>>13376547>I like the way you think, but the same argument of convenience could be used against youWell thank you, but I'm not sure it makes sense to say that anything I mentioned could be used "against me" since I haven't picked a side on the issue. I merely presented an opinion that there is reason to believe aliasing represents a topic of concern, and possibly a significant topic of concern.
>I'm interested if there is a model of whether being in a periodic CO2 peak that is aliased out or being in a significant, human-caused peak is more likelyA model would not answer your valid interest I agree with. The answer to your interest would involve accurately reproducing past CO2 levels with enough fidelity to compare with our current abilities. If we could do that, we could eliminate or confirm those potential/"my own theorized" ideas I represented with the red lines I added to that graph.
I'm just a guy who sees patterns. It seems like those red lines I added to that graph really really should be there. I can't explain why of course, but can't ignore it none the less and aliasing is a valid excuse of why they, if they should exist, might not not be there.
