|
Post by icefisher on May 22, 2010 13:51:53 GMT
So what you are saying is if the historic estimate of atmospheric CO2 is wrong because of processes that diffuse bubbles out of the ice to match the lowest subsequent CO2 level all the science on historic atmospheric CO2 and ocean acidity just flies out the window! Thats a lot riding on an unvalidated proxy study. I think the ice core co2 data spanning hundreds of thousands of years is accurate enough. For example accurate enough to detect a 800 year lag for example. The diffusion of gas in ice looks like something that has been studied in detail by experts and is taken into account in order to get accurate measures of past co2. As Hans Oeschger says, in his letter to ESPR: "Another example concerns the gas-occlusion process in firn and young ice. This process has been studied in detail theoretically and experimentally. The theory of diffusion of gases in firn and the occlusion at the firn-ice transition has been confirmed impressively by the detection of a gravitational enrichment of the heavier gases and of the heavier isotopes of a gas. This enrichment depends, in the first instance, on the depth of the firn-ice transition. It enables the reconstruction of the history of gas enclosure depth during the last glacial-interglacial cycle." www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=12and other points: "Another study of three much smaller Antarctic ice cores (2) shows the CO2 concentration for individual years over the last millennium (Fig 2). The core depths were 234 m, 243 m and 1200 m. The layers of the core were dated by counting the annual layers of oxygen ratio, ice electro-conductivity and hydrogen-peroxide concentration, and then the chronology was verified by detecting the acidic layers due to known volcanic eruptions in 1963, 1815, 1450 and 1255 AD. It appears that the air bubbles trapped in the ice represent the atmospheric composition at the time of snow deposition, in other words gas diffusion through the ice is negligible. For instance, the CO2 concentration in air bubbles dated to be from 1958 or later agrees very well with direct free-atmospheric CO2 measurements, which have been made since then. Note the slightly lower CO2 concentration between 1550 - 1800 AD, i.e. during the Little Ice Age. The considerable increase since 1830 was interrupted by a brief stabilisation during 1935 - 1945, probably as a consequence of some natural variation of the carbon cycle. The concentration had risen to 335 ppm by 1980. Another ice core, taken near MCMurdo Sound (on Taylor Dome) has confirmed the Law Dome temperature estimates. www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.htmlI am in little doubt that the co2 histories from ice cores are indeed valid representations of atmospheric co2 over the past million years, simply because if they weren't I would have expected such uncertainties to exist in the literature and scientists wouldn't regard the data as accurate enough to find lags of just 800 years! You are only in little doubt because it says what you want it to say. You will be all over it if it didn't. The 1958 tests are not valid as it is only testing if gas is added to the ice from higher CO2 subsequent to deposition, whereas what needs to be verified is exactly the opposite of gas being lost to a lower pressure atmosphere. You can never assume that a process reverses itself and runs contrary to a pressure gradient.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 22, 2010 14:00:31 GMT
"You are only in little doubt because it says what you want it to say. You will be all over it if it didn't."
But I would have nothing to cite. No papers. Nothing. Which is why I am not "all over it"
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 22, 2010 20:12:41 GMT
This would assume no chemical reactions in the presence of acids in the ice cores. That assumes experts haven't validated the co2 ice core measurements and checked against such biases as contamination. Response 2-4 again: "According to IPCC (Jansen et al., 2007), “it is possible to derive time series of atmospheric trace gases and aerosols for the period from about 650 kyr [thousand years] to the present from air trapped in polar ice and from the ice itself.” This methodology has been “verified against recent (i.e., post-1950) measurements made by direct instrumental sampling.” Additionally, these measurements are consistent with various less accurate methods such as using the size of stomatal pores on tree leaves, boron isotope measurements in plankton buried under the ocean, or carbon isotope ratios in algae buried in the ocean floors, moss samples, and foraminefera carbonate shells. Therefore, there is extremely high confidence in the CO2 values determined from the ice core records, and we disagree that there is any evidence that water contamination or other manipulations reduce the confidence in the ice core estimates." The ice cores are used to determine the amount of co2 in the atmosphere. What the experts are saying is that they can take the amount of co2 in the atmosphere to work out how much carbon is absorbed in the upper ocean, which in turn will indicate the acidity. So yes they are saying that using chemistry they can calculate how much the co2 change in atmosphere will affect surface ocean pH. "” This methodology has been “verified against recent (i.e., post-1950) measurements made by direct instrumental sampling.”"So tell me SoCold how can sampling of 50 years (barely enough to get to the firn ) be used to validate the diffusion and fractionization of gases in 'bubbles' that have been there for 650kyr ? This is waffle Like the rings of one tree in Siberia being used to show the entire world's climate - you now have one ice core with bubbles of diffused gas in Greenland used to guess the whole world's atmospheric CO 2?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 23, 2010 12:52:55 GMT
"You are only in little doubt because it says what you want it to say. You will be all over it if it didn't." But I would have nothing to cite. No papers. Nothing. Which is why I am not "all over it" You are right for once! You have no papers no nothing to conclude on the topic. Instead what you did was extrapolate from the opposite process. Like running an experiment on a pot as you increase the heat steam and water begins to escape. A nice tidy theory until you turn it around and assume that when the pot cools the steam and water will return to the pot.
|
|
|
Post by dogsbody on May 29, 2010 9:44:50 GMT
"You are only in little doubt because it says what you want it to say. You will be all over it if it didn't." But I would have nothing to cite. No papers. Nothing. Which is why I am not "all over it" While the ice cores give some useful information (and remarkably so) to extrapolate the global situation form a single core at one location is fraught with risk. I previously posted a graph on the last 1000 years from an Arctic ice core. I have combined the same time period fropm the Arctic and Antarctic in the following arttachment. Notice that they are not identical, therefore you cannot conclude the global situation from a single ice core at a single location, it can only show you a trend. And also note that thew CO2 increase at the end of the little ice age. I think Icefisher and Nautonier are closer to the truth than their adversaries. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 29, 2010 10:21:27 GMT
"You are only in little doubt because it says what you want it to say. You will be all over it if it didn't." But I would have nothing to cite. No papers. Nothing. Which is why I am not "all over it" While the ice cores give some useful information (and remarkably so) to extrapolate the global situation form a single core at one location is fraught with risk. I previously posted a graph on the last 1000 years from an Arctic ice core. I have combined the same time period fropm the Arctic and Antarctic in the following arttachment. Notice that they are not identical, therefore you cannot conclude the global situation from a single ice core at a single location, it can only show you a trend. And also note that thew CO2 increase at the end of the little ice age. I think Icefisher and Nautonier are closer to the truth than their adversaries. Do you mean "think" or "hope". The increase in CO2 concentrations over the past ~150 years is almost totally due the buring of fossil fuels. Even the most fervent AGW-sceptical scientist acknowledges that. Unfortunatley some of the more wackier theories get aired on blogs like this. We regularly get the Beck measurements, for example. Then someone will post a plot of the CO2 rate of growth v SST - forgetting that it's not just the rate of growth that would be negative it's the actual growth - if CO2 were naturally driven by SST. In 2008 there were large cool anomalies in upper ocean heat content. Did CO2 levels fall? No - They just grew at a slower rate. Ocean heat is responsible for perhaps 10ppm to 15ppm of the ~100ppm increase since 1850. CO2 Diffusion is negligible. There is no reason to doubt the ice core records.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 29, 2010 14:29:28 GMT
While the ice cores give some useful information (and remarkably so) to extrapolate the global situation form a single core at one location is fraught with risk. I previously posted a graph on the last 1000 years from an Arctic ice core. I have combined the same time period fropm the Arctic and Antarctic in the following arttachment. Notice that they are not identical, therefore you cannot conclude the global situation from a single ice core at a single location, it can only show you a trend. And also note that thew CO2 increase at the end of the little ice age. I think Icefisher and Nautonier are closer to the truth than their adversaries. Do you mean "think" or "hope". The increase in CO2 concentrations over the past ~150 years is almost totally due the buring of fossil fuels. Even the most fervent AGW-sceptical scientist acknowledges that. Unfortunatley some of the more wackier theories get aired on blogs like this. We regularly get the Beck measurements, for example. Then someone will post a plot of the CO2 rate of growth v SST - forgetting that it's not just the rate of growth that would be negative it's the actual growth - if CO2 were naturally driven by SST. In 2008 there were large cool anomalies in upper ocean heat content. Did CO2 levels fall? No - They just grew at a slower rate. Ocean heat is responsible for perhaps 10ppm to 15ppm of the ~100ppm increase since 1850. CO2 Diffusion is negligible. There is no reason to doubt the ice core records. No references again....typical.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 29, 2010 17:13:54 GMT
While the ice cores give some useful information (and remarkably so) to extrapolate the global situation form a single core at one location is fraught with risk. I previously posted a graph on the last 1000 years from an Arctic ice core. I have combined the same time period fropm the Arctic and Antarctic in the following arttachment. Notice that they are not identical, therefore you cannot conclude the global situation from a single ice core at a single location, it can only show you a trend. And also note that thew CO2 increase at the end of the little ice age. I think Icefisher and Nautonier are closer to the truth than their adversaries. Do you mean "think" or "hope". The increase in CO2 concentrations over the past ~150 years is almost totally due the buring of fossil fuels. Even the most fervent AGW-sceptical scientist acknowledges that. Unfortunatley some of the more wackier theories get aired on blogs like this. We regularly get the Beck measurements, for example. Then someone will post a plot of the CO2 rate of growth v SST - forgetting that it's not just the rate of growth that would be negative it's the actual growth - if CO2 were naturally driven by SST. In 2008 there were large cool anomalies in upper ocean heat content. Did CO2 levels fall? No - They just grew at a slower rate. Ocean heat is responsible for perhaps 10ppm to 15ppm of the ~100ppm increase since 1850. CO2 Diffusion is negligible. There is no reason to doubt the ice core records. "In 2008 there were large cool anomalies in upper ocean heat content. Did CO2 levels fall? No - They just grew at a slower rate. Ocean heat is responsible for perhaps 10ppm to 15ppm of the ~100ppm increase since 1850.
CO2 Diffusion is negligible. There is no reason to doubt the ice core records. "Unsupported postulations again glc? You should be able to do better than that.
|
|
|
Post by dogsbody on May 30, 2010 11:15:20 GMT
While the ice cores give some useful information (and remarkably so) to extrapolate the global situation form a single core at one location is fraught with risk. I previously posted a graph on the last 1000 years from an Arctic ice core. I have combined the same time period fropm the Arctic and Antarctic in the following arttachment. Notice that they are not identical, therefore you cannot conclude the global situation from a single ice core at a single location, it can only show you a trend. And also note that thew CO2 increase at the end of the little ice age. I think Icefisher and Nautonier are closer to the truth than their adversaries. Do you mean "think" or "hope". The increase in CO2 concentrations over the past ~150 years is almost totally due the buring of fossil fuels. Even the most fervent AGW-sceptical scientist acknowledges that. Unfortunatley some of the more wackier theories get aired on blogs like this. We regularly get the Beck measurements, for example. Then someone will post a plot of the CO2 rate of growth v SST - forgetting that it's not just the rate of growth that would be negative it's the actual growth - if CO2 were naturally driven by SST. In 2008 there were large cool anomalies in upper ocean heat content. Did CO2 levels fall? No - They just grew at a slower rate. Ocean heat is responsible for perhaps 10ppm to 15ppm of the ~100ppm increase since 1850. CO2 Diffusion is negligible. There is no reason to doubt the ice core records. I didn't dispute the ice cores, just the validity of extrapolating them precisely to the global environment. It appears you are disputing them though by rejecting the CO2 temperature lag for recent events. As for no references Magellan didn't you notice the two graphs.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 30, 2010 15:07:23 GMT
"” This methodology has been “verified against recent (i.e., post-1950) measurements made by direct instrumental sampling.”"So tell me SoCold how can sampling of 50 years (barely enough to get to the firn ) be used to validate the diffusion and fractionization of gases in 'bubbles' that have been there for 650kyr ? The entire point is the time period before the ice gets to the firn. By that point the ice is effectively sealed. It's before then that the ice can diffuse. That's the issue and they clearly address it. I bet they also have done experiments on ice in the lab too to understand how it behaves. There is more than one ice core. There are cores in antarctica too.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 31, 2010 1:40:33 GMT
The increase in CO2 concentrations over the past ~150 years is almost totally due the buring of fossil fuels. Even the most fervent AGW-sceptical scientist acknowledges that. Unfortunatley some of the more wackier theories get aired on blogs like this. We regularly get the Beck measurements, for example. Then someone will post a plot of the CO2 rate of growth v SST - forgetting that it's not just the rate of growth that would be negative it's the actual growth - if CO2 were naturally driven by SST. In 2008 there were large cool anomalies in upper ocean heat content. Did CO2 levels fall? No - They just grew at a slower rate. Not true GLC! You are looking at averaged and seasonally trended data. From May 2008 to November 2008 monthly average CO2 dropped 5.5 points per million. Thats more than twice the average annual increase. So the conditions you establish here for your opponents argument to be correct are established in the Moana Loa record.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 31, 2010 8:01:41 GMT
The increase in CO2 concentrations over the past ~150 years is almost totally due the buring of fossil fuels. Even the most fervent AGW-sceptical scientist acknowledges that. Unfortunatley some of the more wackier theories get aired on blogs like this. We regularly get the Beck measurements, for example. Then someone will post a plot of the CO2 rate of growth v SST - forgetting that it's not just the rate of growth that would be negative it's the actual growth - if CO2 were naturally driven by SST. In 2008 there were large cool anomalies in upper ocean heat content. Did CO2 levels fall? No - They just grew at a slower rate. Not true GLC! You are looking at averaged and seasonally trended data. From May 2008 to November 2008 monthly average CO2 dropped 5.5 points per million. Thats more than twice the average annual increase. So the conditions you establish here for your opponents argument to be correct are established in the Moana Loa record. Yes - thanks for that, but we know all about the annual CO2 cycle. Using this as an argument is a bit like saying December was cooler than June - so the world is cooling. 2009 was higher than 2008 2008 was higher than 2007 2007 was higher than 2006 ..... and so on Despite the considerable fluctuations in SST, CO2 levels have risen year on year. Even in 1992 during the Pinatubo cooling CO2 levels still rose.
|
|
|
Post by dogsbody on May 31, 2010 10:21:05 GMT
Not true GLC! You are looking at averaged and seasonally trended data. From May 2008 to November 2008 monthly average CO2 dropped 5.5 points per million. Thats more than twice the average annual increase. So the conditions you establish here for your opponents argument to be correct are established in the Moana Loa record. Yes - thanks for that, but we know all about the annual CO2 cycle. Using this as an argument is a bit like saying December was cooler than June - so the world is cooling. 2009 was higher than 2008 2008 was higher than 2007 2007 was higher than 2006 ..... and so on Despite the considerable fluctuations in SST, CO2 levels have risen year on year. Even in 1992 during the Pinatubo cooling CO2 levels still rose. yes but what about the mean annual rate of increase, or have you chosen to ignore the graphs posted previously that demonstrate how that parameter varies in accordance with temperature variation.
|
|
|
Post by dogsbody on May 31, 2010 10:23:04 GMT
Do you mean "think" or "hope". The increase in CO2 concentrations over the past ~150 years is almost totally due the buring of fossil fuels. Even the most fervent AGW-sceptical scientist acknowledges that. Unfortunatley some of the more wackier theories get aired on blogs like this. We regularly get the Beck measurements, for example. Then someone will post a plot of the CO2 rate of growth v SST - forgetting that it's not just the rate of growth that would be negative it's the actual growth - if CO2 were naturally driven by SST. In 2008 there were large cool anomalies in upper ocean heat content. Did CO2 levels fall? No - They just grew at a slower rate. Ocean heat is responsible for perhaps 10ppm to 15ppm of the ~100ppm increase since 1850. CO2 Diffusion is negligible. There is no reason to doubt the ice core records. No references again....typical. As references appear to be the order of the day, here's a bit of light reading. library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/CFJ_JGlassman_SolarGlobalWarming.pdf
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 31, 2010 18:15:58 GMT
yes but what about the mean annual rate of increase, or have you chosen to ignore the graphs posted previously that demonstrate how that parameter varies in accordance with temperature variation.
What about the annual rate of increase? We know it rises more in warm years than cold years. The point is - it still ALWAYS RISES. It carries on going up. Even when SST anomalies are negative CO2 levels continue to rise. SST can't possibly be the main driver else CO2 levels would fall at some point.
Are you having trouble understanding this?
|
|