Taking a step back from global warming politics and debate, I'm going to provide a simple, unbiased look at the relationship between CO2 and Temperature. Skeptics and believers alike will agree that CO2 and temperature have been strongly linked for the past half a million years. What they do not agree on, is whether CO2 has been the cause of those changes. This article will shed light on the relationships between CO2 and temperature, drawing on both recorded CO2 levels, and projections based on the EPICA ice coring effort.
A simple place to start to get a good idea of what temperature against CO2 levels look like, is this very famous plot, reproduced here in Matlab. A more comprehensive explanation of these temperature/CO2 relationships can be found in my previous articles.

From this, one can interpret a clear relationship between CO2 and Temperature.
By removing the time element from the graph, and reproducing the data as a scatterplot, we can obtain a more direct indication of this phenomenon:

The correlation of this relationship is 89%, illustrating the obvious fact that a relationship does exist between temperature and CO2. It should be noted though that this says nothing which factor was a driver for the other, just that they are related. To further visualize the relationship between CO2 and temperature, I analyzed the correlation between temperature and CO2 for 5000 year sub-periods throughout the past 450,000 years, and mapped the resulting correlation coefficients for each of the resulting scatter plots against time. This is the result:

This graph shows 2 things: Firstly, the relationship between CO2 and temperature is extremely complex. Secondly, it shows that there is in fact a relationship between the two, and despite the fact that other forces are obviously driving at least one of the two elements, there is a strong relationship throughout history.
The temperature data for the above plots was obtained from Jouzel, J., et al. 2007, and CO2 data was obtained from the Nature Supplementary Materials for Lüthi et al. (2008).
This is where the science gets a bit sketchy, but as a points of interest I also wanted to map what this relationship looks like in more recent times. Lets take the data used in my previous article on global warming trends, namely from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis. We can now perform the same analysis with data from the past 50 years, and time steps of 2 years:

The overall correlation between CO2 and temperature data is 76%, indicating a similar, although slightly lower, correlation compared with the past half a million years. The interesting thing about this result though, is that it shows a persevering relationship between CO2 and temperature, even though CO2 is now known to increase independently of temperature and ahead of temperature. The existence of this phenomenon prior to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is the source of much dispute, although scientific consensus generally agrees that CO2 has had a significant effect on temperature (and vice versa). Another thing which should be noted is that there is an inherent delay between CO2 and a subsequent increase in temperature, so the analysis used in this article could be drastically improved by accommodating for this lag. An optimization with respect to lag would also be interesting, as it would provide a statistical method for analyzing what the lag between CO2 and temperature is, both in the far past and recorded history.
Comments are, as always, welcome :)
Comments
It was my understanding that
July 18, 2010 by jason
It was my understanding that the time lag matches well with the expected delay between temperature and ocean solubility. Can you give some examples of papers to suggest otherwise?
The 800 year lag ?
July 13, 2010 by Anonymous (not verified)
The idea that the temperatures from the distant past and the corresponding time are accurately know is not true. Some recent work on stalagmites in China suggest that the time lag simple did not exist.
Lies, Damn Lies and pointless theories
July 9, 2010 by Alan (not verified)
This whole debate started with Al Gores historical graphs of the past. It seems odd that this data occupies centre stage when it when it benefits AGW theory but said to be "pointless" when it shows the theory to be incorrect. AGW means anthropogenic Global ,anthropogenic means Man made. It is this theory that is being questioned hence it is the whole point. The correlation data above supports the idea that temp causes rising Co2. In this case man made CO2 would weaken the correlation in modern times, which is what is shown.
Yes, but it says nothing
July 9, 2010 by johnstone (not verified)
Yes, but it says nothing about the future. This whole thing is kind of pointless because the effects causing temperature rises today, according to AGW theory, are happening as a result of CO2, instead of CO2 being a product as it has been in the past cases of global warming.
who is driving who
July 4, 2010 by alan (not verified)
Although there is a strong correlation between Temp and Co2 historical graphs show that CO2 lags temp by 800 years. This can only mean that temp drives CO2 and not the other way round. This is fairly common sense, a warm glass of coke becomes flat quicker than a cold glass. ie Solubility of gasses goes down with temp. The oceans act as a sink for CO2, releasing more Co2 as temps rise.