http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html
We are more likely to have far more data over for the more recent years due to it being far easier to extract the ice cores (as you do not have to go as deep) - which can explain we we see this jumble - meaning that were to have a lot more older data we could see similar things (there are certainly indicators of this with some of the outliers and thicker bands seen in older data).
True, however I was more aiming at the fact with that much data condensed into that little space you can't tell what is going on. However I am very wary about the source you got them from, I have to admit, it's 2am and I can't be bothered to read the whole article, however it strikes me as one put together by some random from data shown in a google search to back his own argument up. As a scientist my first thought is "who is he" followed by "where are his sources and evidence coming from", neither of them are answered from what I can gather (there seem to be 3ish references!).
As I already mentioned raw data can tell you anything (and these graphs could very well be raw data) it's when you insert the variables (like the delta O18 changes caused by sea ice/precipitation/latitude and a multitude of other factors) into it and then cross check it with other papers to see if yours is in the right ball park (if it isn't you've either found out something fantastic, or made a huge **** up, generally the latter) that you can actually use them.
I think the current popular position overstates the importance of anthropogenic effects on climate. That's not to say they aren't happening. Climatology is a science in relative infancy. We should expect the odd revolution now and then.
It does strike me as slightly worrying that until recently those skeptical of climate change have been shouted down as if they were denying the holocaust. Come to think of it, it strikes me as worrying that people denying the holocaust get shouted down as if they were denying the holocaust.
What is to be gained by preventing people from airing badly conceved ideas? If anything, it presents an opportunity for those people that are knowledgeable in the subject to present their more rigorous arguments. Silencing alternative opinion is not winning the argument.
Edit: Global warming or no global warming - we need to work out what to do when the oil gets scarce and expensive.
I think this is really only within political and media circles. You have the public shouting and putting down of ideas and theories (mostly by crank scientists trying to make a name for themselves or gander public support), in papers and proper scientific circles I doubt that is the case (from what I have seen). However I remember you have some kind of scientific connection from previous posts (I think?) so you may have more knowledge than me.
Once again this forum astounds me. Too many members have strong opinions on subjects they know absolutely nothing about bar what that mistakenly diagnosed 'feeling' in their gut is trying to tell them.
Time and time again, members here have had this explained to them sufficiently and objectively; the facts have been laid down in front of them - but they still choose to treat the arena like a pick 'n' mix stand only choosing what they really want to digest. They refute scientific evidence in favour of Clarkson's tantrums and home-made conspiracy.
Amp38, I'm glad you tried as I really can't be bothered anymore, but you really are fighting against the tide on this one. It doesn't matter how much you tell most of the posters, or in what fashion - they will only believe what they want to believe and by and large that involves pretending that this big issue isn't really an issue at all and they can carry on with their selfish little lives. A lot of the vocal idiocy on this subject seems to stem from Motors' regulars anyway and let's be honest: I question the merit of a boyracer-come-petrolhead (always an exception to the rule, I know...) giving me 'lessons' on most subjects, let alone one to do with the Earth Sciences. Heck, it took me a year at university level to fully appreciate only a small area of the topic - so let's not expect miracles from the guy who gets most of his factoids from that weirdo down the pub.
/rant
, I agree, the only reason i'm replying is because I miss it. You never know, we may get a reasoned debate out of it for once...
Even one year as you said really doesn't prepare you to actually know much, from my one year doing atmospheric/climate change I only learned about 2-3 events reasonably well, and about 3-4 geochemical techniques, being just the tip of the iceberg. I think the problem with climate change as a public subject is that there is just so much information that even degree level people can only scratch the surface, it takes years of hard studying to really understand what may be going on, geochemcal analysis (Tex-86 techniques for example)is very difficult to understand, and tbh there are still massive holes in the techniques and processes. The general public (and those in the know that don't have months to read even a few key paper on the subject) must rely on more general information provided by the media and other condensers, unfortunately you will get very little unbias information from them due to the political nature of the subject.
