File talk:Co2-temperature-records.svg

message: Just curious, why use delta-deuterium instead of delta-18O, and what implications (if any) does this have for the interpretation?  I'm not a paleo guy, so this could be a dumb question... Raymond Arritt 18:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was simply working with available data. The Antarctic cores seem to have gone with delta-deuterium, while Greenland cores went with delta-18O. My (admittedly limited) understanding is ultimately it makes little difference, and it is consistency (within each core sample) that counts, so it's probably just one of those historical accidents as to which was initially measured. Leland McInnes 20:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic question 

message: There is, as far as I can see..., no temperature scale on the y axis. (Also, the reversed time axis may be confusing).Narssarssuaq 00:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was confusing. I've noted that the scale is deuterium, a temperature proxy William M. Connolley 09:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No temperature scale on y axis 

message: I have seen a documentary on global dimming that suggested that evaporation follows humidity, wind, and sunlight more than temperature. I think that the conclusion that the deuterium is an indicator of just temperature needs to be checked. I see it as fallacious. Large scale erruptions, forest fires, desertification will change all this. Besides the argument about the local sources of the evaporated water changing holds water. They follow wind currents not temperature. Finally what about CO2 diffusion in ice? 67.72.98.108 01:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of deuterium as a T proxy is well established, as are various errors/problems/complications (take your pick). But you'll need to read up on that science if you want to criticise it - your opinion from a TV prog isn't good enough William M. Connolley 09:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global dimming question 

message: Goes back to ~800 kyr: http://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.710901?format=html
William M. Connolley (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I've made the relevant updates. -- Leland McInnes (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More data 

message: Science types get it immediately.  Everyday folks do not.  Many will miss the point of the "Current CO2 level" arrow altogether - simply because the trend is compressed so tightly over time that you can not see the time-lapse effect of human impact.  I think the graph should be left as is: but also present another 1,000 or 10,000 year graph with:  Pre - 1800 A.D. minimum CO2 and Pre - 1800 A.D. CO2 max lines.  Min and Max bars that cut across the whole picture left-to-right.  Even add a legend or tag to effect: "CO2 remained inside these limits over 800,000 years of measurable data."  So now people can then extrapolate backward and still see a TREND.
Point is: Here is REAL data.  There is a TREND.  P.S.  I linked to your graph on my blog.  THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO PROVIDE IT.  It is a labor of love worthy the highest praise.  Thanks, Kyle Sager—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.51.92 (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is the audience for this graph???