A graph of the last 30 years shows that CO2 and global temperature correlate

In my previous post yesterday, where I said the real cause of globalwarming is from natural occurrences from the sun where in when there are more sunspots, the global temperature is higher as I have also shown in the graph in my GlobalWarming Awareness2007 post here. And I have also shown you the effect of CO2 in the total effect of greenhouse gases is very minimal as I have shown in the pie chart in this post about the greenhouse effect and what it has to do with this GlobalWarming Awareness2007 movement. And thus concluding that the sun is the main cause of the globalwarming and not the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Although a comment by David in my previous post mentions:

Why did you omit the last 30 years from your graph? Because the last 30 years completely destroy your claim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

Pick your conclusions to support your data, not vice versa. That’s the difference between science and propaganda.


Well I took a look at the graphs and I will say different points of view here. What the graphs are literally saying, what some people may say if they think it is really CO2 causing globalwarming, what some may say if it is amount of sun activity as measured by the amount of sunspots, and the what is my own personal opinion which of course it not the absolute truth at all.

In the link provided by David, shows this image below:

Temperature vs Sunspots vs amount of CO2

Now definitely, these are 3 different graphs and are totally not the same of course. But looking for a relation between them, of course this can simply be done by looking at similarities in the patterns, or to be more mathematically accurate, actual measurements, standard deviations and other complex statistical analysis can be done and see how each graph is related to the other. Now by simply looking at the graphs, we simply see these:

  1. Temperature has it’s history of ups and downs in the past but has a general trend of going up.
  2. CO2 has a almost perfect linear plot from 1860’s to 1960’s then suddenly increases at a higher rate from there.
  3. Sunspots has also had a history of ups and downs although it seems it is generally going up, there was generally a drop starting the 1960’s.

CO2 is Causing GlobalWarming?

Why not? That can be acceptable. If generally the temperature has been increasing, and generally the amount of CO2 has been increasing, if you do a linear regression to the extreme several times, most probably, they both would look like two graphs both going up in some kind of an exponential graph. Since the sunspots has had a drop in the 1960’s then it cannot be the sun causing GlobalWarming. It is really the amount of greenhouse gases especially CO2.

Sunspots, the amount of sun activity is causing GlobalWarming?

Why not too? The fluctuations has looked the same. And even if there has been a dip in the 1960’s, the sample set is still too small to say they are not related. And besides that, the rate of increase of CO2 has been steady. Both temperature and sunspots have increased in 1860 to 1880, and both dipped up to about 1910 and both increased again up to the 1950’s. So they are definitely related.

My personal opinion on the matter on this GlobalWarming Awareness2007 post about Temperature vs. amount of CO2 vs. amount of sunspots

Although there are many sources of CO2, in the 1800’s to 1900’s, this was not yet the industrial age where there were many CO2 gases produced by the burning of fossil fuel. If ever this has been increasing in the past, it was due probably to the mere increase of world population. And the global temperature is really influenced by the sun’s activity as observed through the amount of sunspots. (I will have another post about sunspots alone and what are these.) But as more fossil fueled machines has appeared from 1960’s and beyond the amount of CO2 has increased dramatically due to industrialization, there was a sudden increase also in global temperature that starting this period, worldwide temperature increase was due more to the amount of greenhouse gases than the amount of the suns activity.

I’d like to thank David for posting that comment as he did have a valid point. For you, other readers, what is you take on the subject matter?

5 thoughts on “A graph of the last 30 years shows that CO2 and global temperature correlate”

  1. Benj,

    I hope that you all will come check out Swivel. We are a site dedicated to providing Tasty Data Goodies. We have been getting a lot of data and graphs in the area of global warming and CO2, and we would love if you posted some data. Please check out a couple of our graphs, including:

    450,000 Years of CO2 readings from the Vostok Ice Core:
    http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/8734883

    Gallons of Ethanol/Acre of Crop:
    http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/5090130

    Global GDP vs. Global Average Temperature:
    http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/1016984

    Swivel’s lifeblood is the blogging community, and a passionate blogger like yourself is really who we want to help. Please feel free to e-mail me if you have any questions or are looking for any graphs or data!

    Thanks,

    Chris Grisanti
    Swiveler
    chris@swivel.com

  2. Well – the debate is not over, but I would like to point out that the graph above is nothing more than ‘point of view” marketing. Who decided to put 3 plots of different scaling on the same graph without the explainations of the physics. I can make anything look like anything with 3 independent scalings.

    Try this: 4th order fit for sunspots from 1640 onward to 2006 – 4th order becauase all radiation energy potential varies as deltaT to the 4th (no arguements here please – take some Heat Transfer and Thermodynamics courses please). Put that on the same plot as ‘global temp” – same period. Also plot T rise as function of CO2 on the same scale – then see which slops fit better. You will be wildly supprised.

    But as far is the above graph, I can plot Temp and the global sale of Swiss cheese and get the same fit.

  3. To the best of my knowledge, statisical correlation between CO2 and temperature is no higher than 0.336 and typically may be 0.20 to 0.30 depending on the temperature series used and the time frame.

    You are thus incorrect in saying a relationship fits; the opposite is true…..

  4. According to Rolf Witzsche’s videos CO2 content in ice core samples will always look higher in the last two hundred years because it takes two hundred years to finally leach out to the level that can remain. So there will always look like a spike/’hockey stick!’. Is there data fo air samples?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *