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.
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.