGW we would be cooling rapidly.  Personally I wouldn't be surprised to see us "hang" in this state until all of the ice has melted, then begin rapid warming.  Estimates vary on how long that'll be.  The factor that's least understood and most underestimated in mixing by the ocean currents.

Answer 7

If the people who push this celebrity science claim  it causes all types of weather they can't EVER know if we are fighting it successfully or not. Good signs, signs that things are changing, may be a consequence of a condition that is so heinous and shifty that it causes us to believe wrong like the ones who say "but its still pretty cold". It will cost trillions and we will have to stop putting needed resources into fighting disease and starvation or education but we humans can survive like the drug addicts who control their addiction by taking the drug on a schedule.

Answer 8

I think it's weak to argue that temperature ever "followed" CO2 outputs in the first place.  Has it ever occured to anyone that it might be the other way around - that increasing temperatures (from external forces) have caused the CO2 levels to rise?

Answer 9

No, it's not.  As has always been the case, CO2 increase continues to lag behind temperature rise.  Cart before the horse my friend.

Edit:  And horse to water, apparently.

Answer 10

You said:"Since the 'skeptics' believe the AGW theory requires global temps and CO2 to follow eachother perfectly all the time, they believe this disproves the theory."

Temperatures do not follow CO2.  The opposite is true.  CO2 does not drive temperatures as I know you are aware.  There is an approximate 800 year lag time between temperature increase and CO2 increase, again as you should know.    We are adding some CO2 to the atmosphere but your mistake comes in assuming that CO2 is the driver of climate change.  It has not been and there is no indication that it is.  They have a cause and there is no way anyone will get between an alarmist and his cause until decades have past.

Answer 11

lol! whack that mole dana!

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

of course not, it is rather more meaningful to look at the long term trends (err well at least over a couple of decades lol thats not exactly long term in climatology!)

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

edit; Eric, there were no references for the text and in particular for the graphs in that pdf, and a couple of them didnt look quite right, so i boogled the authors name, and guess what! financed by Exxon. what a surprise!

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personf...

Answer 12

It is fair to say that CO2 has NEVER dictated temperature anytime in our history.  Even Gore's graph shows that temperature dictates CO2.  So, you are arguing that your own science is flawed.  So, what is left that stands to show that CO2 is the culprit?

That's what I thought...  a consensus....  lol