US GDP vs. Yearly Average Global Temperature

This is a very very stupid graph. Two series that trend upoward will tend to "track each other quite nicely". That in no way implies there is any causal relationship between the two variables.

In counterpoint to the previous comment the link exists:

As GDP increases CO2 increases; i.e., greenhouse effect causes a temperature increase.

bottom_line global warming is a function of humansand their GDP

No, I think it's the other way round: the hotter it gets, the more people produce!

You guys are both wrong. The more people work, the more time they spend at work. The more time they spend at work, the more likely they are to fart. If they fart, then the amount of methane in the atmosphere increases. That causes global temperatures to rise (and even hurricanes). So be careful. Next time you fart at work, you might cause a Katrina.

There is nothing incorrect with saying that the two functions 'track' each other. The author never implied a causal relationship.

Let's repeat all together: "Correlation is not causation! Correlation is not causation! Correlation is not causation! Correlation is not causation! Correlation is not causation! Correlation is not causation! Correlation is not causation! Correlation is not causation! Correlation is not causation! Correlation is not causation! Correlation is not causation! Correlation is not causation!"

This is funny, this chart actually claims that average temps have increased by 100% over the last 30 years! how rediculous, I live in SD and the average temp here is 75 to 80, I do not know that last time we had a 150 Degree to 160 degree day here.

Who ever is trying to push this # needs to get real!

Brian, this is a valid observation. The explanation is that the temperature is "Yearly Average Anomaly," meaning it is a deviation from average, rather than absolute temperature. Here's the graph showing the temperature change in absolute terms: http://www.swivel.com/graph... Overall, the temperature increased by just under 1 degree Celsius over the last 150 years.

This is an extremely dull example of pseudo-correlation. Correlation is generally supported by "patterns" (see: http://www.swivel.com/graph... e.g.).After "smoothing" (!) of the temperatures, there are only 49 possibilities of "patterns", i.e. a combination of:
- nearly constant
- linear up or down
- increased growing or shrinking
- decreased growing or shrinking

The above curve shows increased growth on both curves, which seems a kind of "matched pattern", but it is clear from the eye that both grow differently...
A simple statistical variance analysis however is not influenced by either considerations, thus a high "correlation" : Bullshit!

this chart is a wind up - it is not even correct so dont get too hot under the collar - or you might blame that on global warming too!

In a purely statistical sense, the graph may indeed be misleading. Economic growth increases energy use, which increases CO2 output, which increases average temperatures. About this correlation, there are no more scientific doubts. But as with the science of evolution, this one seems more tied up with belief.

omg people i need a graph of average temps not how much it has increased!!!!!!

ewewew!! yall people sound smart!!!

He's on to something here.

People without a basic understanding of the data should not comment. Hopefully Brian feigns his ignorance.

Dmitry: No, that isn't a "graph showing the temperature change in absolute terms". It's the same graph but seen further back in time. Look at the plot line, it's exactly the same.

http://www.onlineflashgames...

http://www.replicahandbags1...
http://www.replicahandbags1...
http://www.replicahandbags1...

nice article thanks

replica handbags
注册公司