Jan
The one chart you need to convert a global warmer
(Click to enlarge to full screen)
Arguing about Anthropogenic Global Warming can be exhausting, with facts and “facts” being thrown back and forth ad nauseam. Now, we present to you the easiest and fastest way to show anyone why 1) temperatures change over time but end up reverting to the mean, and 2) CO2 is not causing warming.
Hat tip to James Delinpole for his article yesterday, highlighting the Central England Temperature dataset–the oldest in the world–with 351 years of temperature records drawn from “multiple weather stations located both in urban and rural areas of England, which is considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures.”
We don’t even need to say anything more, just click the chart to enlarge and read it. Then go over to Delingpole’s article at the Telegraph for more data.
Possibly related posts:
The more light that is shone upon this subject the better. let the people of each country decide how to spend their money. I’ll wager that it will not be on junkets for the ‘warmist’ brigade.
[...] ¿Un vistazo a este gráfico? Es casi lo único que necesito. [...]
This chart doesn’t seem remotely persuasive to me. No one in the pro-AGW camp is arguing that global temperatures are a direct function of CO2 emissions or any derivative thereof; they argue that they are a function of GHG (especially CO2) concentrations.
Certainly concentrations are expected to (and do) relate to CO2 emissions, but you could easily have an exponential curve of increasing CO2 emissions that increases GHG concentrations only by a few percent.
Graphing temperature rise against CO2 concentration, long-term GHG concentration, and total GHG concentrations would be much more informative.
Though nowhere near as spectacular. In fairness, if the dataset you’re using is accurate, I suspect doing so might also back up your apparent argument that suggests global temperature rises are due to primarily non-anthropogenic causes.
I think you might be right, but this graph isn’t remotely persuasive.
Are you kidding??!!
The whole point of the AGW argument is that man-made CO2 is augmenting the greenhouse gases and increasing the effect to the point where it will have disastrous consequences.
We know how much carbon-based fuel has been burned over the years and therefore know how much CO2 has been released into the atmosphere by human activity. Yet despite the steep addition of CO2 the slope of average temp. has not increased.
In addition we have been in the midst of an extended inter-glacial period that has nothing to do with CO2, and the average temp. of this interglacial is higher than the current temp. of the earth – without having caused the disastrous effects that the AGW crowd are assuring us will happen if we don’t stop the temp. increase!