Global Warming

[ResinRat2]

Wait, I looked at the temperature change in your graph.

So you are saying over this period of time that the total change in the temperture of the earth was 1.1°C

Am I reading this right?  1.1 degrees Celsius?

[ResinRat2]

When you are looking at the graph I fully understand you are looking at the slope of the line to show the acceleration in temperature changes within the last five decades or so. You also need to see how warm the sun was several decades before this and see if there is any correlation.

This is an important variable in the whole picture.

[innovation_station]

perhaps were aproching a harmonic....

maybe things ringggg

in your soul....

ist!

i told ya you wont be the same agin ...  may be this is how this creation is designed ...  maybe ... maybe not ... 

call it your ALARM CLOCK...

[ATT]

Am I reading this right?  1.1 degrees Celsius?

The temperature change over the period shown is 0.9 degrees Celsius. I overlayed two separate graphs and manually moved the 'anomaly' graduations from the left to the right side, this probably introduced an error.

What I'm looking for, however, is a correlation between the components, the 'slope', 'trend', 'influences' that show up over the time period in question.

I'll re-plot all data on the same graph in the next set rather than put separate graphs together as i did here.

Tony

[PaulLowrance]

Well I'll tell you what, gents, I went out and got the raw-data, did the plots and overlayed the graphs and it sure looks to me like there's a direct correlation between population growth, carbon emissions and global temperature rise starting around 150 years ago when we were in the throws of the Industrial Revolution.

Unless some real forward-thinking guy hatched this scheme way back in 1860, I'd say the data holds up to scrutiny, it's pretty hard to fake data that's been around for 150 years, too many have laid eyes on it for too long.

Starting with the latter part of the Industrial Revolution, the global temperature has risen as the population has grown and carbon emissions have increased. There is a direct correlation between all three components.

Data sources:

U.S. population data:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/hiscendata.html
Global temp data:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2008.csv
Global carbon emissions data:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp006/ndp006.pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html

The population and temperature plots were taken from year-interval data and reduced to decade-interval data then plotted from Excel.

The Carbon plot was overlayed from a year-interval IPCC graph, however, for any who'd like to take the time to plot this as a 10-year interval the complete datasets are contained in the two carbon-sources listed above.

For reference, the carbon-data begins in 1850 and ends in 2000.

Hi ATT,

I give you an A++. I agree with your results, and I would encourage everyone who question the numbers to do their own number crunching. Nobody would blame the skeptics to question your number crunching. If your results conflicted with what I believe, I would question it as well. In this case, I agree with your end result-- a warming trend.

I would also agree that humanity is not the only source to global warming, but the data that supports global warming is so overwhelming. The question is, how much is due to humanity, and all of the numbers I've seen say a *noticeable* amount is due to humanity.

Regardless folks, we can *not* afford to take a chance with this rare and beautiful planet filled with life!!! I commend everyone who puts forth at least some effort into being green. That is, use efficient light bulbs, try to minimize the number of lights that are on, minimize water usage, recycle, recycle, recycle. 

Regards,
Paul