I see the SH blue line flat line from 1920 to 1939, and the NH red line increase. Your contention was that warming in the 1930s was global, but your own source shows it was not. A sudden blip in the SH line in 1940 is irrelevant, as it is too short term to be climate, as opposed to a short-lived PDO. You're an intelligent enough person to be able to reasonably understand climate change, and there are a lot of good resources out there, and I could help identify some if it helps.
The difference in PPP median income between, say, the UK and Australia is small, but CO2 per capita is a factor of two, so there are more factors involved than just income. India to UK, you have a point.
My mistake. I see it now. It shows NH temperatures diverging from SH in the 1930s, so still disagrees with you. SH temperatures look flat. Still lower than today. But I will concede that the NH rise was sustained. But then a rise, given industrialisation, tends to support the CC models.
That's a GISTEMP graph by month for 1880 to prsent, not a hemispheric breakdown. If you download the CSV, though, it quite clearly shows the 1930s were cooler than present, e.g. July +1 to +1.3 over annual average baseline then, +1.7 to 2.0 now.
Interest rates aren't inflation. Even inflation at 26% would not be hyperinflation. Wage increases are not inflation, even if they may be inflationary. Wage and price controls tend to lower inflation - successful action to prevent inflation does not mean there was inflation any more than locking my door means I was burgaled. There was no hyperinflation in Canada in 1979-82 by any mainstream definition used by economists.
I know what the difference is. I posted the first link I found, and it is a copy of the national policy. Would you like to post a link to a policy, not a comment site, demonstrating otherwise?
They might smooth it maybe because it was local and temporary, not an annual average. If it was hotter in the 1930s, why is Arctic melting such an issue now, but wasn't in the 30s, or is Gore secretly using a space laser to melt it, working with Musk, I presume?
So you trust the models, rather than the data? Show a dataset (one that is not "adjusted" every year, and still leaves the actual heat peak back in the 1930s) that correlates with the models. You won't find one, unless it is so massaged that the big peak back in the 1930s is gone. And note my signature quote - that's from Phil Jones, no AGW skeptic himself. If the dataset you're using doesn't show those two periods as basically the same - it's been massaged and tweaked to yield a pre-determined answer, rather than stand on its own in opposition to the desired models...
I trust the data. I know people who are climate scientists, and understand the data. I know the USA isn't the whole world.
Well, the real arbiter isn't Curry, who seems to be at odds with most research, but the planet, and temperatures at the upper end of projections under RCP 8.5 (the emissions scenario we seem to be following), which tends to suggest the current models are broadly correct, unless we are about to be hit by significant negative feedbacks.
So you think at 1200 parts per million you'll have headaches and feel tired?
Yes. In particular it is why there is a lot of ongoing effort on air circulation in schools, with a target in most nations closer to 600 or below, as higher levels affect learning.
Been said a million times before: CO2 is not a pollutant. It's needed for plants to grow. The current CO2 levels are so low it's amazing plants survive at all. We'd be much better off if CO2 levels tripled from current levels.
All this sky is falling bullshit is about raising taxes and the socialist elite controlling the rest of us.
If you're not socialist elite and worried about CO2 levels, you're just one of their sheep.
Plants need water to grow, therefore plants cannot be overwatered.
I keep thinking about getting an electric tricycle as they are more stable in ice, or with a heavy load of shopping than my pedal power bicycle. I would never feel the need to drive to the supermarket.
Cleaner on NOx and PM, but not CO (leaving aside CO2), but I suspect that European cars will soon match the USA, as most new diesels in Europe already exceed newly proposed European standards. Whether that will mean they will comply with USA standards, I do not know. Europe tends to have more frequent inspection of existing cars, so the emission profile in any given year might vary from official targets.
Slashdot Mirror
I am guessing you haven't noticed the number of AI research papers they publish. I do wish Google would fix Tensorflow's build system, though.
I see the SH blue line flat line from 1920 to 1939, and the NH red line increase. Your contention was that warming in the 1930s was global, but your own source shows it was not. A sudden blip in the SH line in 1940 is irrelevant, as it is too short term to be climate, as opposed to a short-lived PDO. You're an intelligent enough person to be able to reasonably understand climate change, and there are a lot of good resources out there, and I could help identify some if it helps.
The difference in PPP median income between, say, the UK and Australia is small, but CO2 per capita is a factor of two, so there are more factors involved than just income. India to UK, you have a point.
My mistake. I see it now. It shows NH temperatures diverging from SH in the 1930s, so still disagrees with you. SH temperatures look flat. Still lower than today. But I will concede that the NH rise was sustained. But then a rise, given industrialisation, tends to support the CC models.
I wish I could mod that up.
That's a GISTEMP graph by month for 1880 to prsent, not a hemispheric breakdown. If you download the CSV, though, it quite clearly shows the 1930s were cooler than present, e.g. July +1 to +1.3 over annual average baseline then, +1.7 to 2.0 now.
Interest rates aren't inflation. Even inflation at 26% would not be hyperinflation. Wage increases are not inflation, even if they may be inflationary. Wage and price controls tend to lower inflation - successful action to prevent inflation does not mean there was inflation any more than locking my door means I was burgaled. There was no hyperinflation in Canada in 1979-82 by any mainstream definition used by economists.
I know what the difference is. I posted the first link I found, and it is a copy of the national policy. Would you like to post a link to a policy, not a comment site, demonstrating otherwise?
Citation?
So you can alien yourself? At least it is legal.
You are right. I was misrembering relative as absolute.
Norway. Richer and lower. Australia. Poorer and higher.
They might smooth it maybe because it was local and temporary, not an annual average. If it was hotter in the 1930s, why is Arctic melting such an issue now, but wasn't in the 30s, or is Gore secretly using a space laser to melt it, working with Musk, I presume?
So you trust the models, rather than the data? Show a dataset (one that is not "adjusted" every year, and still leaves the actual heat peak back in the 1930s) that correlates with the models. You won't find one, unless it is so massaged that the big peak back in the 1930s is gone. And note my signature quote - that's from Phil Jones, no AGW skeptic himself. If the dataset you're using doesn't show those two periods as basically the same - it's been massaged and tweaked to yield a pre-determined answer, rather than stand on its own in opposition to the desired models...
I trust the data. I know people who are climate scientists, and understand the data. I know the USA isn't the whole world.
Normally it is mitigated by not being on the rocket. No astronauts have died in a rocket fuelling accident when not being there.
This is why NASA improved safety procedures.
Yes, it is a shame figures are based on sampling in just one location... hold on, they aren't.
Well, the real arbiter isn't Curry, who seems to be at odds with most research, but the planet, and temperatures at the upper end of projections under RCP 8.5 (the emissions scenario we seem to be following), which tends to suggest the current models are broadly correct, unless we are about to be hit by significant negative feedbacks.
So you think at 1200 parts per million you'll have headaches and feel tired?
Yes. In particular it is why there is a lot of ongoing effort on air circulation in schools, with a target in most nations closer to 600 or below, as higher levels affect learning.
The Little Ice Age was not global.
Been said a million times before: CO2 is not a pollutant. It's needed for plants to grow. The current CO2 levels are so low it's amazing plants survive at all. We'd be much better off if CO2 levels tripled from current levels.
All this sky is falling bullshit is about raising taxes and the socialist elite controlling the rest of us.
If you're not socialist elite and worried about CO2 levels, you're just one of their sheep.
Plants need water to grow, therefore plants cannot be overwatered.
It degrades to CO2, mostly.
A 50% capacity battery, sold cheaply enough, would be great for backing up PV.
I keep thinking about getting an electric tricycle as they are more stable in ice, or with a heavy load of shopping than my pedal power bicycle. I would never feel the need to drive to the supermarket.
Cleaner on NOx and PM, but not CO (leaving aside CO2), but I suspect that European cars will soon match the USA, as most new diesels in Europe already exceed newly proposed European standards. Whether that will mean they will comply with USA standards, I do not know. Europe tends to have more frequent inspection of existing cars, so the emission profile in any given year might vary from official targets.