Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
02mydafsoup-01

Thus is the power of graphic representation

Do I understand the graph well - the red written explication is related to the whole black line, which has no relation to the x and y scales? - then it should presumingly only show the relative development between carbon dioxide incl. volcanism and the yearly temperature, which is in MHO hardly convincing, if I try to to understand the obvious down drops in the years of strong volcanic activities. But to interpret the black graph as an average temperature isn't nether very helpful comparing the line with the yearly temperature amplitudes.

Also: 1956 seems for me a pretty late starting point "attributed to human activities" - but there is certainly something like proofing ability or disability by statistics to consider, and we know that the winters during WW2 and especially in the second half of the 1940 were in Europe relatively cold. The graphic as a whole seems to have its flaws - it is lacking a contextual explication.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl