Someone was complaining earlier about graphs not being zeroed. In order to correct this, I plotted CO2 mole fraction vs. year.
Hopefully that makes everyone happy.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
Recent Comments
- arn on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- GeologyJim on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Peter Carroll on New BBC Climate Expert
- Peter Carroll on New BBC Climate Expert
- Greg in NZ on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- Greg in NZ on New BBC Climate Expert
- Greg in NZ on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Paul Marks on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- arn on New BBC Climate Expert
- Paul Marks on New BBC Climate Expert
Ah! Now I see! Worse than I thought.
that’s cherry picking.
Funny!
LOL, much better!
That is what a trace gas would look like.
A bottom line inhabitant.
Your mole fraction graph got me thinking about grapf scaling. Imagine if Al Gore presented a big stage scale temperature reconstroction from 1850 to now using equal spacing for each year (say 12″) and each degree (also 12″). He would have a temperature trend that would be 161 feet long (he’d need a big stage) with a 7.2 inch temperature rise. I don’t think Al would do something like that because it would have a striking similarity to the flatness to your mole fraction graph and we would laugh at Al when he acted all crazed about the trend.
heh heh heh. It would also be interesting to plot CO2 concentrations in dB versus time.
Too much vertical exageration for my liking.
Or you could always plot its ability to control the global temperature, over time….errr, guess the graphs would look about the same….
Considering that 99.96% of the atmosphere is non-GHGs and has essentially nothing to do with keeping Earth warm, is the fact that this line looks flat really all that interesting, surprising, or meaningful?
Given that 2-3% of the atmosphere is made up of water vapour, your numbers are off by about a factor of a hundred.
Nothing new there though.
Actually that is not true.
You forgot CONDUCTION.
I was answering ChrisD,who forgets that there are other ways to keep the atmosphere warm.
Very clever, keep on keeping on Mr. Goddard.
Richard Lindzen on how the scale of the graph creates global warming hysteria:
3:00 video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsMV5-NRp2Y