File talk:Co2-temperature-records.svg: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:::: OK, it *is* linked from the GW page, but doesn't show up in what-links-here. Odd. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 11:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
:::: OK, it *is* linked from the GW page, but doesn't show up in what-links-here. Odd. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 11:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
||
:Can we at least agree that the temperature signal leads the CO2 signal? You can see this, particularly in the Vostok data. You can also check it statistically by computing the cross-covariance of the two signals using the original data. Chris Line, 9 November 2006 |
:Can we at least agree that the temperature signal leads the CO2 signal? You can see this, particularly in the Vostok data. You can also check it statistically by computing the cross-covariance of the two signals using the original data. [[User:Chrisnumbers2000|Chris Line]], 9 November 2006 |
||
:: We could, but then the question would be, why are you so keen on that particular factoid? I ask because this is a common skeptic argument in the GW wars. As a fact, its semi-OK (though there are complexities: T is from the ice, and CO2 from the bubbles, and getting these onto the sam age scale is non-trivial). But the implication that people like to leave dangling from it (CO2 doesn't affect T; its the other way round) is wrong. I still think the text better belongs on an article page, but which? [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 11:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
:: We could, but then the question would be, why are you so keen on that particular factoid? I ask because this is a common skeptic argument in the GW wars. As a fact, its semi-OK (though there are complexities: T is from the ice, and CO2 from the bubbles, and getting these onto the sam age scale is non-trivial). But the implication that people like to leave dangling from it (CO2 doesn't affect T; its the other way round) is wrong. I still think the text better belongs on an article page, but which? [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 11:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
:::The text might belong on article page where the picture appears. Or it could be retained in its original location. [[User:Chrisnumbers2000|Chris Line]] |
:::The text might belong on article page where the picture appears. Or it could be retained in its original location. [[User:Chrisnumbers2000|Chris Line]] |
||
:::I am keen because the matter is very important to us all and our planet. We should be able to discuss the facts and their implications. |
:::I am keen because the matter is very important to us all and our planet. We should be able to discuss the facts and their implications. [[User:Chrisnumbers2000|Chris Line]], 9 November 2006 |
Revision as of 11:33, 9 November 2006
Cut discussion
I don't think its appropriate for a figure caption to have a lot of (contentious) science discussion on it. So I cut it all out. This should be discussion on the page that references this figure instead. Whatever the lag/leads are, they can't be properly seen on a figure of this scale anyway William M. Connolley 09:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree with this action. I propose the cut is reverted. Leland McInnes, it is your picture so you should retain ultimate editorial control. Chris Line, 9 November 2006
- Please sign your messages (with ~~~~; better still, get an account). LM doesn't retain control, of course. Looking at what links here the answer seems to be nothing. Which is a bit odd... I thought it was used. But if its not linked, this entire discussion is pointless, as no-one will see it (another reason to have it in the article instead) William M. Connolley 10:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- You can link to the page by clicking on the image at the 'Global Warming' page. The editing of this page is restricted and the discussion could not be written in the main article. Although some of it may be more appropriate there as you suggest. Chris Line, 9 November 2006
- OK, it *is* linked from the GW page, but doesn't show up in what-links-here. Odd. William M. Connolley 11:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Can we at least agree that the temperature signal leads the CO2 signal? You can see this, particularly in the Vostok data. You can also check it statistically by computing the cross-covariance of the two signals using the original data. Chris Line, 9 November 2006
- We could, but then the question would be, why are you so keen on that particular factoid? I ask because this is a common skeptic argument in the GW wars. As a fact, its semi-OK (though there are complexities: T is from the ice, and CO2 from the bubbles, and getting these onto the sam age scale is non-trivial). But the implication that people like to leave dangling from it (CO2 doesn't affect T; its the other way round) is wrong. I still think the text better belongs on an article page, but which? William M. Connolley 11:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- The text might belong on article page where the picture appears. Or it could be retained in its original location. Chris Line
- I am keen because the matter is very important to us all and our planet. We should be able to discuss the facts and their implications. Chris Line, 9 November 2006