I don't understand them, and I doubt you do either.
But you've brought them up because you sense a weak point here. Well, I'm not going to play that game, we are both unqualified to discuss ice cores or to referee this article, and we are not going to use this one article to contrast with extensive ice core studies neither of us can properly evaluate.
Besides, ice cores are collected from places like Greenland and Antarctica, and represent CO2 levels that have been thoroughly homogenized and smoothed by atmospheric circulation and precipitation. The biological data in this one article is collected from one specific locality, I also think that the temporal resolution is much higher as well, it is noisier as a result. Maybe that explains a lot, but I don't know. (Just what is a stomata, anyway? I thought that was part of a leaf.)
However, now that you've been kind enough to bring up a legible figure, let's take a closer look at it. That spike at 12.7K exceeds 400 ppm, it's the highest point on the stomatagraph, way above mean. And it coincides with a climate change gray zone. Come to think of it, look at how low those CO2 numbers are on both graphs (except for that spike). We just hit 400 ppm at Mauna Kea a few days ago.
Get it now?
It's almost 2AM here now. If you like, we can continue this tomorrow.
Current Events » in reply to Okay.
You brought up ice cores, not me.
The whole thread (31 posts)
- Continuing CO2 drumbeat.
- Here is how:
- The CO2 is increasing.