In this exploration you will use slopes of lines to estimate the
average rate of change — here, an average rate of increase
— of some quantity (in this case, average atmospheric
concentrations of CO2 near the Manua Loa Observatory (MLO)) during a
time interval.
I. Slopes: Visual/Graphical Approach
- Using a pencil, mark a point on the graph above the year 1960 at
a "middle height" location amidst the zig-zagging line, not at the top
nor at the bottom (in particular, it's ok if your point is not exactly
on the zig-zagging line itself). Call this point A. Do
the same for 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 (points B, C, D, and E,
respectively).
- Use a ruler (or another object which can serve as a
sufficiently-long straightedge) to draw the line segment between points
A and B, and then to carefully continue that line to the right until it
reaches the right edge of the above image.
- Do the same for the line segment between B and C, likewise
continuing it to the right (stop at this point; do not use D and E).
- Summarize below in a clear, precise, full-English sentences a
"regular member of the public" could understand, what, in broad terms
these lines indicate about CO2 and rates of change. Be precise!
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
- Numerical estimates using the graphical approach.
Devise a strategy for approximating the slopes of drawn line
segments on a graph such as this (hint: think back to "rise over run"
and draw some vertical and horizontal lines through points A,
B, and C until you find their approximate x- and y-coordinates; use
these to est. "rise" and "run")
- Estimate the slope of the line segment from A to B: ______
Estimate the slope of the line segment from B to C: ______
- What are the units for these quantities? ______per _____.
- Estimate the rate of increase of CO2 during the
2000-2005 period: ______ ppm/yr.
II. Slopes: Numerical Approach
The fuller data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(cdiac.ornl.gov) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory —
the primary climate-change data and information analysis center of the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) — is found on the 3rd page.
- Use the data for each year (using the right-most "Annual-fit"
column) to fill out the table below:
Year
| (Fit) Avg. Annual CO2 level
|
---|
1960 |
|
---|
1970 |
|
---|
1980 |
|
---|
1990 |
|
---|
2000 |
|
---|
- Now use that data to fill out the table below:
Time period
| Change in Avg CO2 per decade
1960 to 1970 |
|
---|
1970 to 1980 |
|
---|
1980 to 1990 |
|
---|
1990 to 2000 |
|
---|
|
---|
- What new information or understanding, if any, have you unearthed
by using this numerical approach, that you didn't have from the
graphical approaches above?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
- Explore below why, in general (regardless of whether the
application is CO2 analysis or other quantities) we might
miss some information if we rely only on graphs that is on
analysis without numerical details? What do we gain by having
numerical values, over having only graphs? Explain clearly.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
- In light of your answer to the preceding question, another
question arises. Namely, "why then do we ever bother with graphs at
all?" Why not simply always use only tables of exact values? Do graphs have
advantages that the numerical tables (by themselves) lack? Your
explanation should be precise, but also understandable by (and
convincing to) a lay (non-specialist) audience.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
III.Using Tables: A Second Look
- Using the two preceding tables which you filled out in Part II. (pretend you
don't have the huge table of all the numbers!), to answer:
- By roughly how many parts per million, per year, was CO2 increasing
around 1965? ________ (include units!)
- By roughly how many parts per million, per year, was CO2 increasing
around 1970? ________ (how can you obtain such an estimate?) Around
1980? ________
- Do these numbers suggest that the rate of CO2 increase peaked
at some time? Are you able reconcile this, at all, with how the graph looks,
overall?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Now use the data for each year (using the right-most "Annual-fit"
column) to fill out the following table:
Year
| (Fit) Avg. Annual CO2 level
1963 |
|
---|
1973 |
|
---|
1983 |
|
---|
1993 |
|
---|
2003 |
|
---|
|
---|
- Finally use the above to fill out corresponding
table below:
Time period
| Change in Avg CO2 per decade
1963 to 1973 |
|
---|
1973 to 1983 |
|
---|
1983 to 1993 |
|
---|
1993 to 2003 |
|
---|
|
---|
- Do the numbers in these tables better capture the overall behavior
visually suggested by the entire graph? How or why?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
- What lessons might you draw about the the effect of one's
chosen "starting/ending points?" What strategies might you employ with
data in the future?
__________________________________________________________________________________________