My link was provided as an example of colour coding, it is not relevant to climate change but the technology and processes to provide the results. The data used was CMB data from the Wmap satellite (as specified). Years are not relevant in the context of the CMB, billions of light years are. Just do a google for CMB and/or WMAP<quoted text>
If this is a graphic of CO2 distribution, then there's a whole lot more blue and green than there is red or yellow.
Actually, CO2 is currently approx 400ppm, that means there is not CO2 everywhere in the atmosphere. Of every million parts of the atmosphere, only 400 parts in each million are CO2. Without a descritpion of the graphic, we don't know what the colors represent.
The reference for your graphic would be appreciated, I would like to see how the graphic was developed and the data set used. Maybe they have similar graphics for different times of the year, that would be interesting too.
No it does not mean that at all, you are once again attempting to obfuscate with irrelevancies. Approximately 400ppm means approximately 400ppm. That figure makes no reference to “everywhere” funnily enough it does not even make reference to anywhere. Where is co2 approximately 400ppm? Is this approximately 400ppm at sea level, 1000ft, 10,000ft etc?
CO2 is heavier than air, the lower the altitude the higher the concentration, quoting a concentration without the altitude is just one more of your irrelevancies. Same applies to wind data and many other variables.
The difference is that the graphic I linked to was created for the job in hand and relevant as an example of colour coding The graphic you produced was not relevant to the measured CO2 levels spanning thousands of years.