Agro, I've been tripping over you for a while so rest assured I know a log when I trip over it.

Here is the log graph:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

Here is a generic log graph:

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/354852/function-design-a-logarithm-asymptotic-to-one

Note it is asymptotic to one. Note the similarities. Is the log graph of the diminishing RF of CO2 asymptotic to 1? If not what is it?

I do agree with this:

"The prediction from a 6th order polynomial is that in some relatively short period, the warming effect of CO2 is going to go through the roof."

Only that is AGW's prediction not Viv's.

Bugs, the other hollow log around here says:

"Is this supposed to be a graph showing the forcing attributable to CO2?

If so, why does it start at 235 W/m^2 for 0 ppm CO2?"

Did you read this Bugs:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

You tell me why it begins at 235 Bugs; maybe its the effective temperature forcing; or don't you agree the Greenhouse temperature is only 33C?

Jeremy and Steele, I have no intention of "withdrawing" the graph. It's not my essay, and this is an opinion site, not some refereed journal. There are some issues with the graph, principally the sixth order polynomial, but it has its good points too.

As I said before, there are a lot of bad graphs in this area, with the most notorious being Michael Mann's fraudulent hockey stick graph which substituted real temperature data for proxy data when the proxy data didn't follow his preconceived conclusion. If you're so concerned with graphsmanship, find out who published Mann's effort and ask them to withdraw it. It's done more damage in the debate than the errors in the one Viv refers to.

Something else which has done a lot of damage in this area is the assertion that CO2 emissions lead to extreme weather. It has been controversial for some time, and now the IPCC seems to have fallen on the scientific side of the debate. But that doesn't stop a whole lot of agitators repeating the lie.

That's one of the reasons that Viv's article got a run. He gets most of his facts right. To say they can be ignored because they are not referenced is simply spurious. I suppose you'll dispute the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow because I have given you a peer-reviewed citation.

I suspect the only reason that the graph is getting this attention is because some on this thread want to obscure the very real damage that is being done to science and the economy by people like Tim Flannery who time and time again have seriously misrepresented the science,and been handsomely rewarded when doing so.

cohenite,

Leaving the juvenile humour aside, the earlier poster was suggesting that you have no idea what a log graph looks like.

If he's wrong, you could make that clear by pointing out how the graph labelled "Modtrans Results" at

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

compares with a log graph.

What do you mean by "asymptotic to 1"? There are actually two graphs shown at http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/354852/function-design-a-logarithm-asymptotic-to-one
Which one of them are you saying is "asymptotic to 1"?

When you say "Is the log graph of the diminishing RF of CO2 asymptotic to 1?" are you referring to the graph labelled "Modtrans Results"? If so, don't you have the answer to that question in front of you?

GrahamY,

I've no idea what you're talking about re "withdrawing" the graph - you seem to suggest that I have asked you to "withdraw" the graph, whatever that means.

As for your suggestion that producing bogus material of a factual nature is OK because it is an opinion piece - well, that's your standards.

Your comment "He gets most of his facts right. To say they can be ignored because they are not referenced is simply spurious. I suppose you'll dispute the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow because I have given you a peer-reviewed citation." I don't believe you think that - I figure that in fact you can perfectly well tell the difference. If I'm wrong, I'll apologise - it's because with the article as it is, I'd be silly to accept the rest of his "facts" as true, given the evidence of the graph. A previous poster made effectively the same point.

The remainder of your post seems to be a rant about other people and their errors, as though that means we should overlook errors in the current article. A very weird idea, indeed.

Dear GrahamY,

I was not asking for the graph to be removed for correction because of the lack of veracity in its figures, nor the spurious conclusions that were magically derived from it by the author, indeed I have defended his right to do so on this thread.

What I find unconscionable is that to the casual reader it appears to come from the NOAA.

Fix the heading is all you have to do mate, then bung the bloody thing back up again and the rest of us poor plebs can argue its merits.

I wonder how you would feel if another media outlet combined one of your surveys from OLO with other outside figures to create a graphic that directly contradicted what you had found, but then posted their results with a heading 'Online Opinion: Only 30% of Liberal Party voters approve of Tony Abbott's performance as Prime Minister'? You rightly wouldn't stand for it, nor would you take the excuse that it 'was just an opinion piece' or that the very small, nearly greyed out, source notes make it okay.

Or do you now take the view that this sort of behaviour is now acceptable?

I of course concede this is your site, your rules and definitely your prerogative, but by the same token I think many are drawn to this site because certain standards are observed and they may even feel a degree of protectiveness about them. I'm not sure leaving the graph labelled as it is honours those standards.

Same egos more games.

Viv's graph is not from NOAA; it makes it plain that it uses NOAA data. The "casual reader" who Mr Redux has kindly taken under his wing can go and watch the ABC and be really misled.

Jeremy and Agro, or is it Bugs, seem concerned with my ignorance, which in their eyes knows no bounds [rather like AGW], about log graphs.

I've put up a couple and added the asymptote to 1 qualification as I don't want the log graph to do the same as Agro's 6th order poly careering to an infinitely hot future.

This is the point and the gang have once again successfully veered any sensible discussion away from Viv's article which simply says the effect of CO2 on temperature, if you accept it has any, is constrained.

So, I think the ball is in Mr Redux's, Jeremy's, Bug's and Agro's court.

Does this nonpareil group agree or not that:

1 CO2's RF and therefore capacity to affect temperature is constrained by Beers Law and shown by the log decline?

2 If not do they agree that the RF potential from increasing CO2 is unlimited so that the AGW's concepts of the Venus Syndrome [as enunciated by the kook, Hansen], tipping points from increased CO2 and runaway and catastrophic AGW are not only real but imminent prospects much like the melting of the ice?

3 As a parenthesis does the group dismiss saturation of CO2 or do they concur with the Rabbet's idea of line broadening:

http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2007/07/temperature-anonymice-gave-eli-new.html

Or is it just absorption in the wings of the CO2 spectrum? Is wing expansion the same as line broadening? Can CO2's RF be saturated at all? Is AGW merely a longer episode of Eric Olthwaite's life?

These are the questions which the inhouse scientifically savvy should be addressing instead of picking on Viv's poor graph.