Printable View
and let's not forget that the data has progressively more time to "equilibrate" as it gets older. If you look at the data, that is obvious, as the slope change in CO2 concentration from peak-to-valley and from valley-to-peak gets progressively sharper as we get closer to the present. It is highly probable that the CO2 levels recorded at the previous peaks would have been much higher if we could have measured them earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Wait a second. We can't trust that data because the ice cores have been contaminated. :rolleyes4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Next you two will be saying that those peaks were caused by prior alien civilizations that produced huge amounts of CO2 by drilling hundreds of thousands of feet into the Earth.
That's why I mentioned that the absolute CO2 concentrations in the peaks would have almost certainly been higher if we could have measured them absolutely at the time (400k years ago...). Don't ignore the evidence, but keep the context. Trends are apparent, but it's a methodological flaw to extrapolate absolutely from the data to the present.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Don't burst the hippie's bubble (see his avatar). He needs something to believe - he needs a purpose on this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
This global warming thing has really disappointed me. It's only going to get down to 30 degrees tonight and tomorrow and we're looking at 26 in the Russellville, AR area Saturday night. Sure would like some global warming to kick in before Easter sunrise service, but no such luck.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science....ap/index.html
Scientists: Lake Superior warming rapidly
POSTED: 7:55 a.m. EDT, April 6, 2007
Story Highlights
• Surface temperatures on Lake Superior up 4.5 degrees since 1979
• Warmer winters mean less ice cover which mean more warming
• Levels dropping as Superior loses water to winter evaporation
"It's a remarkably rapid rate of change"Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
But, hey, its only science.
randerizer, you know zip about AGW and the ice cores. Trend lines my ass. Those prior peaks took hundreds of years to reach and plateau at about 293 ppm of CO2. We are now over 380 ppm and climbing FAST. Please get a clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
AGW has nothing to do with beliefs....it's about science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Nice photo of Ayn Rand you got there.
Ice core CO2 concentration data has not been adjusted to account for transport of CO2 out of the ice cores. YOU are the one that needs to get a clue. The older concentration values are LOWER than actual.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
You have evidence of that position? Logically, one would think that if CO2 transports out of the ice bubbles then the oldest peaks would have the lowest readings and that newest ones prior to our introduction of massive releases of CO2 would have the highest. That's not what the graphs show.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The other thing is the rate of increase in CO2 levels. The prior peaks took hundreds of years to reach, whereas our current readings show increases in decades.
The other thing is our current peak vis-a-vis the solar/orbital controls occured 11,000 years ago and yet our CO2 levels continue to climb. Please explain since you proclaim you know what is going on with the alleged AGW.
3 inches of snow in Waco, Texas today. I bet they are hoping for some global warming.
<gggggggggggggggg>Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
It doesn't get any weaker than that.:)
Yes, I have evidence to support that position. I posted much earlier in the thread several articles that support the position. The key points are that CO2 levels were likely much higher at the peaks at earlier maxima in the carbon cycles, but that CO2 is no longer present in the ice cores at the levels that it was at the time. That is supported, without question, in the data I provided earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Now, you are asking why the peaks don't seem to rise with time, if that argument is true. This is a physical phenomena related to the driving forces we are talking about. I do not pretend to know what the peak levels of CO2 were at any of these points, but I can say with high confidence that they are higher than reported. But, let's say that the peak CO2 level was something like 3000ppm, which I realize is a high number. I would expect CO2 from a block of ice at 3000ppm CO2 to be extracted at a much higher rate than CO2 from a block of ice at 400ppm CO2, just knowing basic rules of mass transfer. I would think that knowledge of mass transfer would offer a very reasonable explanation for the specific data we see.
But, the slopes of the graphs are also relevant and support my conclusions as well.
I would suggest, with regard to the "solar-orbital" controls, that people do not have a full understanding of the carbon cycle. It would not lead me to the conclusion that AGW is real.