Temperature vs CO2 non-correlate

Over on WUWT there’s a posting of a graph by Burt Rutan. It is a very nice graph, showing a big rise in CO2 vs a ‘go flat’ by temperatures since about 1997.

A bunch of folks have complained about various other ways the graph could be made. Frankly, while their points are often mathematically correct, they fail to recognize the “Be A Mirror” aspect of not indulging in ‘losing side asymmetrical warfare’ with the other side. If the opponent is fine with graphs about Infrared Radiation heat gain that show a temperature range of 2 C, all told, starting at near ambient, to mislead (instead of starting at 0 K ) then so must we use ‘graphs for effect’.

But in all the gaggle of “interesting” alternate graphs put up, with various start points and what all, one by D.B. Stealey down in comments was more interesting to me. I think it dramatically shows the range of temperatures (of the USA in this graph) along with the significant lack of anything of note in how they have changed over time. With a large CO2 ramp from what is ‘supposedly’ the ‘right’ pre-industrial amount (remember, ‘their rules’… so we don’t need to plot CO2 from zero…).

Without further ado, here’s the graph:

D.B. Stealey CO2 vs USA Temperature Graph

D.B. Stealey CO2 vs USA Temperature Graph

Pretty clear, isn’t it? Temperatures just not doing much at all. CO2 on a log ramp. Disconnected.


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW Science and Background and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Temperature vs CO2 non-correlate

  1. adrianvance says:

    When you understand the Le Chatelier Principle and the absorption charts for CO2 it is very clear that the relationship would be inverse and not direct, per Hansen. “Anthropogenic Global Warming” is bullshit science for money and power. It is just that simple.

  2. tsuhtt1 says:

    The US rivals Saudi Arabia in Fossil Fuel resources with enough Oil, Coal and Natural Gas estimated to last 600 years into the future. However, because of President Obama’s Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (CAGW) aka [Climate Change] beliefs he has just declared war on the use of these valuable resources decreeing their costs should “skyrocket”. I wonder if he cares that his Climate Change Policies will hurt the poor the most? It seems the only people being enriched by President Obama’s Green Energy policies are the greedy rich. If these resources were freed up for use they would solve our unemployment problems, grow our economy, eliminate our debt and improve the lives of millions of poor people. So are there any viable alternatives to the proven and cheap power source Fossil Fuel provides? For example Green energy: wind turbines, bio fuel and solar? The dirty little secret is Green Energy is unreliable, more costly, does quite a bit of harm to Mother Earth and can provide only fraction of the energy fossil fuel does. President Obama’s belief in Man Made Climate Change is not based on empirical data. It is based on Models. Models that do not take into account the impact of the Sun, Ocean and Clouds on the Climate The real world data shows that the AGW models were wrong. As CO2 has risen the temperatures have not as the models predicted. Given these facts President Obama should reevaluate his belief in Climate Change and start taking advantage of the vast energy resources available to us. The use of these resources would improve the lives of millions of people. especially the poor. Is President Obama’s dream for American one of desolation and hopelessness not growth and prosperity? Do they mirror the dreams of Greenpeace that do not reflect the dreams of the American people for a better more prosperous life?

  3. John Robertson says:

    D.B.Stealey, clearly demonstrates why the IPCC and fellow travellers prefer Anomalies.
    One look at that graph should cure most non-involved citizens of CAGW belief .
    Whats that Shakespeare line, Much ado over little?
    Now Dear Leader has pronounced over global warming, I expect the scam will collapse even faster.

  4. philjourdan says:

    The power of Burt’s graph is that it is Global, While Stealey’s is the US.

    Both make the same powerful point.

  5. John F. Hultquist says:

    Someone has been quoted as saying “There will always be poor people in the land.” Knowing a few, I think this is about as true as statements get.

    This makes some (let’s call them ‘Elites’) want everyone other than themselves to feel guilty about this wealth gap and use the feelings of quilt to justify flattening out the discrepancies. The only possible way of doing this is to take from those that have figured out how to create a better life and give all this to those that have not figured it out – and never will. There are way more poor than there are wealthy (Elites not included) so a full redistribution has to take everyone down to the level of poor.

    Elites can then manage permissible activities.

  6. p.g.sharrow says:

    @John F. Hultquist; I think you have put your finger on a good point. Where I spent much of my life we had no Elites. Whether rich or poor, boss and ditch digger sat at the same table in the same bar and shared “lies” about life as well as beer. Sat in the same council meetings to solve the community’s needs.
    It use to be Americas look down their noses at those that aspired to be Elite. Princes and princesses, kings and queens were ridiculed, not admired. Those that aspire to be Elite are psychopathic, we need to limit the aspiration to be treated better then your fellows.
    The Obamas and Clintons are prime example of people that aspire to be treated as kings and queens based on their connections and not on their real abilities to add to the general wealth. pg

  7. George says:

    aldous huxley…

    Two other, less effective aids to visionary experience deserve mention – carbon dioxide and the
    stroboscopic lamp. A mixture (completely non-toxic) of seven parts of oxygen and three of carbon
    dioxide produces, in those who inhale it, certain physical and psychological changes, which have been
    exhaustively described by Meduna. Among these changes the most important, in our present context, is a
    marked enhancement of the ability to ‘see things’, when the eyes are closed. In some cases only swirls of
    patterned colour are seen. In others there may be vivid recalls of past experiences. (Hence the value of
    CO 2 as a therapeutic agent.) In yet other cases carbon dioxide transports the subject to the Other World at
    the antipodes of his everyday consciousness, and he enjoys very briefly visionary experiences entirely
    unconnected with his own personal history or with the problems of the human race in general.
    In the light of these facts it becomes easy to understand the rationale of yogic breathing exercises.
    Practised systematically, these exercises result, after a time, in prolonged suspensions of breath. Long
    suspensions of breath lead to a high concentration of carbon dioxide in the lungs and blood, and this
    increase in the concentration of CO 2 lowers the efficiency of the brain as a reducing valve and permits
    the entry into consciousness of experiences, visionary or mystical, from ‘out there’.
    Prolonged and continuous shouting or singing may produce similar, but less strongly marked, results.
    Unless they are highly trained, singers tend to breathe out more than they
    DPH-8 113
    breathe in. Consequently the concentration of carbon dioxide in the alveolar air and the blood is increased
    and, the efficiency of the cerebral reducing valve being lowered, visionary experience becomes possible.
    Hence the interminable ‘vain repetitions’ of magic and religion. The chanting of the curandero, the
    medicine-man, the shaman; the endless psalm-singing and sutra-intoning of Christian and Buddhist
    monks; the shouting and howling, hour after hour, of revivalists – under all the diversities of theological
    belief and aesthetic convention, the psychochemico-physiological intention remains constant. To increase
    the concentration of CO 2 in the lungs and blood and so to lower the efficiency of the cerebral reducing
    valve, until it will admit biologically useless material from Mind-at-Large – this, though the shouters,
    singers, and mutterers did not know it, has been at all times the real purpose and point of magic spells, of
    mantrams, litanies, psalms, and sutras. ‘The heart,’ said Pascal, ‘has its reasons.’ Still more cogent and
    much harder to unravel are the reasons of the lungs, the blood, and the enzymes, of neurones and
    synapses. The way to the super-conscious is through the subconscious, and the way, or at least one of the
    ways, to the subconscious is through the chemistry of individual cells.

  8. Larry Geiger says:

    “The Obamas and Clintons”. Let’s not forget the Kennedys.

  9. j ferguson says:

    Kennedys? For that matter don’t forget Barbara Bush.

  10. DocMartyn says:

    I keep making the point that temperature, in a local in thermal equilibrium, is a real quality.
    You can use the damned thing in equations and stuff. (Tmax Plus Tmin)/2 isn’t a real quality. you cannot plug (Tmax Plus Tmin)/2 as K into an equation that describes a thermodynamic relationship because (Tmax Plus Tmin)/2 isn’t even close to being a average measure of temperature. If one examines the diurnal temperature one cannot help but note the asymmetry

    BEST shows a very strange change in the (Tmax minus Tmin) over the past 50 years, with two quite clear linear relationships 1960 to 1985 and 1985 to 2010.

  11. NZ Willy says:

    I did not like that the two slopes on Rutan’s chart did not meet — there must be a point of inflection. That’s the problem with the “no temps rise in 16 years” paradigm, it treats the 1998 El Nino warming as standard data but it is no more so than a volcano. If we remove the 1998 bump then the revised slopes meet at the double peak in 2004, thus suggesting that place to be the true maximum and point of inflection. There is a clear cooling trend from there, too.

  12. EMS, I do not know why so many credit that CO2 graph as being correct. Before 1960 there were many measurements by skilled operators using accurate instruments with detection by chemical means rather than electronic. Although there was a measured overlap to confirm the accuracy of past measurements, the past measurements have been ignored. While the CO2 graph here http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm may not be perfect it is a far better representation of CO2 prior to 1960 than the graph in your above post. I personally have sampled and measured CO2 in atmospheres similar to those making measurements in the past. I have seen no evidence to justify that past measurements were wrong. The point is that around 1940-1941 (after the very hot temperatures in the 1930’s in both the northern and southern hemispheres- Australia had record temperatures over the whole continent in 1939 and are not the max. temp records in USA around 1935) CO2 levels in the atmosphere were close to the present levels.
    The alarmists and climate pseudo-scientists. Tried to discredit the literature search and data compilation by E-G Beck because it clearly shows that the assumption about CO2 is nonsense.
    Of course any professional engineer with understanding and experience of thermodynamics and heat transfer knows that the so-called climate scientists and their followers are at best technically incompetent.

  13. John Robertson says:

    @ cementafriend, The co2 graph is not correct, but its the symbol of the aggressors, the correlation of co2 to unprecedentedly rising global temperature was their standard.
    The graph is for rubbing the believers noses in it .Assuming their facts to be correct they’re still busted.
    Maybe now some real science will be done, who knows.

  14. DirkH says:

    CO2AGW is but ONE of the means used by the bureaucrats / cronies to enrich themselves (and inadvertently kill the host economy). The whole purpose of the bureaucracy is to multiply itself. The process has played out in Spain and Greece, the host economies have been killed.
    (Both Spain and Greece had lavish FIT’s; Spain has more wind turbine capacity per capita than Germany. The private sector in both countries are dying, the bureaucracy clings to their seats.)

    Washington DC is a boomtown, wages are higher than in Silicon Valley. The bureaucrats are scrambling to get every Dollar coming out of the printing presses before the end (and buy Gold or Lamborghinis or land.)

    Obama uses CO2AGW now to further enable the money grab; after that another pretense will come. Try to get a job in the parasitic sector or sell luxury goods to the parasites; the private sector are serfs to their bureaucrat masters.

    Prepare for the end. This will unravel faster and faster. Watch Greece and Spain.

  15. Pingback: Burt Rutan: ‘This says it all and says it clear’ | Watts Up With That? | alazycowboy.com

  16. John Robertson says:

    E.M something you wrote , dredged from my memory a comment from the Late John Daley, where he is calling Mann, Briffa and Jones on their incompetence, schooling them quite beautifully.
    I think it was in the CRU emails , but went wandering to John Daleys blog, which Warrick Hughes maintains a link to.
    John Daley had the IPCCs measure and called them for what they are, his critique of the 2003 IPCC report busts the hockey-stick and the pretence the medieval warm period was local only.
    Seems so much of this scam was exposed years ago, sort of like the mendacity of the UN.
    Is it the curse of our nature that we only pay attention when the pain strikes home?

  17. Gail Combs says:

    cementafriend says:
    25 January 2013 at 6:01 am

    EMS, I do not know why so many credit that CO2 graph as being correct…..
    That is my biggest gripe. Get rid of the silly conjecture that CO2 is ‘well mixed’ in the atmosphere and the entire house of cards collapses. That is why I asked ChiefIO to save the graph in https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/co2-warm-dry-vs-cold-wet-hypothesis/ for me.

    (I added a bunch of links on CO2 in that thread so they are now all in one place)

  18. Pingback: It’s pretty much just that simple | BornLib's Blog

  19. G. Scot says:

    The graph is not helpful at all. It shows us nothing. Annual temp. flucuations are irrelevant. Remove them from the graph and re-scale the average annual temperature range to match the CO2 range. Then you’ll see whether there might or might not be a corellation.

  20. Steve Close says:

    Nice graph. Good to see Adrian Vance here. We became acquainted through the Santa Barbara News Press, and I once heard him broadcast AM Las Vegas, NV.

Comments are closed.