Reader “serioussam” sent this graph over. If you accept the warmist theory that the cooling after 1945 was due to sulfate emissions, then you also have to accept the fact that the subsequent warming was boosted by removal of those same sulfates.
Without the sulfate cooling effect, the graph then shows constant warming since 1880 – despite the fact that very little CO2 was accumulating in the atmosphere prior to the 1940s
Apparently CO2 is not the cause of the warming. Thanks Sam!
Isn’t this chart built with “adjusted” data? How can all of North America, the Arctic, Greenland, and parts of Europe have record temps in the 1930’s and 40’s, and wind up with a chart like this?
NMG:
PFM!
This is the typical results from the luke warmers. Attempting to create any meaningful temperature record from any of the current research groups is a lesson in futility.
I even have some doubts about the reliability of Satellite records but think them the best we have to date. In about five hundred years humanity may have a meaningful surface temperature record. Until then historic records are little better that WILD A## Guesses. We can see patterns and get general ideas about ranges of weather patterns. It is easy to claim it was warmer in a certain region when you find trees had grown to maturity where trees can not grow today. It is easy to claim it was warmer when you find pollen from types of vegetation that only grows in arctic regions like DRYAS. In between it is all conjecture.
“If you accept the warmist theory that the cooling after 1945 was due to sulfate emissions, then you also have to accept the fact that the subsequent warming was boosted by removal of those same sulfates.”
Not even Phil Jones accepts your ‘warmist’ theories;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7314/full/nature09394.html
It just magically dropped in 1962.
Sure enough!
We all now believe in the reliability of statements made by Phil Jones who does not share data because someone will attempt to find his errors. An attitude that removes from the whole scientific community along with those who support him and all of his work.
You should really find a more reputable source for your propaganda!
“You should really find a more reputable source for your propaganda!”
This is a link to peer reviewed science that contradicts the premise of this post. It speaks volumes that you deny this. Why not learn enough to criticise the actual research instead of calling anything that does not fit with you biases propaganda?