Global Warming Cont...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Exactly the kind of misleading, oversimplified, and incorrect argument I would expect out of an Al Gore disciple.

---

I'm not a Al Gore disciple. But you claim the ice core results are not accurate and then you try to use them. What going on with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

I'm not a Al Gore disciple. But you claim the ice core results are not accurate and then you try to use them. What going on with that?

---

You make it sound like I have said that the "measured" data is worthless. It is the analysis and conclusion that is wrong. As Randerizer has pointed out it doesn't take into account the transport processes at play. All of the CO2 does not get locked into the layers, over time the CO2 (1) gets transported out through aqueous water (2) gets rejected out by the crystalization processes. That doesn't mean that measured carbon data is not relatively more concentrated in ice layers that were exposed to higher atomspheric CO2 levels (I guess it is possible, but I am not sure if anyone is suggesting that - Randerizer is this possible? I would guess there would be some constraints such as Fick's law.). What we do know is that some CO2 got leached out by these transport processes and the analysts apparantly did not take this into account. In this case, the periodic flux should still be apparent in the results, but the magnitude of the levels are likely to be off because the older ice has lost more CO2 via transport processes than the newer ice. There is likely other evidence of periodice ice age/warming than just the ice core data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

You make it sound like I have said that the "measured" data is worthless. It is the analysis and conclusion that is wrong. As Randerizer has pointed out it doesn't take into account the transport processes at play. All of the CO2 does not get locked into the layers, over time the CO2 (1) gets transported out through aqueous water (2) gets rejected out by the crystalization processes. That doesn't mean that measured carbon data is not relatively more concentrated in ice layers that were exposed to higher atomspheric CO2 levels (I guess it is possible, but I am not sure if anyone is suggesting that - Randerizer is this possible? I would guess there would be some constraints such as Fick's law.). What we do know is that some CO2 got leached out by these transport processes and the analysts apparantly did not take this into account. In this case, the periodic flux should still be apparent in the results, but the magnitude of the levels are likely to be off because the older ice has lost more CO2 via transport processes than the newer ice. There is likely other evidence of periodice ice age/warming than just the ice core data.

---

Sorry, but no matter how hard you try to spin you web of half-baked ideas, the end result is the same. Massive amount of CO2 is being dumped into the atmosphere which is slowly raising the CO2 levels in oceans, biota, and atmosphere.

Saying that the current situation is natural is absurd.

You are young so I suggest that you just watch and learn. During the next 30 years you will get a real lesson in climate science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

That doesn't mean that measured carbon data is not relatively more concentrated in ice layers that were exposed to higher atomspheric CO2 levels (I guess it is possible, but I am not sure if anyone is suggesting that - Randerizer is this possible? I would guess there would be some constraints such as Fick's law.).

---

That is correct. In a perfectly mixed system, one would expect ALL CO2 levels to be the same throughout the cores. As an aside, this is what I was referring to earlier when I was saying they artificially date CO2 levels by some time, approximately 90 years. Presumably, there is a point when the change in the diffusion coefficient with depth becomes pretty steep. At that point, we have a system that is more "locked in place" than it is "mobile," but it should not be treated as exclusively "locked in place"

But the average diffusion coefficient is presumably pretty small. After all, we're talking about frozen gas crystals, and cold ice in equilibrium with a relatively small amount of water. Noone is saying that antarctica is 75% water, for example - there's still a lot of ice for a relatively small equilibrium amount of water to get through. I am suggesting that there is water present, and that water will tend to wash away CO2 from the ice with time. The time scales at which this water process take place are presumably pretty slow and vary with depth, but we're also talking about fairly long time scales. Only an irrational scientist would ignore this, salty... I should add, I was indifferent at the beginning of this discussion - I am no longer arguing for the sake of arguing; I think this is a serious flaw in the QUANTIFICATION of ice core samples. QUALITATIVELY, the ice core samples do clearly have some values, as they do show a trend that overcomes the experimental uncertainties, namely the fluctuation in atmospheric carbon on the time period of hundreds of thousands of years.

For reference, a simple representation of diffusion (Ficks Law) holds that the mass flux of one species (CO2) through another (water/ice) is directly proportional to both the diffusion coefficient (which is fairly small) and the concentration gradient. If the diffusion coefficient DOMINATES, one would expect to see negligible differences in concentration between samples starting at widely different initial concentrations at long times. That is, the entire sample would look roughly homogenous. But if the diffusion coefficient is small, one would still expect to see differences in ice core CO2 concentration with initial concentration. The initial concentrations would not be the same as the final concentrations (in other words, those that we measure), but there still could be qualitative differences throughout the system.

Even bad data can sometimes tell you something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Sorry, but no matter how hard you try to spin you web of half-baked ideas, the end result is the same. Massive amount of CO2 is being dumped into the atmosphere which is slowly raising the CO2 levels in oceans, biota, and atmosphere.

Saying that the current situation is natural is absurd.

You are young so I suggest that you just watch and learn. During the next 30 years you will get a real lesson in climate science.

---

And you are old relative to the scale of normal climate fluctuations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Sorry, but no matter how hard you try to spin you web of half-baked ideas, the end result is the same. Massive amount of CO2 is being dumped into the atmosphere which is slowly raising the CO2 levels in oceans, biota, and atmosphere.

Saying that the current situation is natural is absurd.

You are young so I suggest that you just watch and learn. During the next 30 years you will get a real lesson in climate science.

---

Well said.

In the NOAA article I posted it said, and I quote and highlight:

"During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a rate near 0.11 degrees F (0.06 degrees C) per decade, but the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976, or 0.32 degrees F (0.18 degrees C) per decade, with some of the largest temperature increases occurring in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere."


Well, thats scary enough but imagine what the next increase may be like!?!?

Do you guys think the Chinese are going to slowdown their oil/energy driven economy anytime soon? Not a chance.

So, as has been suggested by most scientists, its not a matter of how much of an increase in the relative short-term(30 yrs), its really a question of what multiple of the current increase.

Wake up people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altadawg

Well said.

In the NOAA article I posted it said, and I quote and highlight:

"During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a rate near 0.11 degrees F (0.06 degrees C) per decade, but the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976, or 0.32 degrees F (0.18 degrees C) per decade, with some of the largest temperature increases occurring in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere."


Well, thats scary enough but imagine what the next increase may be like!?!?

Do you guys think the Chinese are going to slowdown their oil/energy driven economy anytime soon? Not a chance.

So, as has been suggested by most scientists, its not a matter of how much of an increase in the relative short-term(30 yrs), its really a question of what multiple of the current increase.

Wake up people.

---

Reading the weather report does not convince ME of the CAUSE of the climate change. At the present time, and given the evidence that has been presented regarding this causality, it takes a PRECONCEIVED notion that we are doing something wrong to make that step. This is the fundamental difference in this debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altadawg

Well said.

In the NOAA article I posted it said, and I quote and highlight:

"During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a rate near 0.11 degrees F (0.06 degrees C) per decade, but the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976, or 0.32 degrees F (0.18 degrees C) per decade, with some of the largest temperature increases occurring in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere."


Well, thats scary enough but imagine what the next increase may be like!?!?

Do you guys think the Chinese are going to slowdown their oil/energy driven economy anytime soon? Not a chance.

So, as has been suggested by most scientists, its not a matter of how much of an increase in the relative short-term(30 yrs), its really a question of what multiple of the current increase.

Wake up people.

---

Have you been following this conversation? We have discussed how the warming is not the result of anthropogenic CO2 - the increase levels are due the natural carbon cycle. We have very little impact on anything. Plus, we don't even know there will be severe impacts if it does continue to warm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Have you been following this conversation? We have discussed how the warming is not the result of anthropogenic CO2 - the increase levels are due the natural carbon cycle. We have very little impact on anything. Plus, we don't even know there will be severe impacts if it does continue to warm.

---

Whatever Mr Clueless. Ive got at least a few better things to do than read your take on this subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altadawg

Whatever Mr Clueless. Ive got at least a few better things to do than read your take on this subject.

---

Yeah, just watch Al Gore's movie. He is definitely trustworthy, and you can get all the info you need on the subject from it. :icon_wink:

Another references to support these notions, with independent tracer experiments in greenland ice cores as a test:

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 107, NO. B12, 2330, doi:10.1029/2002JB001857, 2002; Anomalous diffusion of multiple impurity species: Predicted implications for the ice core climate records
Alan W. Rempel, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA;J. S. Wettlaufer,Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; Edwin D. Waddington, Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA


JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 108, NO. D3, 4126, doi:10.1029/2002JD002538, 2003; Evolution of chemical peak shapes in the Dome C, Antarctica, ice core, P. R. F. Barnes; British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, UK;E. W. Wolff,British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, UK;H. M. Mader,Department of Earth Sciences, Bristol, UK;R. Udisti,Department of Public Health and Environmental Analytical Chemistry, University of Florence, Florence, Italy; E. Castellano, Department of Public Health and Environmental Analytical Chemistry, University of Florence, Florence, Italy

R. Röthlisberger,British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, UK

Geophysical Research Abstracts, V7, 10540, 2005 "The GRIP ice core isotopic excess diffusion explained; S.J. Johnson, B.M. Vinther, H.B. Clausen; T.T. Creyts, I. Seierstad; A. Sveinbjornsdottir


This is CERTAINLY NOT the idea of just one scientist - I think I'd say that just ONE SCIENTIST has the BALLS to use an obvious problem to criticize a community that is supported politically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

That is correct. In a perfectly mixed system, one would expect ALL CO2 levels to be the same throughout the cores. As an aside, this is what I was referring to earlier when I was saying they artificially date CO2 levels by some time, approximately 90 years. Presumably, there is a point when the change in the diffusion coefficient with depth becomes pretty steep. At that point, we have a system that is more "locked in place" than it is "mobile," but it should not be treated as exclusively "locked in place"

But the average diffusion coefficient is presumably pretty small. After all, we're talking about frozen gas crystals, and cold ice in equilibrium with a relatively small amount of water. Noone is saying that antarctica is 75% water, for example - there's still a lot of ice for a relatively small equilibrium amount of water to get through. I am suggesting that there is water present, and that water will tend to wash away CO2 from the ice with time. The time scales at which this water process take place are presumably pretty slow and vary with depth, but we're also talking about fairly long time scales. Only an irrational scientist would ignore this, salty... I should add, I was indifferent at the beginning of this discussion - I am no longer arguing for the sake of arguing; I think this is a serious flaw in the QUANTIFICATION of ice core samples. QUALITATIVELY, the ice core samples do clearly have some values, as they do show a trend that overcomes the experimental uncertainties, namely the fluctuation in atmospheric carbon on the time period of hundreds of thousands of years.

For reference, a simple representation of diffusion (Ficks Law) holds that the mass flux of one species (CO2) through another (water/ice) is directly proportional to both the diffusion coefficient (which is fairly small) and the concentration gradient. If the diffusion coefficient DOMINATES, one would expect to see negligible differences in concentration between samples starting at widely different initial concentrations at long times. That is, the entire sample would look roughly homogenous. But if the diffusion coefficient is small, one would still expect to see differences in ice core CO2 concentration with initial concentration. The initial concentrations would not be the same as the final concentrations (in other words, those that we measure), but there still could be qualitative differences throughout the system.

Even bad data can sometimes tell you something.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

The amount of water vapor that can be held in the air is a function of pressure and temperature. Henry's law affects how much CO2 goes into the ocean and Clausius-Clapeyron relation is the most pertinent law relating to phase transition of aqueous water to water vapor. I have spent more time working with these principles in undergrad than I care to remember. There are many other laws involved because the environment involves many different thermodynamic systems. The aforementioned principles focus on the ocean/atmosphere interface.

Neither of these principles refute the argument that water vapor could create a positive feedback loop without the assistance of CO2.

---

Ahh, wonderful memories of Dr. Lorhenz telling stories about getting drunk with famous engineers.:sleeping3:

And just for fun (and to link the unreliability of some sorts of computer modeling with football) -
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...erbrook/070213

About halfway down he talks about hurricanes. I know this isn't directly tied to global warming (or is it? I know some think we'll see more hurricanes), but the random comments about football in this thread made me look for any reason to bring some in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

Ahh, wonderful memories of Dr. Lorhenz telling stories about getting drunk with famous engineers.:sleeping3:

---

God rest his soul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Have you been following this conversation? We have discussed how the warming is not the result of anthropogenic CO2 - the increase levels are due the natural carbon cycle. We have very little impact on anything. Plus, we don't even know there will be severe impacts if it does continue to warm.

---

Altadawg is the person who started this thread. :icon_wink: