>>>This year and last year, they were past their peak after the first week in May.
>>>Of course its all commie/cancel fake news.
>
>Is it?
>
>Assuming that these are reproducible measurements rather than models (which expectation is not assisted by data reportedly going back to 1930 but graph going back to 1901) I wonder what the explanation for this change over the last century would be? I can see that the NYT suggests it's caused by human-sourced emissions, but the science for that appears to be excluded.
>

I also noticed how the "as a result of emissions of heat-trapping gases over more than a century. " was just stated as a fact. Why do these people never give credit where credit is due. Since I joined with others for the first "Earth Day" in 1970, I have dedicated my efforts to avoiding the "coming of the new ice age" which all scientist agreed was on the way. Like everything else these days I blame the Russians. For more than 30 years they have been working on a plan to steal the magnetic north pole from Canada. I think their final objective is to turn the Kamchatka Peninsula into the next California. Another thing I hold responsible for "climate change" is that big yellow/red object (probably Russian made) that shines a bright light through my window in the morning waking me up (woke?). ☺


>I'd also ask why it's mapped against average temperature over a century. If the assertion is increasing temperature, why wouldn't you set 1901 as baseline and map difference from there? Since more recent measurements are far more numerous and reliable, I'd expect mapping cumulative change rather than century average would highlight accelerated change over the last 10 years as the article asserts. Scientifically, it's proper to ask why people do things a certain way if there's no obvious scientific reason. If there is one, great, that's education that helps generate support.
>
>FWIW and since (unlike New Zealand) the US did go through an industrial revolution involving obvious abrupt increases in pollution and various greenhouse gases, it would be interesting to go back further, ideally to to pre- and post- industrial revolution. I wonder how feasible that is?
>
>FWIW, in discussions with all sorts of people I find almost 100% distaste for pollution and emissions. That's a great start point to build trust and common purpose.