Global Warming Cont...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Do you?

---

I'm not a climate scientist but I do think that if you cross-examined several experts in that area under oath that a judge would find that the Greenland ice cores do present a scientifically valid record of past CO2 levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

I'm not a climate scientist but I do think that if you cross-examined several experts in that area under oath that a judge would find that the Greenland ice cores do present a scientifically valid record of past CO2 levels.

---

It only provides evidence if you model it correctly. If your model does not account for physical transport of CO2 away from where it was "captured" there will appear to be less CO2 than there actually was for older time periods. This is because some of the "captured" CO2 has escaped via diffusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

It only provides evidence if you model it correctly. If your model does not account for physical transport of CO2 away from where it was "captured" there will appear to be less CO2 than there actually was for older time periods. This is because some of the "captured" CO2 has escaped via diffusion.

---

so I guess that means that you think that the Greenland ice cores CO2 readings are not reliable. I wonder what arkansasbob thinks about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

so I guess that means that you think that the Greenland ice cores CO2 readings are not reliable. I wonder what arkansasbob thinks about it.

---

What do you think? Do you not agree that more CO2 will have diffused out of older ice than newer ice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

What do you think? Do you not agree that more CO2 will have diffused out of older ice than newer ice?

---

I don't know that much about ice cubes, let alone ice cores. I'm not saying that you're wrong but I have to wonder why so many climate scientists think the ice cores give good data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

I don't know that much about ice cubes, let alone ice cores. I'm not saying that you're wrong but I have to wonder why so many climate scientists think the ice cores give good data.

---

What type of coursework does one have to do to hold oneself out as a "climate scientist"?

As promised:


http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...ncdcstats.html

NOAA: 2008 Global Temperature Ties as Eight Warmest on Record

January 14, 2009
The year 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth, based on the combined average of worldwide land and ocean surface temperatures through December, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. For December alone, the month also ranked as the eighth warmest globally, for the combined land and ocean surface temperature. The assessment is based on records dating back to 1880.

Quote:

---

NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.

---

Everytime I read something from that site I am amazed at the confidence they have in themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

What type of coursework does one have to do to hold oneself out as a "climate scientist"?

---

I would think the best criteria would be a scientist that works as a climate scientist, like these guys.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

First of all, do you accept the Greenland ice cores contain an accurate record of past CO2 levels?

---

for the sake of argument, let's say that i do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

I would think the best criteria would be a scientist that works as a climate scientist, like these guys.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10

---

It seems to me, that in order to choose to work in the field of "climate science", you would have to first believe that there would be something useful to gain from work in this field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

for the sake of argument, let's say that i do.

---

Well, it's really kind of simple. Co2 levels don't start to rise during the interglacial period for about 800 to 1000 years after temperatures start to rise and CO2 levels continue to rise even after the peak of the interglacial period has been reach thereby prolonging temperatures during the last the last half of the interglacial period.

Sorry for the long sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

It seems to me, that in order to choose to work in the field of "climate science", you would have to first believe that there would be something useful to gain from work in this field.

---

Like a paycheck?:icon_wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Well, it's really kind of simple. Co2 levels don't start to rise during the interglacial period for about 800 to 1000 years after temperatures start to rise and CO2 levels continue to rise even after the peak of the interglacial period has been reach thereby prolonging temperatures during the last the last half of the interglacial period.

Sorry for the long sentence.

---

you still haven't shown any relationship. what evidence is there that the co2 levels influence temperatures in any way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

you still haven't shown any relationship. what evidence is there that the co2 levels influence temperatures in any way?

---

Of course, atmospheric co2 levels don't affect surface temperatures. That's why the average global temperature is a cozy 12F and most of the surface Of Earth is covered in ice.:bigcry::o:icon_roll::angry::laugh::D:)