|2011-01-03 12:37:28||Basic Rebuttal: Plant Stomata Argument|
Thinking of writing this:
"Great work, Chris.
David, I can only see that you're attempting to cloud the issue here? The simple fact is that the plant stomata data are (1) noisy, (2) sparse, and (3) prone to unknown, systemic, and local errors (eg low rain fall in a particular year gives the same response as high CO2). This is the reason that scientists have not overturned the ice core data.
Essentially, the ice core data presents a well established 'line' of data, and the plant stomata show a few data points scattered about the line with error bars large enough to meet the line. Scientists say that we stick with the line, denialists say we reject the line.
Hardly the stuff of classic controversy!"
|2011-01-03 15:08:14||Stomata rebuttal|
I've moved Glenton's 1st comment into an actual rebuttal at:
So it's officially live but I think before we publish it as a blog post, I wouldn't mind everyone having a look at the rebuttal (and the comments below) and posting any feedback - so Glenton, feel free to tweak and edit the rebuttal if you think any feedback has merit. You can edit the rebuttal by looking for the Edit Rebuttal link below your rebuttal.
|So where exactly are all those billions of tonnes of CO2 supposed to disappear to, and re-emerge from in such short time scales?. Wagner & Van Hoof suggesting "Errr, maybe it's the oceans" seems a wee bit like clutching at straws.|