Really, what's spooky about it, is the question it raises as to the validity that modern /recent and excessive Co2 output is causing the globe to warm up!Quote:
Originally Posted by NavyDiver
Attachment 155866
You should have added the 10 yr average trend line to show the true nature of the anomaly.
period ~1900 to 1940 shows the same rate of increase to global temps? why? was that CO2 as well?
As we're lead to believe by the climate geniuses, in the latter part of the industrial revolution(ie. this 1900-1940 period) aerosols(ie. smoke/particulates/soot) were supposedly the cause of the 1940's cooling period?
So what caused the first 40 year increase of about 0.5°C in this period?
The real spooky bit is why suddenly did it just stop? it's not like production simply stopped in it's tracks.
At about this time we also had an immensely wasteful war to contend with.
Those same climate geniuses say that the CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere it's going to be there for hundreds, maybe thousands of years to come .. so the pause can't be related to human output.
We know this had to be probably the most excessively wasteful period of human kind, not just the war, but in terms of mobility .. think of the gas guzzlers that were kicking about in the day. 10x or more wasteful than todays more efficient and less polluting vehicles.
So, say there were 10 million vehicles on the road back in the 1950 period .. that would equate to about 100 million vehicles in todays more efficient terms.
Then again from 1980's to current(another 40 year period) we see the same rate of change as in the first 40 years of the 20th century.
Today we're are more efficient than back in 1900, so while we do use more, we probably don't use that much more than back then.
Burning wood was far more a common method to cook your dinner, heat your house ... just about everything way back in the day .. so the argument that we produce more Co2 now than back in the day is pure BS!
There is no way to estimate how much CO2 was being pumped into the climate back in the day .. just that we know each individual in that era would have sure outputted more, in way that can't ever be calculated.
So the data again doesn't lie, yet the non deniers still persist with the party line .. it's just that they can't explain why the pause?
If it were an anomalous pause .. say a decade or so .. but a 40 year pause? Really? What, someone just forgot to turn the thermostat for 40 years. [bighmmm]
To say that climate scientists know what they're doing now is simply laughable ... 'checks and balances' are meaningless when they're corroborated by the same ideological priests!
The last thing of note to NavyDivers graph(and link) is to note(in the link) the average global rainfall graph .. similar to most of Aus .. again showing that rainfall has steadily been on the increase as global temp average climbs. Basically confirmation on a broader scale that warmer globe = more rainfall.
Also, if you view the seasonal averages in the temp data, summer in both equatorial halves of the globe have increase in average temp less than the other 3 seasons have.
ie. that the seasons appear to be 'stabilising' or becoming less variant. More data that seems to indicate less extreme weather events .. not more extreme!
And those seasonal variances aren't trivial either .. summer increases in the 0.7° range, whereas the winter averages are more like 1.0°C increases.
At this rate, in a few hundred years there may no longer be any more 'seasons' as we know them.
So is CO2 also changing the seasons? Is CO2 a selective 'pollutant'?
If CO2 were the reason that the sun is heating the atmosphere, and hence the globe, wouldn't it make more sense that when there is more solar radiation per hour/per day, the increase would be higher for that half of the globe ... not lower?
What the data shows is that with lower solar radiation periods, the average temps increase is higher.
