Gore’s Graph Done Right

Thanks in large part to Al Gore’s book we’ve all seen the graphs showing temperature and CO2 levels for the last 600,000+ years (reproduced below). For many people today the image below serves as the iconic image of global warming. Al Gore even climbed onto a scissor lift to help make it so. Climatologists know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; no one disputes this, and the graph underscores this by showing that, for the past 650,000 years, the peaks and valleys in temperature match up nicely with peaks and valleys in CO2. Mr. Gore then climbs onto the scissor lift, raises it up well above the screen displaying the graph and points out where CO2 levels are today, where they may be in 50 years and asks you to envision what the temperature will be like in 50 years.

dualplusnow

The data in this graph comes from the study of ice cores in Antarctica and Greenland. Many books, when discussing ice core data, give a background of the science behind the data. We’re skipping that here. Instead we’ll accept the data as given and spend more time analyzing what the data means. But before we go on, can we accept the data as given? Despite the fact that the science behind ice core data is somewhat involved, none of the raw data is being questioned by anyone, skeptics and believers agree that the data in these charts are accurate. Many lay people wonder how it is possible to get temperature and CO2 readings for 600,000 years ago, but understanding how the data is collected is not necessary to understanding the lessons that the data is trying to teach, especially when there is no scientific dissent about this data. We can take it as given and move on.

dualsmall

Same Data, Different View

Now let’s return to Al Gore’s temperature and CO2 graph. This technique, of showing multiple pieces of data on the same graph is one of several that scientists use, especially if they have reason to believe that the data are correlated. It can highlight certain features and it is a very simple graph to understand as it is merely a combination of two even simpler graphs, a temperature vs year and a CO2 vs year graph.

temp_co2Fortunately there are other ways to display data where we expect a correlation. Here, we’re expecting a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. The graph above shows CO2 vs year and Temperature vs year, and we can see the correlation; the peaks and valleys in both graphs line up fairly well. But do we really care about the year? We accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that large quantities of it in the atmosphere will cause temperatures to rise. But now that we’ve accepted that, aren’t we more interested in how high the temperature will rise for a given CO2 level? How strongly the CO2 and temperature are correlated with each other? One way to answer these questions is to remove the year from the graph and plot CO2 and temperature directly.

correlateraw

purelineThe graph above shows the 400,000 year ice core data plotted as we’ve been discussing. The first thing that stands out is that all the points do not fall on a neat little line. If variations in CO2 levels were the only thing that caused variations in temperatures then all the points would line up. But in reality there are many other things that cause temperature variations. Four hundred thousand years is a long time and the earth has seen a lot of changes in that time. Other greenhouse gasses besides CO2, methane for example, undoubtedly rose and fell during this time frame. The earth’s orbit changes significantly every 100,000 years, time enough for four cycles for the data shown above. And there were some large volcanic eruptions during this period, which put up clouds of material that have a cooling effect on the planet. And there are many other non-CO2 related causes that contribute to planetary temperature change. The point is that this graph correlates only CO2 levels with temperature and consequently we shouldn’t expect a neat line.

Let’s dig into this variation just a little more. For a given CO2 level these other factors could affect temperature strongly or weakly. The graph below highlights three temperature levels for the same CO2 level. Why aren’t these temperature values closer together? One reason is that these other factors could be strongly in play and making it either hotter or colder than would otherwise be the case. When the temperature is well above average, the earth could be closer to the sun and the methane levels could be high. When the temperature is well below average, the 100,000 year cycle in the earth’s orbit could put it farther from the sun, methane levels could be low and there could have been a large volcanic eruption. It is the variability due to the other factors besides CO2 that contribute to the variability of the temperature levels.

correlateexplainfull

While the data doesn’t fall into a neat line, another thing that stands out is that this data does fall into a straight line. Recall, all we knew from the other graph was that low CO2 levels matched low temperatures and high CO2 levels matched high temperatures. We didn’t have good sense of how the values in the middle lined up. There are many ways the intermediate levels could have played out, but it turns out that a straight line is a fairly good approximation.

sample_fits

Where Are We Today?

This data covers the last 400,000 years, but it turns out the most recent data it contains is 2300 years ago. It begs the question “Where are we today?” To answer that we will need to re-draw the graph since the modern CO2 level is well outside the range of the graph above. The re-drawn version is shown below. The black bar at the bottom right shows the range of the modern CO2 level. The point above that bar is the approximate location for our climate today.

correlateplusnow

The data we’ve been discussing shows 3 things, the CO2 level is well outside the range of what’s been normal for the past 400,000 years. Somewhat more subtly, the temperature vs CO2 levels are also well outside the normal range. The CO2/Temperature point for today’s climate is no where near the imaginary line that passes through the middle of all the other data. At the current CO2 level our temperatures should be much higher. How much higher is more apparent on this graph than on Al Gore’s graph. Finally, only the temperature level is within the normal range. Our relatively low temperature today could be due to a natural lag in the response of temperature to CO2. It could be the case that the earth is already warming as fast as it can and more CO2 in the atmosphere won’t make it warm any faster. The current low temperatures could simple be because the temperatures haven’t caught up yet. It could also be that, as others claim, if it weren’t for the current CO2 levels we’d be in the early stages of an ice age. However, whatever the reason two implications are clear. 1) CO2 levels are crazy-high and we need to take steps to reduce them and 2) the current “low” temperatures aren’t a sign that global warming is false, but rather that we may have a bit of a grace period before temperatures start to rise. Let’s not blow it.

References

The ice core data for the past 650,000 years comes from 2 different sources.

From 420,000 years before present to now was published in:

Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, et al 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from theVostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.

and is available online here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm

From 650,000 years before present to 390,000 years before present was published in:

U. Siegenthaler, T. F. Stocker, E. Monnin, et al. Stable Carbon Cycle-Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene. Science, v. 310 , pp. 1313-1317, 25 November 2005.

and is available online here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2486.html

Information about the time lag between temperature change and CO2 change comes from several articles.

The 800 year lag is first presented in:

Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J. P., et al, “Timing of Atomspheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III.” Science, 14 March 2003, v299, pp 1728-1731

Another paper that suggests the correlation is even stronger than the data used in this article is presented in:

Cuffey K. M.; Vimeux, F. “Covariation of carbon dioxide and temperature from the Vostok ice corea after deuterium-excess correction.” Nature, 2 August 2001 v412 pp523-527

10 comments for “Gore’s Graph Done Right

  1. davidha
    January 3, 2010 at 8:37 am

    Thanks for compiling the detail on the temp vs CO2 correlation as shown in An Inconvenient Truth (pg 66-67 in the book). Can mankind maintain focus long enough to try and address this? Maybe not. Massive CO2 emissions are now a way of life, and one that much of mankind is ironically now hoping to achieve. This issue deserves a little more serious attention from leaders, and not the ones involved in maintaining the status quo. It is possible to live a carbon-negative lifestyle. It is possible to survive comfortably and sequester carbon. I fault Al Gore for not making any effort to lead by example on a small scale, though I respect his work on the megalomaniac scale. “World leaders” are putting us all at risk, and I have little faith that they can address this. We must learn to live in a new carbon-negative way as informed individuals, not as pawns, consumers and canon fodder. We can be productive and carbon-negative. The Draconian carbon-tax may be inevitable, but it can be popular, too. Please use your website to advocate carbon-negative living. It is about a whole new infrastructure. I am ashamed of our national chamber of commerce for not seeing this potential. See the keyword: Biochar. Thanks again.

  2. numbersguy
    January 4, 2010 at 11:00 am

    Hi David:
    Glad you liked the article. I’m surprised how timely it remains. If Gore were more truthful/complete about the data in his book I doubt the current “ClimateGate” scandal would have as much traction as it does. The data says CO2 levels are crazy-high by geological standards but temperature is both moderate (in the absolute sense) and way way below were it should be based on the 600,000 year trend line of CO2 vs temp. Regardless of whether people think the earth is warming or not, fact is CO2 is a green house gas and levels are dangerously high. This bodes ill for the future even if the “consensus” for the present day is mixed.

    I’m a little more optimistic about our “World Leaders” than you are. While I agree that it seems their techniques for leading are the same as they were 100 or 200 years ago, I have a strong faith that news reporting via data visualization techniques will lead to a more enlightened approach toward world leadership and planetary management. But it requires a change in the populace too. Leaders are political creatures. Even if an enlightened leader did the right thing, if the right thing did not appeal to his constituents he’d be voted out of office the next term. So both the leaders and the people need to recognize what the right thing is.

  3. August 12, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    Hello, good post.

  4. Jack Radish
    January 21, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    Anyone who still believes in man made global warming after all the debunking, physical evidence(it’s getting colder), and photo shopped pictures in Al Gore phoney movie, there is no hope for you. Climate models only work in “models” no real world evidence. Hmmmmm, similar to a Marxist College professor/community agitator looked like he’d make a good president. I think I see a scientific correlation here. See ya morons.

  5. numbersguy
    January 21, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    Hi Jack:
    Thanks for the comment. My point, which you seemed to miss as well as climate advocates AND deniers seem to miss, is that we are currently enjoying an as yet unexplained respite. The models say for our current CO2 levels we should be A LOT WARMER than we are now (so in that regard I AGREE with you).

    It’s like you have your gas pedal to the floor of your car and yet it’s only going 30 mph. Climate deniers seem to be saying that’s normal for the car. Climate advocates seem to be saying we’re going 100 mph. I’m saying something’s holding us back, let’s fix the whole car before we crash.

  6. Ben
    September 15, 2011 at 11:02 pm

    Yet more data showing Al Gore for the dishonest, self interested, evil douchebag that he is.

    As for the gas pedal to the floor analogy, can we perhaps suggest that Co2 and temperature are not related in such a fashion? You seem to be suggesting that we have our pedal to the floor (Co2 emmissions) and yet temperature is not doing what it should.

    Fortunately in a billion years the erath will be healed and this retarded experiment called mankind will be a distant (forgotten) memory.

  7. numbersguy
    September 18, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    Ben, I seriously doubt scientists are confused about CO2 being a greenhouse gas, consequently I believe them that it is. I don’t think the scientists are lying so much as over simplifying the story for the rest of us.

    Gore, on the other hand, by not being a scientist, should really know or at least strive for better more straightforward communication with the public.

    When a scientist over simplifies in an effort to get us to change our behavior, someone will find out and start spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Better for scientists to stop, collect their thoughts, and present their arguments in a clearer and more concise way than to take a short cut that will be discovered and exploited by the skeptical.

  8. November 27, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    hei, 800 year lag according to climate fund debate may come from the period it takes from greenhouse gas accumulation unto it falls down into ice!

    • numbersguy
      November 28, 2011 at 4:42 pm

      Could be. It’s been a while since I read the paper. One thing I do remember is green house gasses don’t get trapped till the snow has been packed into ice. Which occurs at something like 20 to 100 feet down (IIRC). It’s not so much that it’s taking time to fall from the sky as it is taking time to be frozen in place. In the mean time the “thing” they are trying to correlate with the CO2 trapped in the ice is the ice itself. The heavy-water/normal-water ratio in snow is temperature dependent.

  9. wayne
    January 6, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    how come it shows co2 reads 8000 or so years after the temp rises if co2 causes the warminng not before it warms

Leave a Reply

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