Climat Change is not a commie myth.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Picking years based upon centuries is letting that medieval guy who got the year of the birth of Jesus wrong set the rules. It is also interesting that anyone would consider US temps to be indicative of the world when it is such a small fraction of the world but that is a different discussion.

As you note the amount of red and blue changes but the impression given by this is that it matters in the least that deviations from a century long average exist. If in fact the zero is the average then the deviations from average are meaningless.

Remember the Romans grew Mediterranean grapes in Britain. While I expect the quality of the wine was commensurate with the food I have not heard of any such vineyards reopening. However I have read the temperatures in Britain declined from 1940 to 1975 and are now back where they were in 1940.

Again I have been following global climate change since it was the coming ice age. The heavy politicization of global melting which, embarrassingly, includes the scientists which is ordinarily an ethical violation.

So what’s your point, Methuselah? It doesn’t make a big difference if you pick a random point and graph a deviation from that point, or graph the temperature. The basic shape of the graph remains the same.

My Methuselah points are that what opinion there is on global melting is that it was once a global ice age. I have made several other Methuselah points such as by the SAME scientists have have taken up melting as a political cause, if was in fact to late to do anything about it in 1999, also in 2000, 2001, and 2002 because by those years it was too late to do anything about it as in "in ten years it will be too late" (insert hysterical exclamation points here)

Another Methuselah point is that those same experts NEVER said greater variability until about five years ago. It was only after measurable warming had obviously stopped that they started using variability instead of warming.

Been there, done that got the T-shirt is a legitimate viewpoint.

My position is IF one cites the same experts on the same subject then one has an absolute right to consider their credibility over time in the manner of their politicized statements I will be happy to read why they were wrong on both 'ten years or too late' and on why warming went to variability and what they have done to change their models and why those changes lead to their new political statements.

I my first post on the subject here I also raised the best of all global climates assumption. Note the graphs below have also changed in how they are described. It used to be considered a disastrous change period. Now it is a change faster than at any known time in history and is disastrous for the rate of change not the amount of change.

Notice in these charts it is again a matter of where one puts the zero however it is not arbitrary it is as old as one can pretend is possible with a straight face. While I am reasonably familiar with advance of technology everyone with a working knowledge of European history should be aware of the spread of Europeans who took that technology with them. While it is not exact those could also be charts of the spread of temperature measuring Europeans.

But if it is the increase in burning fossil fuels one would expect these graphs to be the same as charts of the increased burning of fossil fuels. Even before noting all temperatures must be related to absolute zero and cannot be arbitrary or relative even a cursory examination of the rate of increase of fossil fuels shows this rate of increase is far too low for such fuels to be a significant contributor.

I will give one example of the many problems with older temperature measurements here. A huge contribution to the data would come from the El Nino and La Nina effects. They are unpredictable, vaguely cyclic and govern the temperatures of much of the Pacific and the Americas. These were discovered some forty years ago invalidating all prior measurements of temperature in those regions. I would like to see these same charts with and without the invalidated data.

I will stick my foot into another pothole with that by noting the first time there was an attempt to observe the antarctic ozone layer in winter there was a hole. This lead to the world ban on CFC production. Considering ozone is produced by sunlight and winter means no sunlight and since there was NO evidence there were ever any hole-free winters this all sounds familiar.

Since these charts are now down to only rate of change not amount of change I raise the question of why the 1860 world temperatures are assumed to be the best of all possible world temperatures. The world has been warmer and colder since humans left Africa. It has also been warmer and colder since the end of the last ice age some 17-15,000 years ago. It has been warmer and colder since agriculture became the basis of civilization some 6000 years ago.

Once the political melters had to address the warmer and colder, i.e. those raising the issue ignored the ridicule and forced them to address it, they decided it was rate of change not absolute change just as they changed higher temperatures to greater variability. Why does the rate matter? Because it is faster than local ecologies can adapt.

Is that credible? The method of adaptation in any case cannot be evolution as even the post ice age max of 17,000 years is not long enough for that to be a factor. But if it is then how fast is too fast is still an open question noting of course too fast is undefined.

There is more.