Global warming: Charts don't have a liberal bias

The fact that warmer water causes more intense weather is not debatable.  But scientists are baffled at how unusually warm the Atlantic Ocean is at this time of year:

Meteorologists cautioned that no one should read too muchinto one storm. But the Atlantic Ocean is unusually warm forthis time of year, they said, creating excess moisture in theatmosphere that can swiftly build a powerful rainstorm.

Paul Epstein, associate director of Harvard MedicalSchool's Center for Health and the Global Environment, said theAtlantic is warming faster than scientists projected even adecade ago, and he expects such storms as the one seen thisweek from Virginia to New York to become common.

"Scientists and climatologists are looking at one anotherand we're just stunned because no one, even in the 1990s,projected the magnitude of the storms and degree of warming inthe Arctic that we are seeing," he said.

Epstein sees a clear pattern: rain has increased in theUnited States by 7 percent in three decades; heavy rain eventsof more than 2 inches a day are up 14 percent and stormsdumping more than 4 inches a day rose 20 percent.

So, no one in the scientific community is disputing that the earth is getting warmer.  But what is in dispute is whether humans have contributed to it.  President Bush has gone on the record saying that humans have indeed contributed to it, making Republicans who are not onboard look out of touch with science.  When CO2 levels rise, so does temperature.  We have more CO2 in the atmosphere, proportionately speaking, than any other time before. 

Look at the chart below:

Pay close attention to CO2 levels.  Whenever CO2 levels go up, temperature follows almost immediately after (there is usually a 180-year lag time between the two).  Between 1800 and 2006, CO2 levels went from 280 Parts Per Million to 360 Parts Per Million -- that's a difference of 80 Parts Per Million.  According to the chart, the last time that happened, it took 10,000 years for that same increase to occur.  Compare that with the 206 years that it took this time around.  And you're telling me we didn't play at least some role in the most recent increase?

Still not convinced?  Let's zoom in and look at a chart that's even more recent:

 

Again, where is the dispute?

----------------------------------------------------------

Other blogs writing about this issue: Sustainablog, Sir Humphreys, Media Matters, Global Warming, Dean Collins, Speaking Truth to Power, Jacqueline Damian, I Try to Escape but Fall Straight into Life, Huffington Post.

Comments

[mike]

It's all about money and preserving NOT our world, but the comfort we have created.

I think in the long run, that "Global Warmong" is at best a scare tactic. If people would only do thier own research (whereever possible) and barring research ability, look at ALL the charts and facts. You find out that the media has zeroed in on yet another catastrophic event.
I sit here with Tom Brokaw on the TV watching a Discovery Channel presentation.I see... What do I see?... I see the use of charts that completely ignore the effect of global warming gasses like water vapor (Not Droplets). Water vapor makes up nearly 98 % of the global warming gasses.
Did you know that we have not even reaached ambient temperatures as warm as the Middle Ages? Micro particles in the ices show these levels.
Global Warming is a farce we are being fed... and it is driven by money.
Open your eyes.

[JKava]

Mike, what a totally rediculous comment! Promotion of the idea of global warming is driven by money? Who makes money from the idea of global warming? It's quite the reverse. Making the proper response to global warming will force corporations to sacrifice profits.

You are looking at selected charts from a perspective of somebody with no atmospheric knowledge. 99-100% of scientists who study climate agree that we have man-made global warming. The only controversy has been in the non-science public media. Water vapor may be a greenhouse gas occuring in high quantity, but it's concentration is not changing. The concentration of CO2 is changing, and it is having an effect on climate diproportional to its relative abundance in the atmosphere.

Now we have Right Wing screechers on the AM airwaves screaming that global warming is a hoax. What are their scientific credentials? What are Rush Limbaugh's or for that matter Ann Coulter's scientific credentials? Ann Coulter mocks liberals for being concerned about dwindling supplies of fresh water. "Wait for it to rain," she says. So what about all those people in drought and wildfire stricken areas? They are still waiting for it to rain. I think this clearly shows that Right Wing talkers are morons stepping outside of their areas of (limited) knowledge.

By the way Mr. Mike, What are your scientific credentials? I have a bachelors and a masters degree in biology. I have taught earth science and chemistry in high school and done professional medical research. Have you ever taken a course in meteorology? I have. I will go head to head with you on science anytime. Write me a message here: www.theleftwing.us

[Chuck]

See this: http://www.globalwarmingisafarce.com/

[George]

The only people who will gain from acknowledging global warming are the billions of people who will be alive in 50-100-1000 years. The only people who will gain from NOT acknowledging it are the few thousand most wealthy people alive today. I wonder why the far right disputes global warming: becasue they have money to LOSE!!!

This is quintessentially why conservatives are against any progression in society - becaue they are in power, they have the cash and if something changes they will on some level lose some power and wealth. If you're on top of the world, why would you want anything to ever change?

Mike, you got it backwards here.

[Grant]

globalwarmingisafarce.com is a farce in itself. Look into the credentials of the people that post editorials on the site, most are funded by big oil.

[Todd Phillips]

What I want to know, is why do people put so much faith in these charts, which represent less than what would conceivably be the margin of error for making the kinds of determinations and projections that they are attempting to make.

It's dishonest. For projections to be accurate over such a long period of relevant time, you'd need to go back at least 15,000 years.

To assume this tiny sample of data is relevant and compelling just shows how incompetent people are in interpreting it.

[Todd Phillips]

"We have more CO2 in the atmosphere, proportionately speaking, than any other time before."

BS alert.

[Administrator: Todd]

Todd, hi, this is Todd.

Anyway, the charts don't go back 50,000 years, they do back to the last ice age, hundreds of thousands of years ago. From that data, we can compare today with back then.

[George]

Bad news for you, Todd Phillips: Your comments on global warming just got blown out of the rising water by about 1000 of the world's leading climate scientists who represent 113 countries:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/01/climate.talks.ap/index.html

Ouch. Maybe you want to explain to them how to read charts?

I wonder what it is that you have to lose by acknowledging the very likelihood of global warming? Is it a job? Is it client?

[Administrator: Todd]

George, really, what will it take for the 25% of the country to admit they were wrong about thinking global warming was a myth? Seriously! No chart will convince them. No study will convince them. No statistical data will convince them. WHAT WILL?

Whenever someone comes out with a fact that conservatives disagree with, they claim liberal bias. Same thing with this UN study! It's as if these right-wing commentators would rather live without science than admit they were wrong.

[Brent]

I don't see how anyone can say that Global Warming is a big bull story. It's logical and simple to understand. Every year there are more people. More people mean more space. More space means less trees, less trees means less earth lungs. More people mean more energy. More people mean more food. More people mean more energy, more cars, more carbon monoxide. More cars means more steel, more steel means more pollution, the list goes on an on. If you can't add this up, then you've goto be a space cadet.

[Professor James Barrante]

I guess I'm confused about the time scale on the chart above: Atmospheric CO2 and Temperature Change. I took a close look at the chart. Maybe you should also, but isn't the first tick on the time scale 10,000 years? In fact, if you define the boundaries of your system a little better, i.e., go back 400,000 years, you will see that we get a global temperature spike about every 100,000 years. I guess those people driving those SUV's 400,000 years ago should have been more careful. Oh, by the way. The temperature change sometimes precedes the CO2 change. How is that possible?

[Administrator: Todd]

Thanks for commenting. You're right. We have had a temperature spike about every 100,000 years. But if you look at the rate of increase since the Industrial Revolution, and more specifically over the last 50 years, you end up with a massive increase in CO2 levels. That is not over a 100,000 year period, but rather a few hundred year period.

[ted K]

Odd that the warming trend started well before the industrial revolution - which has NOT been going on for a few thousand years.
JKava..I would like to see your data on 99-100% of all scientists agree that man is responsible for global warming.
I love the "there is global warming and man is responsible" crowd spewing out those percentages and never backing them up.
Brent, Trees to do not equal lungs.
The rain forests have only beend around something like 15,000 years.
With the recent report put out by the UN, most of the top scientists in this area, especially the ones with the high tech equipment have distanced themselves from the report that policymakers put out and point to the study that comes out in May for a less "scare" view of GW.

[Administrator: Todd]

Ted, look at the RATE OF INCREASE. It's right there!! Look!

[ted K]

I see the rate of increase.. yes, I see it...whoopie.
Let me look again.

Yes, I see CO2 Levels 140,000 years ago at enormous levels, what the hell caused that?

Ups and downs and we are in a current swell upward.
I also see upticks in temperature in the second graph and then downturns with no significant changes in CO2 levels. How can that possibly be?

I also note that there is evidence of the density of antarctic icebergs increasing not decreasing.
The actual surface area may be decreasing, But the icebergs are growing in depth and mass.

I thought everything was warming and icebergs were shrinking.

My whole life the "World disaster" experts have been wrong:

Global cooling in the 70s.
--The world was going to starve because of shorter growing periods.

Later the "running out of oil" scare in the late 70s-80s.
--Running out of oil in 20-30 years, Texas oil is all dried up what are we gonna do?

Then Acid Rain is at astronomic levels
---all lakes will turn poisonous and we will run out of water.

Minerals are at a shortage
--- the world's population will run out of minerals we rely on to live.

The world's population is growing too quickly
---we are all going to starve because we will not be able to produce enough food

Greenpeace warns that the Rain-forests will be no more.
---Rain-forests cleared at a pace of a football field an hour in Brazil and by 2000, there will be no forest in Brazil, not to mention the rest of the world.

Color me pessimistic about our latest global "crisis."

[George]

Just because you sit in your little hut in the sun in California doesn't mean things are that well everywhere. Thanks to your corporate US media you are shielded from the real issues that the rest of humanity deals with, many of which are a result of over population, climate change and water shortage. And ever travel to New Zealand? They have no ozone layer. you get burned in 4 minutes.

Still, i dont understand why you need a looming catastrophe to lead an environmentally sensible life. What good does crapping on the planet do anyone?

[Administrator: Todd]

Ted, I don't know what chart you are looking at. If you look at the first chart above, the CO2 levels go 99.9% vertical at the very end. 110 million years ago, there was not the same rate of increase. All you have to do is calculate the slope (Rise divided by Run).

[ted K]

Result of overpopulation?

So what should we do, impose birth restrictions on humanity?

And why don't you tell Al Gore to lead an environmentally sensitive life?
His mansion in one month uses more electricity than the average US home does in a year.
He averages 20 times more electricity usage than average homes in his state.
But make sure you all conserve energy and shun the average light bulb and bike to work.
Wonder what all his plane trips around the world in terms of fuel is burning?
What a hypocrite.

YOU consider it a looming catastrophe, I don't.

Even if I bought into your doomsday theory, what do you suppose we do?
The study stated we couldn't do anything to stop it, right?
It will take 100s of years to reverse the effects.
Meanwhile you completely devastate all economies around the world by imposing massive restrictions on CO2 emissions.
Great economies begin to collapse and all the jobs that are outsourced to other countries are lost.
Poor countries become destitute.
Production on all goods would diminish severely.
Massive death and starvation move around the globe because the world's economy cannot produce and ship and supply as much food, medicine, money, etc to the poorer countries.

Beware the unintended consequences of the policies that would come of a massive reduction mandated by policy-makers.

Thanks for reminding me of the massive Ozone threat that happened in the 90s also, I knew I was forgetting something.

The ozone layer has had a hole in it ALWAYS.. and guess what? The hole in the ozone fluctuates and grows smaller and larger.
And the main culprit of what happens to the ozone is the sun. The sun causes the changes in the ozone hole size.

-------

110 million years ago? Where is that data?

[ted K]

Sorry, my bad, Gore averages only 12 times the average in his state for his mansion.

He averages 20 times the national average for energy use with cars, planes, his mansion.

[Ben]

Forgive me if I don't understand this data. But if there exists other causes which have changed Earth's temperature and if temperature and CO2 levels have been so strongly correlated, then doesn't the data suggest that changes in temperature have caused CO2 levels to change? And therefore isn't this data a poor predictor of how much man-made CO2 will warm the planet?