Global Warming Cont...

[saltydawg]

I don't think Dr. Jawoworski was claiming the samples have been purposefully contaminated. I think he is suggesting that the AGW people saw something that thought would help their case and ignored some of the issues with the data. You have to seriously misconstrue his analysis to arrive at that point (of course, that is probably what you do when you read most reports of the critics of CGW). He explained why the core samples more than likely reflect lower atmospheric C02 than was actually present. What is wrong with the points he raised? What is your problem with Dr. Jawoworski? His his work not appreciated on RealClimate.org? He is a real scientist, you know?

Really? Who is the guy except he is a Polish scientist. Where did you get the info? What hearing did he testify before?

The bottom line is that there is no conspiracy among the world's leading scientists to misrepresent the data from the ice cores. The CO2 levels recorded in them are accurate. Why do you accept the analysis of some unknown polish scientist but not that of the world's leading climate experts?

Whether or not you trust George W. Bush, do you trust the NOAA?

[randerizer]

Really? Who is the guy except he is a Polish scientist. Where did you get the info? What hearing did he testify before?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Jaworowski

also, speaking of consensus, here is a list of several scientists who have not yet "come into line". I think the writers of this wikipedia page are heavily leaning with the consensus, but there are certainly some "experts" who are presenting some contrarian evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ming_consensus

The bottom line is that there is no conspiracy among the world's leading scientists to misrepresent the data from the ice cores. The CO2 levels recorded in them are accurate. Why do you accept the analysis of some unknown polish scientist but not that of the world's leading climate experts?

Hmm, not a scientific paper, but at least a referenced read on the taking of CO2 samples.

http://www.aetherometry.com/global_w...ction_I_6.html

Note the treatment of Figure8 and Figure9, which are referenced from the following:
36. Neftel, A et al (1985) “Evidence from polar ice cores for the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries”, Nature, 315:45.
37. Friedli, H et al (1986) “Ice core record of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries”, Nature, 324:237.

[Guisslapp]

Really? Who is the guy except he is a Polish scientist. Where did you get the info? What hearing did he testify before?

The bottom line is that there is no conspiracy among the world's leading scientists to misrepresent the data from the ice cores. The CO2 levels recorded in them are accurate. Why do you accept the analysis of some unknown polish scientist but not that of the world's leading climate experts?

Whether or not you trust George W. Bush, do you trust the NOAA?

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

This link gives the full report, the date of the hearing before the US Senate, and his qualifications.

Again, you are misinterpreting what I said. I did not say there was a conspiracy, just that proponents of AGW lached on to the data without questioning certain assumptions. We certainly can get information about CO2 levels from the cores (he is not saying that you can't). He is just suggesting that the analysis of the proponents of AGW are flawed because it doesn't take into account different things, that if taken into account suggest that CO2 levels were actually higher than what was thought.

I am skeptical of representations made by ALL politicians and political bodies.

[saltydawg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Jaworowski

also, speaking of consensus, here is a list of several scientists who have not yet "come into line". I think the writers of this wikipedia page are heavily leaning with the consensus, but there are certainly some "experts" who are presenting some contrarian evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ming_consensus



Hmm, not a scientific paper, but at least a referenced read on the taking of CO2 samples.

http://www.aetherometry.com/global_w...ction_I_6.html

Note the treatment of Figure8 and Figure9, which are referenced from the following:
36. Neftel, A et al (1985) “Evidence from polar ice cores for the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries”, Nature, 315:45.
37. Friedli, H et al (1986) “Ice core record of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries”, Nature, 324:237.

Here is the crowd you are running with.

http://www.aetherometry.com/index.html

[saltydawg]

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

This link gives the full report, the date of the hearing before the US Senate, and his qualifications.

Again, you are misinterpreting what I said. I did not say there was a conspiracy, just that proponents of AGW lached on to the data without questioning certain assumptions. We certainly can get information about CO2 levels from the cores (he is not saying that you can't). He is just suggesting that the analysis of the proponents of AGW are flawed because it doesn't take into account different things, that if taken into account suggest that CO2 levels were actually higher than what was thought.

I am skeptical of representations made by ALL politicians and political bodies.

I would not exactly call the NOAA a political body. Anyway, the next time they issue a hurricane evaluation order, just ignore it.

As for your Polish Professor, here is his title: Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
Warsaw, Poland

Why don't you question the scientists at Real Climate about this issue? Should make an interesting read.

[Guisslapp]

I would not exactly call the NOAA a political body. Anyway, the next time they issue a hurricane evaluation order, just ignore it.

I assume you mean "evacuation." And I have never waited on them to send the evacuation order. If it looks like it is coming my way, I get the hell out of Dodge.

[Guisslapp]

Salty - I have to hand it to you. You may believe you are with the "consensus" of scientists, but you are not with the consensus of engineers and amateur experts on this board. You are almost single handedly having to swat off the growing swarm of cynics.

[randerizer]

Here is the crowd you are running with.

http://www.aetherometry.com/index.html

Well, digging into the articles...

"To calculate the mean age difference between the ice and the enclosed air, and the age distribution width, we have to assume an age of the air in the open pore volume at the transition zone which is connected to the atmosphere by many meters of permeable firn. Assuming that the air is well mixed with the atmosphere in all permeable layers, then the mean difference between the age of the ice and the age of the air entrapped in its bubbles is about equal to the age of the ice at a depth where half of the final amount of air is closed off. For Siple Station the mean age difference obtained this way is 95 yr."

You think that is a good approximation for accurately calculating CO2 content?

I PERSONALLY think this has several significant flaws, just off the top:
1) Permeable vs. impermeable? Are you kidding me? So you have some parts of the ice where the mass transfer coefficient of CO2 is zero, and some places where it is not? It's all the same material? This suggests that we are talking about porosity differences, which might exist and could be much better modeled as a function of depth.
2)The net movement of CO2 would be OUT of the ice due to a deltaP, so artificially aging the air seems stupid
3)They present an argument that air is "well mixed" within "permeable" layers in order to support their dating. This just does not make physical sense, so they are simply bullshitting. It's a transport problem that can be closed. What they are saying is "we really don't see much difference between layers X, Y, and Z." Perhaps an alternate explanation is that the atmosphere is not really changing that much? A SCIENTIFIC way to run that experiment would be to grow layers of ice under widely different atmospheres with independent measurable gases with known mass transfer coefficients in ice. Then, allow "equilibration" and measure those measurable gases within the ice. How low did the gas placed in the upper layers go? How high did the gas in the lower layers go? Now you've got a better transport problem.
4) It assumes that once ice is "impermeable", gas transport stops. Even if you buy that the mass transfer coefficient takes a dive, the layers they are referring to are MUCH OLDER than the ones that are "semipermeable" or "permeable". So at worst the transport occurs on a different timescale, but we're talking about ice that formed over the course of hundreds of years.
5) Doesn't adequately describe the role of water in relation to "pores." Ice exists in equilibrium with water, and that equilibrium is shifted towards water (more dense) at higher pressures (i.e., older ice). Water flows (and has a higher solubility for gases). Closer to the surface, water acts to "cure" pores, which are imperfections in the crystal structure of ice. Ice that is frozen faster will have more grains than ice that is frozen slower. Those pores are critical to the mass transfer assumptions that the scientists are making, but they suggest that the "pores" are static, but changes in local water concentration would probably make that a bad assumption. I find it very hard to believe that it takes 95 years for water to close the pores.

[randerizer]

Here is the crowd you are running with.

http://www.aetherometry.com/index.html

I'm not convinced that it's worse than the group at realclimate.

[saltydawg]

Salty - I have to hand it to you. You may believe you are with the "consensus" of scientists, but you are not with the consensus of engineers and amateur experts on this board. You are almost single handedly having to swat off the growing swarm of cynics.

What else is new. The other AGW guys have given up, not that I blame them.

[randerizer]

Summarizing from above in slightly less convoluted form:

The raw ice core data is arbitrarily adjusted by a time correction factor. The problem is complex but could possibly be solved. The data that are the basis of the CO2 numbers from 1700-at least the mid 19th century in the IPCC climate report and others just chooses to make the simplifying assumptions as a matter of convenience. I don't think it's good enough. They divide ice into 2 types - permeable and impermeable. Everything in a "permeable" layer is "well-mixed", and everything in an impermeable layer is static. In actuality, dry CO2 is always moving up (pressure difference), and water is always moving down. Water can also solubilize CO2 (which decreases the freezing point at STP, I should add), and as water moves, CO2 can also move. So does the net flow of CO2 go up or down, and at what rates as a function of ice depth and real differences in atmospheric CO2 with time? I don't know - that's a problem that could be predicted with enough evidence, though. They just don't do the experiments necessary to convince me that the assumptions they make are valid in light of this.

Simply, it's something they don't consider, because I think the data trend the way they would want it to trend (CO2 levels increasing). I am more apt to trust Jawoworski's take on this, if nothing else than because he has specifically considered the transport issues involved in the problem. At least he's not assuming away the problem.

I PERSONALLY think this has several significant flaws, just off the top:
1) Permeable vs. impermeable? Are you kidding me? So you have some parts of the ice where the mass transfer coefficient of CO2 is zero, and some places where it is not? It's all the same material? This suggests that we are talking about porosity differences, which might exist and could be much better modeled as a function of depth.
2)The net movement of CO2 would be OUT of the ice due to a deltaP, so artificially aging the air seems stupid
3)They present an argument that air is "well mixed" within "permeable" layers in order to support their dating. This just does not make physical sense, so they are simply bullshitting. It's a transport problem that can be closed. What they are saying is "we really don't see much difference between layers X, Y, and Z." Perhaps an alternate explanation is that the atmosphere is not really changing that much? A SCIENTIFIC way to run that experiment would be to grow layers of ice under widely different atmospheres with independent measurable gases with known mass transfer coefficients in ice. Then, allow "equilibration" and measure those measurable gases within the ice. How low did the gas placed in the upper layers go? How high did the gas in the lower layers go? Now you've got a better transport problem.
4) It assumes that once ice is "impermeable", gas transport stops. Even if you buy that the mass transfer coefficient takes a dive, the layers they are referring to are MUCH OLDER than the ones that are "semipermeable" or "permeable". So at worst the transport occurs on a different timescale, but we're talking about ice that formed over the course of hundreds of years.
5) Doesn't adequately describe the role of water in relation to "pores." Ice exists in equilibrium with water, and that equilibrium is shifted towards water (more dense) at higher pressures (i.e., older ice). Water flows (and has a higher solubility for gases). Closer to the surface, water acts to "cure" pores, which are imperfections in the crystal structure of ice. Ice that is frozen faster will have more grains than ice that is frozen slower. Those pores are critical to the mass transfer assumptions that the scientists are making, but they suggest that the "pores" are static, but changes in local water concentration would probably make that a bad assumption. I find it very hard to believe that it takes 95 years for water to close the pores.

[Bill Pup60]

Bill, send NOAA an email and you can get your answer straight from the horse's mouth. BTW, it sure looks like your gov't believes that AGW is for real.

http://usasearch.gov/search?affiliat...&submit=Search

I want to hear it from YOU! You're always on here ranting about "100%" facts and making absolute statements that GW (BTW, what is "A"GW????) is so certain. I would think that you would have some inkling of how all the various measured temperatures and all the imputed temperatures ( by far the majority of the data) are combined to give a single number!!!!!After all, that single number is what all the hysteria is about!!

[saltydawg]

I want to hear it from YOU! You're always on here ranting about "100%" facts and making absolute statements that GW (BTW, what is "A"GW????) is so certain. I would think that you would have some inkling of how all the various measured temperatures and all the imputed temperatures ( by far the majority of the data) are combined to give a single number!!!!!After all, that single number is what all the hysteria is about!!

I think you need to slug it out with spinoza.

Duck Bill will tell you what the "A" in AGW stands for since he was the first to use it here.

[NTXDawg]

Saltydawg

How would you explain global warming on Mars?

[Dawgbitten]

Saltydawg

How would you explain global warming on Mars?

Well, if my family and I lived on Mars, I might be concerned.

Since some of you chose to question hard science on this planet, where are all of these temperature readings coming from on Mars? How was this determined?