cohenite, that is not really a log graph, it is graph with a plot of an equation with a function involving a log to the base 2. And no it doesn’t asymptote to 1. Actually it doesn’t asymptote at all. If you extend the graph out to 1 million ppm CO2 (i.e. 100%) it reaches 292.

If you look at equation carefully, it makes no sense at all. Why would a log to the base 2 be a useful way of describing a natural system? It wouldn’t. The natural log might be. So whoever put this figure together is an ignoramus.

cohenite,

what sort of idiotic game is this? You ignore my questions and comments about what _you_ have said, no doubt because you can't answer them (notwithstanding that they are ordinary high-school mathematics), and are just pretending to understand what you are talking about.

Then you try to deflect discussion by asking other people to answer your questions. Get this - it's perfectly reasonable for people to comment on what you have said without being obligated to research and answer questions on all or any subjects that you choose.

As a matter of fact your first question at least does seem to be vaguely on topic, which is why I have already answered pretty much the same question. See page 3 of the comments.

Sorry coehite, I looked at:

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

and I can't find where it was properly explained why it starts at 235 W/m^2.
The author of the piece says that Willis Eschenbach originally posted it at Climate Audit in 2006, and I can't find that post either (any links would be appreciated).

So, if you actually know why it starts at 235, then please explain it to me, preferably without the jargon. What is the 'effective temperature forcing", how is that calculated and why is it on that graph? So many questions, so few answers.

Steele, that would be a real breach of standards if I altered someone else's material. One either generates one's own graph, or takes the existing one down.

Graham,

This is an extremely simplistic article.

I believe I could have written something more detailed on AGW (and as JKJ and others will tell you, I'm as thick as two planks:)

I doubt if I could have wrangled that graph, however....but it's been fascinating watching others with statistical expertise unpick it.

Dear GrahamY,

You wrote;

“Steele, that would be a real breach of standards if I altered someone else's material. One either generates one's own graph, or takes the existing one down.”

Or the other obvious alternative is to exercise your editorial prerogative and request the author makes the appropriate changes themselves.

I personally don't want to see the graph itself removed as it has created plenty of discussion and I am enjoying dissecting it to the best of my admittedly limited abilities, however its title remains an affront.