The graph Booby couldn’t understand:
It comes from a Keith Pickering:
Keith Pickering
@KeithAPickering Follow Follow @KeithAPickering More
Replying to @GillesnFio @MightyApollo and 42 others
"no evidence"? Why are these data linear?
Can you answer the “why linear” question, Princess Gobby?
CO2 concentrations are increasing exponentially so the log (the natural logarithm) of CO2 concentration is plotted on the X axis. So we have a log-linear graph. These are pretty standard in engineering and science, Booby didn’t have a clue, notice that?
The Y-axis is temperature anomalies.
Since CO2 concentrations increase over time there is a time element in the graph. Again, Booby could not spot this. Unusual for such a highly trained engineer
The left part of the X axis is obviously older readings, moving to the right we get more recent readings. None of this is hard. Further, the log of the CO2 concentration 21 years before the temperature reading is used. That is a bit odd?
I am not sure how they settled on 21 years. However, the main effect of CO2 is to raise temperature a bit and this raised temperature increases water vapor in the atmosphere and this provides 75% of the warming. So goes forever the mantra that CO2 follows temperature, it leads it.
The graph shows the very strong correlation of CO2 and temperature. We see no cooling—Booby’s ice age is stuff to fool intellectual babies. Nor does Greenland ice show any increase and we know the last of the thick, multiyear ice has gone from the Arctic Ocean. Only a fool believes we are heading into a mini ice age.
