Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

[August]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

No offense meant, but it usually helps to have some knowledge about the science before you try to criticize it.

Ok so let me ask a couple questions then:

Are Co2 levels evenly distributed world wide?
Are the present Co2 levels mentioned in the chart also drawn from those ice samples?

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by August

Ok so let me ask a couple questions then:

Are Co2 levels evenly distributed world wide?
Are the present Co2 levels mentioned in the chart also drawn from those ice samples?

No they are not evenly distributed due to air currents and differences in locally produced CO2 (both from natural such as forest fires, and man made causes), which is why i say localized, however ice cores are drawn from areas both in the northern and southern hemispheres. It does though indicate general trends in CO2 concentrations across the globe. To my knowledge though, CO2 tends to concentrate more at the poles, which is why warming there is higher then the global average.

The data should all come from ice core samples only, but it takes a few years for the snow to turn to impermeable ice which permanently traps air, so there is a lag period. Good scientists would not take air samples above the impermeable ice. As for that chart, I can't speak of it as I do not no the source. But the 0 point is 1950 and that area doesn't quite match the information I have (but it does continue to climb). If you like I can dig up some data.

[SteamWake]

I just cant look at any chart, graph, or report anymore without a jaded eye.

One thing I note on that graph is it is quite spread out with hundreds/thousands of years between divisions untill it gets to the end when suddenly the scale shifts to 10 years or so or 1/1000th of the previous scales. That alone would skew the portrayel.

[August]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

As for that chart, I can't speak of it as I do not no the source. But the 0 point is 1950 and that area doesn't quite match the information I have (but it does continue to climb). If you like I can dig up some data.

I wouldn't put yourself out to make a point on an internet forum. It ain't like anyone's mind would be changed...

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by August

I wouldn't put yourself out to make a point on an internet forum. It ain't like anyone's mind would be changed...

LOL so true but hey that wont stop em from trying

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by August

I wouldn't put yourself out to make a point on an internet forum. It ain't like anyone's mind would be changed...

Eh hasn't stopped me in the past though I do not try to go to nuts.

You are right though, I don't think any of these debates have changed any minds really. Which suggests that its a total time waster, and I probably shouldn't bother so much.

Originally Posted by SteamWake

I just cant look at any chart, graph, or report anymore without a jaded eye.

One thing I note on that graph is it is quite spread out with hundreds/thousands of years between divisions untill it gets to the end when suddenly the scale shifts to 10 years or so or 1/1000th of the previous scales. That alone would skew the portrayel.

Good eye, that is a key reason why I don't like that graph, there is a scale shift (though not as dramatic as you are suggesting, the scale cuts by less then about 1/2). Graphs are great for presenting numbers, but very easily manipulated. For example changing the X scale would make the data seem more or less significant on what way I change the scale. I could make that graph look like massive peaks (or changes), or barely any change at all. One should always look at the numbers both in the graph, and behind them.

Anyhow here is the same graph again, with out that scale error, and a report with full citations too.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

It shows the same trend, but that is not surprising when the scale of the graph is in sub divided 50000 year segments. High levels of man made CO2 production only started in the last 150 years or so. They don't though say the zero point in this graph, though it is probably 0 BP (Before Present) or 1950.

They seem to be blending data sources in that graph however (not just different ice core data, but also are also including direct measurement), which might be problematic. I would have to look into the sources, and the science behind it to draw any conclusions as I am not sure if that is scientifically acceptable or not.