fish wrote:Google is your friend. It doesn’t take much knowledge to type in “vostok ice core data”, which is what I did. The first hit listed is the Wikipedia page you posted a link for. The second hit is the ice core data site where I sourced the raw data. Note that the raw data I posted is
exactly the same data that is represented graphically in the Wikipedia page that you (incorrectly) used to conclude that
“The Vostok Ice Cores indicate our highest ever CO2 levels were reached about 325,000 years ago in the mid- Pleistocene”. You expressed
no doubts whatsoever about the CO2 readings from the ice cores then – why not?
Psyber wrote:That would be better than trying to bully me...
Sorry Psyber, but exposing your poor research skills and inconsistencies in relation to ice cores and climate change does not constitute bullying.
I freely admit the "poor research skills". Research had not been part of my training and career.
But reading other people's publications and methodology critically had been.
[I hadn't done the B Med. Science, just the MBBS.]
I have not been a big Internet "searcher" as it was not part of my work, and I had little time for it until my recent retirement from busy medical practice.
I had mostly used the Internet for email, to use this forum to keep track of SANFL results from Melbourne, and to read on-line medical journals.
Yahoo had been the only search engine I used, and at the time that did not bring up the ones you provided - perhaps the Yahoo"bots" have found it since.
I had, naively I admit, assumed all search engines tend to find the same stuff - but more recently I tried Bing for something else.
I expressed no doubt about those CO2 readings from the ice cores because I was not trying
then to compare them with data from a
different sampling method.
In medicine we are aware that the same blood tests done by different labs can produce different raw results, and have to be compared with the standardised normal ranges from each labs set up.
Fortunately, they are not widely variant and it only matters when looking at marginal results at each end of the scale.
[But it can be important if monitoring something critical, like anticoagulants for example.]
I had not considered the time delay implicit in the ice core samples until I saw the figures you provided that included the dates they related to.
Perhaps I should have thought of it, but it hadn't occurred to me - most medical data is much more immediate in origin.
I promptly acknowledged here that it was a flaw in my past assumptions once I saw the data you gave me the links to.
As I said to R&B, what more could I do but acknowledge that and go on to explore the implications of the new information, which is what I am doing.
What I perceive as bullying is demanding I accept your conclusions from the data, without checking the validity of comparisons between the two sampling methods.
If you, or anyone else, can satisfy my concern about that we don't have a problem.