by Gill 221 Replies latest jw friends
In other words, stomatal index data may not be the able to measure the atmospheric concentration as precisely as its proponents would like.
I'll link this chart again, Besty. Please notice how well Kouwenberg's stomatal data maps to directly observed atmospheric CO2 levels. I'll make it easy for you: all the way to the right, and MLO refers to the directly measured CO2 at Mauna Loa.
BTS
BTS - if people are interested in a deep dive on stomatal density versus icecore CO2 then they can do so:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/plant-stomata-co2-levels.htm
You asked me my scientific opinion on an oil-industry geologist blogger rehashing old work. Stomatal density isn't even self-consistent, never mind trying to make a case for it as an accurate model that supercedes icecore data - on the skepticalscience link above you will note the blogger David Middleton appears (to the untrained eye) to lose the debate - certainly he failed to respond to the final points made back in August 2010.
Lets take a step back here.
The ice cores are consistent with many other pieces of the climate change puzzle - having tried and failed with many other cherry picked datapoints you now have 'discovered' the 1999 Wagner paper. It's a classic denier technique to focus on one piece of science and then try and pull that apart, meanwhile ignoring all the other fields of endeavour that have contributed to climate change theory as a whole.
You still haven't explained why global temperatures will not rise if CO2 concentration is increasing. Or do you need me to break that down for you?
Lets not forget the OP from 2008 expecting a new Ice Age. 2010 is likely to be the hottest year of the hottest decade. Except if there is snow outside your house at the moment.
You asked me my scientific opinion on an oil-industry geologist blogger rehashing old work.
A great many papers "rehash" old work too. You often "rehash" old work right here.
Stomatal density isn't even self-consistent, never mind trying to make a case for it as an accurate model that supercedes icecore data - on the skepticalscience link above you will note the blogger David Middleton appears (to the untrained eye) to lose the debate -
His points are valid, as he notes, recent stomata data correlates very well with direct observation, and besides, not getting the last word in doesn't mean losing a debate.
certainly he failed to respond to the final points made back in August 2010.
The AGW Gospel says that CO2 levels were a nice and steady 275 ppmv from the onset of the Holocene up until about 1850. “The science says” that notion is nonsense....
“The Science Says”
Plant stomata show higher and more variable CO2 levels than ice cores.
“The Science Says”
GeoCarb and plant stomata show higher CO2 levels than ice cores.
“The Science Says”
AIRS shows higher mid and low latitude CO2 levels than ice cores show for Antarctica.
“The Science Says”
That the ice cores are not resolving decadal and century scale CO2 variations very well and that Co2 levels recorded in Antarctic ice cores should yield lower values than just about any other method used to estimate past global CO2 levels....
http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/my-response-to-skeptical-science/
BTS
My question remains why David Middleton - blogger - isn't publishing papers for review? Why has he restricted his views to blogs?
Middleton doesn't even make the 2% of climate scientists that disagree with climate change theory.
He is entitled to his own opinions but not his own facts
His points are valid, as he notes,...etc
I think noting his own points are valid is an accurate way to surmise why he is best suited to blogging.
Their lying to us.
BRock/NeckBeard - please see posting guideline 5 below and stop spamming multiple threads with the same cut and paste posting of links.
BTS: I have read a couple of the articles you have posted references to, and I want to commend you interjecting facts into the discussion. I disagree with some of your conclusions, and in other cases i am not so certain what bearing on the overall picture some of the articles has, but its a heck of a lot above the general level in this discussion which seem to be almost entirely on oppinion and politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anHuOAXIl0M&feature=player_embedded
I hope this link works but its the Piers Corbin interview on how global warming is 'untrue' and his forecasts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyjsJJrr2I&feature=player_embedded
This one also is excellent if you trust someone with qualifications such as this man, that is.
"Confirmation bias" Gill - check it out...
The mans credentials as a weatherman may well be impeccable, but at best he is in the 2% of climate scientists that vary from the mainstream.
At best. He is not a climate scientist, but a weatherman espousing his opinions on the telly. He can have his own opinions, but not his own facts.
To adopt the 2% view without specialist knowledge is irrational - IMHO.
BTW - let me know if you believe CO2 to be a greenhouse gas?
