|
Post by glc on Jun 14, 2010 8:02:53 GMT
If records are melting away due to natural variations of temperatures at a given level of CO2, mostly likely it would be rare to find a core that didn't melt awayExplain about this melting. Note that most of these cores are from Antarctica. When was inner antarctica melting? LOL! I bet you have an icecore that has that answer. ROTFLMAO! Can you give us one of those footprint diagrams of the steps you guys take in your dance around the holy icecore? You should take a look at Dogsbody's graphs. Over the period of last 1000 years the CO2 concentrations at the arctic and antarctic were never more than a few ppm apart. So which one had the melting? Did they both experience the same amount of diffusion? These cores are from locations which are thousands of miles apart. They have quite different temperature histories but the CO2 history is virtually identical. There is a problem with the temperature-led CO2 rise theory on the decadal and centennial timescales. The current CO2 rise is clearly not due to temperature.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 14, 2010 17:02:43 GMT
They have quite different temperature histories but the CO2 history is virtually identical. There is a problem with the temperature-led CO2 rise theory on the decadal and centennial timescales. The current CO2 rise is clearly not due to temperature. Criminy GLC! You can see in the icecore record the relationship of CO2 to temperature, huge swings in both. If temperature does not cause CO2 directly (which we know it does at least to some extent via Henry's law) it causes it indirectly. Perhaps a portion of the rising CO2 we see is a hugely delayed response to thickening layers of biota all over the world including the bottom of the sea due to the interglacial spurring life on the planet. Religious indoctrination is a scary thing. Kori Qalis the pet ice melting example of the ice core king Lonnie Thompson is a great example. First he regales us with tales of doom for the Kori Qalis ice cap trip after trip when it was melting rapidly. Now we have two Thompson trips in the bag and not one word anywhere, in the press, on his website, anywhere. Instead of informing the public that it might not be as bad as he predicted his lips are sewn shut. I don't know a lot of details of my profession but I can imagine how accountants started out as probably more like carny barkers. Sort of where the science community sits these days. And I can assure you that the only thing the science community is convincing the public of when they produce polls the answers of which are really not reflective of the real community, when they tell us its getting hot when people are feeling cold, that when cold is expected as a result of getting hot is that the science community is a bunch of carny barkers. Unfortunately for science its turned into a tabloid approach to funding and you do have a bunch of carny barkers the best and most sensationalist among them becoming media stars like Michael Mann who produces science out of his butt. Step right up folks!! come see the man who can pull whole worlds out of his arnus!!!! Only 5 cents a peek!! $5 for a whole view!! $500,000 for a world of your choice!!!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 15, 2010 17:47:23 GMT
You should take a look at Dogsbody's graphs. Over the period of last 1000 years the CO2 concentrations at the arctic and antarctic were never more than a few ppm apart. Here is a link for you GLC! Professor David Barber at 39:35 of his recent presentation talks about how a CO2 moves through ice. Bottom line here is icecore CO2 measurements would seem to have no reliability until such time these processes are better understood. As a result the science that CO2 level changes are significantly unnatural flies out the window. Until we understand how and what rates CO2 is sequestered and the size of the CO2 sinks which might effectively be almost infinitely bigger than anthropogenic emissions we can't conclude on this topic. The 1 to 4% anthropogenic-origin levels we actually see in the atmosphere might be just uncycled emissions or more likely a combination of uncycled emissions and short-cycle cycled emissions from for example plants with the rest going down a black hole of unknown depth. But unknowns are the bread and butter of AGW evangelism. . . . isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 15, 2010 18:50:38 GMT
You should take a look at Dogsbody's graphs. Over the period of last 1000 years the CO2 concentrations at the arctic and antarctic were never more than a few ppm apart. Here is a link for you GLC! Professor David Barber at 39:35 of his recent presentation talks about how a CO2 moves through ice. Sea ice sitting on water. That doesn't seem to be the same thing. Well scientists have been studying ice cores for quite some time and I doubtthey haven't compared recent deposits with the observed mauna loa co2 record to understand the transport of gas through such ice. Let alone lab based analysis of gas flow through such ice. Basically I think they probably understand it enough to have derived the famous vostok co2 record in the first place. I can conclude that co2 levels today are probably higher than they've been for millions of years. And that the bulk of the recent co2 rise is due to man. I can conclude the oceans are absorbing more co2 than they emit. I can conclude these things because that is what the science shows. And I know that because this is what scientists have found and reported. It's that simple and most people in the world are going to use this logic. So whether you can't conclude on this topic isn't going to prevent the majority of people from doing so. If you want to convince them...well you can't...the only people who can convince them the scientists themselves. Until the likes of oeschger et al come out and say the co2 ice core data is unreliable, the majority of people are not going to take such claims seriously no matter how many blogs they appear on. The first group to realize the unreliablility of the ice core records would be oeschger et al. So the accusation that it's uncertain is essentially an accusation that they are all liars.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Jun 15, 2010 19:25:15 GMT
I can conclude that SoCold and his high priest of AGW AlGore like using weasel words like “probably”, and will continue to do so… I can conclude that no matter how deeply flawed and fraudulent the junk science behind AGW is, alarmists will continue to insist that the science is robust. I can conclude that AGW proponents will continue to issue dire predictions no matter how badly their past predictions have failed. I can conclude that we will hear AlGore and Mann and Hansen use the phrase “Its worse then we thought” in the near future. I can conclude that useful idiots (you know who you are) who are smart enough to know better, will still believe in AGW when it has been discarded in favor of a new “emergency” that will require increased taxes and government control. I can conclude that we will see more claims that colder temperatures and hotter temperatures both prove that it is getting warmer. I can conclude that AGW proponents will also claim that floods, droughts, and normal precipitation amounts will prove that mankind is wrecking the planet. I can conclude that SoCold will continue to ignore the evidence of his own senses and continue to spout drivel as long as he lives. I can conclude all of these things without using a single weasel word.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 15, 2010 19:40:32 GMT
The use of such caveats are associated with scientists in general, so thanks for the compliment. While politicians will drop uncertainties and spout statements without qualifiers, scientists are more cautious almost to the point of being hard to understand. That's why they frequently use words like "likely", "perhaps", "probably", etc. It's because they are honestly reflecting the potential of them being wrong - ie the uncertainty.
Ironically skeptics often complain "alarmists" aren't citing enough uncertainty in their statements, so here you come along and do them proud by attacking people who comply by accusing them of using "weasel words".
Until the scientists who study ice cores come out saying the co2 records derived from them are uncertain, there is no reason for a logical thinking person to disbeleive those records. There I've managed to condense my argument into a single sentence.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 15, 2010 20:22:44 GMT
Sea ice sitting on water. That doesn't seem to be the same thing. No its not the same thing Socold. But ice is the same as ice and CO2 goes through it. Well scientists have been studying ice cores for quite some time and I doubtthey haven't compared recent deposits with the observed mauna loa co2 record to understand the transport of gas through such ice. Let alone lab based analysis of gas flow through such ice. And before you see it I am sure you will have to pry it out of their cold dead hands. LOL! There is a word for your reliance on the truth of AGW here Socold and it is called FAITH! Basically I think they probably understand it enough to have derived the famous vostok co2 record in the first place. It won't be the first time a 50 year instrument record was extrapolated backwards 450,000 years. This is getting funnier by the minute! I can conclude that co2 levels today are probably higher than they've been for millions of years. And that the bulk of the recent co2 rise is due to man. I can conclude the oceans are absorbing more co2 than they emit. I can conclude these things because that is what the science shows. And I know that because this is what scientists have found and reported. It's that simple and most people in the world are going to use this logic. You can conclude anything you want but that doesn't make it so. And everything a scientist reports isn't so. Plenty of conclusions are put in science papers for which no work was done nor reference made to how the conclusion was arrived at. Then that statement gets referenced by yet another paper. We saw that process as strip barks and a single tree in Yamal were used to influence a lot of papers. So whether you can't conclude on this topic isn't going to prevent the majority of people from doing so. Indeed polls indicate people are getting educated on the topic. If you want to convince them...well you can't...the only people who can convince them the scientists themselves. Until the likes of oeschger et al come out and say the co2 ice core data is unreliable, the majority of people are not going to take such claims seriously no matter how many blogs they appear on. The first group to realize the unreliablility of the ice core records would be oeschger et al. So the accusation that it's uncertain is essentially an accusation that they are all liars. I didn't call anybody a liar I merely pointed out that the assumption that gases remain unchanged in ice for thousands of years or even maybe a hundred years is uncorroborated and untested thus is not science at all even if a scientist believes it to be the case. Obviously the guy making a living on reading the signs in icecores is going to be absolutly the last guy in the world to tell you they aren't telling him anything worthwhile spending your money on. That's the most sure truth you will find in this entire thread.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 15, 2010 22:56:58 GMT
Sea ice sitting on water. That doesn't seem to be the same thing. No its not the same thing Socold. But ice is the same as ice and CO2 goes through it. I understand enough to know that on one hand we have ocean-atmosphere exchange with sea ice in the middle and in the other we have snowfall accumulating and compressing ice layers. It's not the same thing. Therefore it's not obviously affected by the same mechanisms. Neither of us are experts on ice cores to be able to scrutinize your claim to know whether it is true or not. Therefore I'll stick to what the experts say, rather than what someone on the internet claims thank you. I notice that you readily accept the co2 transfer of sea ice research. You don't question that - you state it as fact. You don't call it "faith" to accept that. Yet you are trying to deny the ice core data. It's clearly an excuse, you are picking and choosing which science to believe based on whether it supports your ideological bent against "AGW" Scientists working on ice cores have published a co2 record spanning hundreds of thousands of years. This record has been established for at least two decades and other experts have backed it up with more records of the same from other ice cores. Part of their research has been into understanding diffusion of the measured gases in the ice over time. Given all the above it certainly isn't "faith" to accept eg the vostok co2 record. For someone who isn't an expert to doubt it just because of one sentence they read about sea ice, without understanding the issue or the context, is very dodgy indeed. You should be 100 times more skeptical of your own argument than of the co2 record. You should in fact be so skeptical that you shouldn't even raise it as an argument until you have obtained confirmation from experts that you even have a point. The last 50 years of known co2 levels in the atmosphere in each year could be compared with layers put down since then to see how diffusion has affected it. Including co2 passing through sea ice? Ah no you've given that one a free pass from your "skepticism"... You only apply your uber-skepticism denial of everything when you don't like the scientific result. Otherwise, like any normal person you have no problem with it. You don't have a clue. Neither do I. But then I am not the one making wild claims about the state of research in a field I am clueless about. You are making wild claims about the state of a field you are clueless about though. Go on prove me wrong. Write a short essay on the history of research into gas diffusion in relation to ice cores, citing the important papers on the matter. If you can't do that then clearly you've just overstepped your knowledge big time with your grand claims about the lack of knowledge in that area. You are essentially ignoring experts in the field who have provided conclusions by pretending you know they haven't investigated it properly. Perhaps that's projection. Perhaps you are telling me that as a skeptic of AGW you are the last guy in the world who will ever admit that the ice core co2 record is probably right.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 16, 2010 1:32:40 GMT
I notice that you readily accept the co2 transfer of sea ice research. You don't question that - you state it as fact. You don't call it "faith" to accept that. Yet you are trying to deny the ice core data. It's clearly an excuse, you are picking and choosing which science to believe based on whether it supports your ideological bent against "AGW"
No I didn't. I pointed out that scientists believe it to be the case. Why don't you believe them? Does a scientist have to have a code ring that matches one on your finger?
Perhaps that's projection. Perhaps you are telling me that as a skeptic of AGW you are the last guy in the world who will ever admit that the ice core co2 record is probably right.If I got paid to be a skeptic and write here you would be right. But I don't.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 27, 2010 3:44:19 GMT
"Global wind-shift caused Earth's last ice age to end" It was not the CO2 but the wind "A global shift in winds is what led to the end of Earth’s last ice age— an event that ushered in a warmer climate and the birth of human civilization. It is believed that, in the geological blink of an eye, ice sheets in the northern hemisphere began to collapse and warming spread quickly to the south. Most scientists say that the trigger, at least initially, was an orbital shift that caused more sunlight to fall across Earth's northern half. " www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_global-wind-shift-caused-earth-s-last-ice-age-to-end_1401582
|
|