|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 28, 2014 6:00:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 28, 2014 12:31:29 GMT
Bear in mind that I know nothing but .... do the conclusions do anything to advance the sceptics side of the argument?
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 28, 2014 14:46:48 GMT
Bear in mind that I know nothing but .... do the conclusions do anything to advance the sceptics side of the argument? yes, they show that during the Younger Dryas the CO2 levels were well above 400 during the coldest part. They also show that the paper they are critiquing cherry picked data.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 28, 2014 22:30:46 GMT
Bear in mind that I know nothing but .... do the conclusions do anything to advance the sceptics side of the argument? yes, they show that during the Younger Dryas the CO2 levels were well above 400 during the coldest part. They also show that the paper they are critiquing cherry picked data. They say: "With [CO2] emerging as a major component in rapid climate change, not least including the current climate change, the need for high-resolution [CO2] records recording short-term oscillations as well as longer-term trends is undeniable."
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 29, 2014 4:33:06 GMT
yes, they show that during the Younger Dryas the CO2 levels were well above 400 during the coldest part. They also show that the paper they are critiquing cherry picked data. They say: "With [CO2] emerging as a major component in rapid climate change, not least including the current climate change, the need for high-resolution [CO2] records recording short-term oscillations as well as longer-term trends is undeniable." of course, got to reserve (protect the ability to get) future funding.
|
|