1) The rise in temperature in the record starts much earlier ~1910
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#g...
2) Weather events like the PDO have caused rises and dips along the way, the warming between the mid 30's and mid 40s coincides with a quite strong warm cycle PDO.
The period between the mid 40's and the 70's coincides with an extend low PDO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.sv...
We are currently in a cooling PDO event (have been since ~2005) but it's effect this time seem much reduced on the 40's event, as if something else were making the planet warmer.
3) In terms of war activity, yes weapons manufacture did ramp up but as it did a good deal of civilian manufacture ramped down, especially in Europe. It's the same with fuel use, the military used a great deal but civilian use ramped well down. Rationing of fuel was something that happened through out the war many cars saw no use at all for years, till the war ended.
In the latest of my series of articles on global warming, I offered evidence that global warming appears to be occurring, but evidence seems to be growing that fluctuations in the electromagnetic field of the sun may be responsible for it.1 Here I would like to expand my arguments that carbon dioxide from man's activities is probably not the primary cause for global warming. Major weaknesses have developed in the logic that carbon dioxide causes global warming. In a second article to follow, I will describe a new theory of climate change based on the influence of the sun.
In his presentation An Inconvenient Truth,2 Al Gore argues that the correlation between earth's average global temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere irrefutably demonstrates that carbon dioxide drives global warming. He compares the temperature trend in the so-called "Hockey Stick Diagram" with the exponential increase in carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, for the past 50 years. A similar plot of temperature over the past 1,000 years is shown. Such a diagram is given this name because the temperature plot looks like a long-handled hockey stick. This figure shows a superposition of average global temperature curves obtained by different research groups using different data and/or methodologies. For example, the red curve shows the results obtained by Moberg et al, while the blue curve shows the results of Esper et al. The average temperature in the "handle" of the hockey stick over the period from about 1000 to 1850 A.D. remains relatively uniform, followed by a sudden rise in the "blade" since 1850, supposedly following the recent increase in carbon dioxide.
No it wasn't the cause of the war, but wars send a great deal of CO2 into the atmosphere with vehicles and explosives in particular. Even during peacetime, the maneuvers and testing make the military worldwide THE major producer of CO2 and likely Nitrous Oxide and Low level Ozone as well.
Global warming is "primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation." This process has been apparent since the 19th century (1800s), since The Industrial Revolution.
No. Global warming only came about during post war times although nuclear bomb testing would have an effect, just like the north Koreans now. Global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels,factory's, cars,transportation, planes and modern pollution etc
Carbon dioxide is proportional to cumulative emisions and sulfur dioxide is proportional to current emissions. When the Great Depression ended and World War II began, atmospheric carbon dioxide increased slightly while atmospheric sulfur dioxide increased dramatically. As a result, Earth cooled as a result of World War II and the post-war boom.
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/i...
There was an interesting theory at the time that all the Chlorine used in WWI would take a few decades to reach the upper atmosphere and start to destroy the ozone protecting layer!
First learn how to write a complete sentence in English, then try learning some basic science.
No.
