Image talk:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr-2.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Dispute over sampling 2 Image description 3 Estimate of effects 4 The black line

[edit] Dispute over sampling

copied from User talk:Dragons flight:

Mr. Rohde,

I dont understand why you remove my edit. I dont suggest anything "wrong" with your graph. I am being completely unbiased and neutral to the plot. I am adding a footnote to the graph for additional clarity to uneducated readers in this matter.

Accoding to the Admin code of conduct: "Like everybody else, admins are expected to behave in a civil manner, to not engage in revert wars and to not claim ownership of articles"

Are my statements not valid - the initial VOSTOK data is only ~363 data points for 400k+years?

I will try not to take things personally as suggested in Wikipedia editing comments. I am sure you know - Wikipedia content criteria states Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia's core approach, neutral unbiased article writing. In addition I gave the link to the data so people could see the data. I recommend you also show the data to the viewers.

I do appreciate your work in the area. I can tell you spent many hours if not days developing all your graphics. My comments in NO WAY are personally directed to you - just a statistical lesson if that. And I still believe my comments are valid commentary on the graph.

Regards,

David

The problem is, as I've stated in the edit summaries, that your conclusions are likely to be wrong and since they are your conclusions, and not derived from any established criticism, they constitute original research, which is not allowed.

On the technical point, yes, Vostok is sampled on average every ~1000 years (though the spacing varies a good deal), but that does not necessarily imply that one could obscure large swings such as are seen in the modern period. Carbon dioxide has a long residence time in the atmosphere making it likely that perturbations would be seen even with sparse sampling. Secondly, the maximum difference between adjacent samples is only 50 ppm, with 95% of shifts less than 20 ppm, whereas the modern shift is already about 100 ppm in the last 200 years. If rapid shifts can occur, then statistically one would expect random sampling to capture some. Third, we know from carbon isotopic evidence that the modern increase is caused entirely by the burning of fossil fuels. That explanation obviously doesn't work in distant past, so there is no reason to expect large rapid changes, like are occuring in the present day, to have occured in the past. Fourth, other studies at other sites, though generally less comprehensive support the conclusions offered by Vostok.

Your argument boils down to: "and there might be other shifts we didn't see because of sampling", but for the reasons given above and other reasons I haven't tried to enumerate, it is generally believed that there aren't any large unsampled variations. Hence your warning is uncalled for and unsupported by existing research.

I hope this clarifies why I have been removing your text. Dragons flight 17:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your comments for the follwing reasons: 1. What I present is not a conclusion but an observation. I do not conclude the plot is wrong. I put out another POV in that it COULD be not right and why. 2.I do agree with you "the maximum difference between adjacent samples is only 50 ppm, with 95% of shifts less than 20 ppm, whereas the modern shift is already about 100 ppm in the last 200 years. " I dont agree COMPLETELY "If rapid shifts can occur, then statistically one would expect random sampling to capture some." If the results are consistent it COULD be because of the methodology of sampling. 3.I kind of agree with "Third, we know from carbon isotopic evidence that the modern increase is caused entirely by the burning of fossil fuels." I disagree with " That explanation obviously doesn't work in distant past, so there is no reason to expect large rapid changes, like are occuring in the present day, to have occured in the past. " Yes please do tell me in year 357KBC what happen to the hydrates in the sea and any possible weather anomaly - we dont know you dont now - is it possible they had massive fires equating to our burning of fossil fuel. Massive death does cause a carbon release. The key phrase I disagree with is "there is NO REASON.." - its too absolute. 4. The other studies I have also reviewed the data. The good thing I will point out is the Law Dome data does correspond to similar instrumental data. However different location and not as long time period - Once again not another absolute. 5.The statement "generally believed that there aren't any large unsampled variations. Hence your warning is uncalled for and unsupported by existing research." Goes against wikipedia rules in supporting other points of view though may be minority. 6.I even documented in my graph the POSSIBLE outcome of sampling data. Sure you could sample more sporadically but it does show the possibility. And also the well known FACT the more sampling you have the likelihood of increase volatility.

I dont understand HOW one could CONCLUDE my observations NOT conclusions are ABSOLUTELY wrong and deserve zero merit. I respect and qualify your data this in no way means we cant have issues with some things. This ideology of all or nothing - my way or the highway - your either with us or against us - is what will lead to humankind destruction not climate change. For if we can work together we can achieve near miracles.

Well if we cant get this resolved I would request we move into arbritration or other means wikipedia has in "neutrality and respecting other POV". I do understand your POV. I mostly agree with them its just I wanted to let people know who dont spend the time in these areas of study of the POSSIBLE issues.

David

Please see WP:NOR. Your interpretation of the limitations of the data is unique and while it may seem reasonable to you, is not supported by any published research that I know of. I'm sorry if I haven't made the argument strongly enough to convince you, but I do believe that any academic working in a related field would ultimately conclude that the coroborating evidence leaves no room for the kind of spikes you imagine. For example, the kind of methane pulse you suggest would leave an easily discernable shift in stable isotope carbon chemistry, which is not observed. Though you don't realize it, in my opinion, your argument is like saying: "And pigs might be able to fly, but only when no one is watching", but obviously we have ample reason to believe pigs simply don't fly. It is not that your opinions are a minority point of view, within the community of people who reconstruct paleoclimate, they are a nonexistant point of view. If you can produce any published research that suggests that large spikes might be hidden in the data sampling, please do so, but I strongly believe that your conclusion, though it might seem initially appealing, is ultimately not tenable. If your conclusions are original research, and not the result of any published research, then they are not allowed on Wikipedia.

If you want to pursue Wikipedia:Dispute resolution over this matter, you can. I'd suggest that the place to start is asking for a Wikipedia:Third opinion since there are only two of us involved, but you might also consider filing a Wikipedia:Request for comment. Dragons flight 14:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm with DF, for whats its worth. Arbitration is clearly far too heavyweight for this William M. Connolley 15:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image description

I think the image is fine, my only problem with the graph is that the description of "Since the Industrial Revolution, circa 1800, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO₂ in the atmosphere" doesn't seem all that neutral, neither does the text in the box, "The Industrial Revolution Has Caused A Dramatic Rise in CO₂".

To the data on this graph; where such data was measured and how it was measured, I don't think anyone can disagree that CO₂ is "reaching levels unprecedented in the last 400 thousand years." That much is clear, it very much is. I make no claim as to the sampling mentioned above. --Sln3412 07:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the description as it is. I don't consider calling the current rise in atmospheric CO2 "dramatic" getting in conflict with NPOV rules. Hardern 16:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling it dramatic might be fine; it is rather dramatic compared to the past, if one considers 33% over 250 years dramatic. (Methane levels are far more along the lines of dramatic, at 150%.) But the time is more along the lines of the Second Industrial Revolution (circa 1850), and also the most dramatic part has more been since 1950. (The burning of coal from 1850 to now and natural gas and petroleum from 1950 to now.) So in reality, the huge increase from fossil fuels started in 1950 and is mainly due to the addition of petroleum and natural gas to the coal levels. If we use 1850, it would be specifically coal rather than "fossil fuels". Even without the wrong dates, it's a cum hoc, ergo propter poc to claim the fuels caused the rise. Yes, the fuels cause more CO2, but the rise itelf has been caused by the Earth holding onto the CO2. It's the same as saying the increase in population growth or the increase in water vapor or the increase in food production (which match the trend also) has caused the rise. Or that Trichlorofluoromethane or Freon-12 has caused it. Or the sun/water vapor combo. Not of that belongs on the chart, which is supposed to be about the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Regardless, the chart shows there is more CO2 (there is) and has to do with what's in the atmosphere. It should leave that separate. The fact that we're creating more CO2 (we are) has to do with our production of the substance. These are two different things and the chart lumps them together with that box. That's bad enough, but with no explanation they're two different things, that makes it worse, and even worse is there's nothing there showing a correlation, either.--Sln3412 16:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sln, are you basically just looking for references supporting the claim that the burning of fossil fuels caused the rise? It is well-established and (as far as I know) entirely undisputed (in academia) that the burning of fossil fuels are directly responsbile for the rise. We know this from looking at the fluxes of carbon released to the atmosphere and the resulting changes in carbon isotopic ratios. Dragons flight 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, really, the point is that if it's a graph of atmosphere levels, it should be a graph of that, the text changes it. My contention is that creating CO2 and keeping CO2 are different things. Yes, burning fossil fuels creates CO2. I'm saying that the Earth is holding it is a different thing. The cause (burning fossil fuels) gives the effect (creating CO2). Then there needs to be cause (creating CO2) gives the effect (Earth holding CO2) to make it work. A graph of (anything) and another graph of (anything similar looking) doesn't prove a relationship. Now, if you had one graph of atmosphere levels and another of creation levels, and they were put together, along with references proving one caused the other, that would be different. I don't think there's anything out there other than conjecture (such as possibly, may be, it seems, isn't out of the question, some evidence; the qualified statements of "I think").

Anyway, that's all just my opinion. I could be wrong. I like the inlay and the graph, just not the text. I don't think the text belongs there, that's all. Thanks for the time, and the great graphs, they're all very good. --Sln3412 17:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Estimate of effects

This is my logical conclusion of this subject: The CO² has dropped quickly after every maximum level for some reason. When the Industrial Revolution begun, we were already at the maximum level of CO². Thus the unnaturally high levels of CO² will conflict with the reason that caused the CO² to drop before. It should begin to affect at the same time as the CO² reaches it's average maximum. Instrustrial exhaust gases increase the causes opposite factor, the high CO² level and thus either forces the cause to grow stronger, through some global processes, thus using more powerful processes to come down, or is blocked from happening, which would be represented by more powerful processes of lack of cooling. Teemu Ruskeepää 14:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The black line

I have a problem with these measurements. How are CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa Observatory on the Mauna Loa active volcano, (volcanos are huge emitters of CO2) providing accurate data for this image? Isn't this skewing results?? The machine512 17:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Gosh! Is it really! I'll bet the scientists running it haven;t thought of that. Nor have they thought to compare their measurements to other sites around the world that get the same results. Or in other words: do give people some kind of credit William M. Connolley 19:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)