Global Warming Cont...

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.

---

I am now an expert of sorts in coring processes, and I would characterize the current use of ice cores as an appropriate measure of past CO2 levels as flawed. Principally, the two arguments I would outline are:

1) the measurements do not reflect the transport of CO2 into and out of the ice cores. Do not give me this crap about ice not being permeable -- it just isn't true. It also doesn't account for any freeze-thaw cycles or sub-surface water flow. Basically, the history associated with the ice core is not correctly reflected in the calculations. Correct history would require in-depth modeling of thermal and flow conditions -- not something that the "climate scientists" are in any way trained to do correctly (I've learned this first-hand was well). That thermal/flow model should have multiple sources of independent data to feed into it as well, in order to properly "history-match" the ice core in question. I doubt that a historymatched would be "unique" anyway -- so basically the true solution to the historical CO2 levels based on even well-modeled data would likely not be the right solution.

2) the process of coring and extracting cores seriously calls into question the results, particularly for accurately determining a GAS concentration in a sample. My strong suspicion is that historical values are underestimated (and increasingly so with increasing depth) because they do not account for pressure differences during the coring/extraction process. Basically -- by the time you get it to the surface, or even when you dislodge it from the ice sheet, you've likely lost a bunch of gas by expansion and pressure drop.

BOTH of these flaws would lead one to believe that CO2 levels collected in older ice core samples UNDERESTIMATE the actual levels at those times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

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:)

---

first, what makes you think you know what global temperatures would be like without the effects of co2? second, what is the average global temperature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

first, what makes you think you know what global temperatures would be like without the effects of co2? second, what is the average global temperature?

---

and third, your sarcasm shows you have no answer to my question. to put it more specifically, what evidence do you have that temperatures were affected by co2 in the way you claim they were?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

first, what makes you think you know what global temperatures would be like without the effects of co2? second, what is the average global temperature?

---

I have no real scientific background...

But wouldn't that actually be quite correct if the poles were -70+?
Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

first, what makes you think you know what global temperatures would be like without the effects of co2? second, what is the average global temperature?

---

Ask randerizer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

I am now an expert of sorts in coring processes, and I would characterize the current use of ice cores as an appropriate measure of past CO2 levels as flawed. Principally, the two arguments I would outline are:

1) the measurements do not reflect the transport of CO2 into and out of the ice cores. Do not give me this crap about ice not being permeable -- it just isn't true. It also doesn't account for any freeze-thaw cycles or sub-surface water flow. Basically, the history associated with the ice core is not correctly reflected in the calculations. Correct history would require in-depth modeling of thermal and flow conditions -- not something that the "climate scientists" are in any way trained to do correctly (I've learned this first-hand was well). That thermal/flow model should have multiple sources of independent data to feed into it as well, in order to properly "history-match" the ice core in question. I doubt that a historymatched would be "unique" anyway -- so basically the true solution to the historical CO2 levels based on even well-modeled data would likely not be the right solution.

2) the process of coring and extracting cores seriously calls into question the results, particularly for accurately determining a GAS concentration in a sample. My strong suspicion is that historical values are underestimated (and increasingly so with increasing depth) because they do not account for pressure differences during the coring/extraction process. Basically -- by the time you get it to the surface, or even when you dislodge it from the ice sheet, you've likely lost a bunch of gas by expansion and pressure drop.

BOTH of these flaws would lead one to believe that CO2 levels collected in older ice core samples UNDERESTIMATE the actual levels at those times.

---

Interesting. Good to see you back, randerizer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Interesting. Good to see you back, randerizer.

---

I have been following the board, just not much time to post... Staying busy with home renovations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Ask randerizer.

---

I said an expert in coring and core analysis practices. Not climate science. :o But my area of expertise makes me significantly more qualified to assess the quality of data collected from ice cores than climate scientists...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

I am now an expert of sorts in coring processes, and I would characterize the current use of ice cores as an appropriate measure of past CO2 levels as flawed. Principally, the two arguments I would outline are:

1) the measurements do not reflect the transport of CO2 into and out of the ice cores. Do not give me this crap about ice not being permeable -- it just isn't true. It also doesn't account for any freeze-thaw cycles or sub-surface water flow. Basically, the history associated with the ice core is not correctly reflected in the calculations. Correct history would require in-depth modeling of thermal and flow conditions -- not something that the "climate scientists" are in any way trained to do correctly (I've learned this first-hand was well). That thermal/flow model should have multiple sources of independent data to feed into it as well, in order to properly "history-match" the ice core in question. I doubt that a historymatched would be "unique" anyway -- so basically the true solution to the historical CO2 levels based on even well-modeled data would likely not be the right solution.

2) the process of coring and extracting cores seriously calls into question the results, particularly for accurately determining a GAS concentration in a sample. My strong suspicion is that historical values are underestimated (and increasingly so with increasing depth) because they do not account for pressure differences during the coring/extraction process. Basically -- by the time you get it to the surface, or even when you dislodge it from the ice sheet, you've likely lost a bunch of gas by expansion and pressure drop.

BOTH of these flaws would lead one to believe that CO2 levels collected in older ice core samples UNDERESTIMATE the actual levels at those times.

---

randerizer, I requested Gavin A. Schmidt to give his expert opinion on your post.

His response is as follows:
"Nonsense I’m afraid. CO2, CH4, and CFC and N2O gas concentrations from ice cores have been replicated against ice cores in vastly different accumulation environments (temperatures/snow depths), against the instrumental record, with cores from Greenland and Antarctica. There is no depth affect visible in the results, and there has been plenty of modelling of the important processes (firnification, gas age/ice age differences etc). Vague doubts based on no information do not stack up against the actual science."

Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and improving coupled climate models and, in particular, is interested in how their results can be compared to paleoclimatic proxy data. He also works on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, such as solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases.
He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He serves on the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection and the Earth System Modeling Framework Advisory Panels and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 50 peer-reviewed publications.

Gavin Schmidt is a dishonest tool and an alarmist hack. His response doesn't even address the mechanisms mentioned by Randerizer. What about diffusion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Gavin Schmidt is a dishonest tool and an alarmist hack. His response doesn't even address the mechanisms mentioned by Randerizer. What about diffusion?

---

Sorry, Guiss, but your emotional reaction is interfering with your objectivity.

You have any scientific evidence that diffusion plays a role?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Sorry, Guiss, but your emotional reaction is interfering with your objectivity.

You have any scientific evidence that diffusion plays a role?

---

Whatever. Schmidt's allegience to the Cult of Global Warming interferes with his objectivity.

Of course diffusion plays a role! It is a scientific law, and it always applies when you have a concentration difference between fluidly connected bodies. It is also a function of time. The more time that passes, the more diffusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Whatever. Schmidt's allegience to the Cult of Global Warming interferes with his objectivity.

Of course diffusion plays a role! It is a scientific law, and it always applies when you have a concentration difference between fluidly connected bodies. It is also a function of time. The more time that passes, the more diffusion.

---

Best of luck in coming up with some scientific evidence. Actually, should be a piece of cake.

Wait a second, I forgot. It's a conspiracy involving the leading universities and scientists around the world. They've all signed a Blood Oath to promote the Global Warming hoax. Naturally, they have destroyed all the records/articles that prove CO2 samples from ice cores are not reliable because of diffusion.

Do you realize how absurd you sound?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Best of luck in coming up with some scientific evidence. Actually, should be a piece of cake.

Wait a second, I forgot. It's a conspiracy involving the leading universities and scientists around the world. They've all signed a Blood Oath to promote the Global Warming hoax. Naturally, they have destroyed all the records/articles that prove CO2 samples from ice cores are not reliable because of diffusion.

Do you realize how absurd you sound?

---

I just gave you scientific evidence (reread my post, research diffusion). RealClimate is a joke - look behind the curtain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Ask randerizer.

---

good answer.

so in other words, if it's not spelled out specifically in scientific american, you have no clue. that's ok. most people don't have a scientific background and therefore don't have the tools to critically evaluate the claims of climate scientists. there's nothing wrong with that. however, taking things at face value from "experts" is often a foolish thing to do, and regurgitating what the "experts" say as if it were firsthand knowledge is doubly foolish.