Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Assessing the accuracy of ice-core CO2 records
Greenie Watch ^ | 12-25-2010 | David Middleton

Posted on 12/26/2010 8:48:45 AM PST by steveab

Assessing the accuracy of ice-core CO2 records

In the excerpt below, David Middleton points out large problems with ice-core data and suggests that fossil Plant Stomata give a much more accurate account of past CO2 levels -- an account that gives no support for Warmism at all and which in fact supports the obvious physics of the matter: Warming causes higher CO2 levels rather than vice versa

(Excerpt) Read more at antigreen.blogs.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Education; Science
KEYWORDS: catastrophism; co2; globalwarming; godsgravesglyphs
It seems that using plants to determine levels of CO2 is much better than ice core data. "Plant stomata suggest that the pre-industrial CO2 levels were commonly in the 360 to 390ppmv range."
1 posted on 12/26/2010 8:48:46 AM PST by steveab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: steveab

Lets run this past Hadley and see what they think..


2 posted on 12/26/2010 8:51:03 AM PST by Red Badger (Whenever these vermin call you an 'idiot', you can be sure that you are doing to something right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steveab; neverdem; narses; steelyourfaith

Now, now. You’re not allowed to combat the “scientiferrific” official opinion of the Obama’s/UN/IPCC/EU official tax-increasing (and did I mention the official opinion of the Obama administration “and”’ the ever-so-reliable Supreme Court and EPA?)


3 posted on 12/26/2010 8:51:42 AM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steveab

Please pass this on to your local elected council members, school boards and community leaders. The “CO2 dives the climate” EPA’s regulations has got to be stop.


4 posted on 12/26/2010 8:54:49 AM PST by steveab (When was the last time someone tried to sell you a CO2 induced climate control system for your home?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steveab

The data that Gore used in “an inconvenient truth” also supports the fact that CO2 is a function of warmer temperatures rather than the inverse.

Gore simply altered the sample points to lower the resolution of the data in order to “suggest” that temperature was a function of CO2.


5 posted on 12/26/2010 8:55:47 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steveab
Related...

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

ABSTRACT:

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [historically] is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause [historically -etl]. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
_______________________________________________________________


6 posted on 12/26/2010 9:04:20 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steveab

If I recall correctly, Al Gore used a sample rate of one data point per million years on his ice core data.

Use a sample rate of one data point per 100 years and the same cor samples clearly show that temperature “leads” CO2 levels rising by approximately 800 years.

Therefore, increased levels of CO2 are a function of warmer temperatures and not the inverse.

This is logical, because warmer temperatures would lead to increased plant grow and increased populations of animals that depend on that plant growth for food.
Then when this organic material decays, it produces....Voila! CO2..


7 posted on 12/26/2010 9:06:41 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steveab
These idiotic words are from the article...

Gas doesn't tend to migrate downward through sediment. Being less dense than rock and water, it migrates upward.

The fact is that gases, as with all other elements and elememt combinations, have atomic weights; and those gases lighter than air will rise in air ... and vice versa.

Shipyard workers must KNOW this fact, because industrial gases (refrigerants, in particular) released inside a ship's hull might drop and push out all air inside the hull; thereby killing the workers.

8 posted on 12/26/2010 9:08:46 AM PST by OldNavyVet (One trillion days, at 365 days per year, is 2,739,726,027 years ... almost 3 billion years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL
Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy

Bingo! The data PROVES IT!

9 posted on 12/26/2010 9:09:19 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: steveab
How can any scientific measurement be made with out the balance of emotional opinion from Whoopi 'cushion' Goldberg, or Chris 'the tingle' Matthews?

Contemporary practice demands that any issue worthy of more than a one line discussion must be immediately divided on partisan judgment. Regardless of how real or trivial the point may be if a prominent conservative supports it, the left must immediately be against it and visa-versa. Even the life and death debate of Terri Schiavo was split by party loyalty. It is just bizarre that we are defying intelligence by letting majority media polling decide whether up is really down, fish are more important than people or, cold is really hot.

10 posted on 12/26/2010 9:11:00 AM PST by Baynative (Truth is treason in an empire of lies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steveab

links don’t work....!?!?!


11 posted on 12/26/2010 9:11:00 AM PST by G Larry (When you're right, avoid compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steveab
From JunkScience.com...

So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds [clouds of course aren't gas, but high level ones do act to trap heat from escaping, while low-lying cumulus clouds tend to reflect sunlight and thereby help cool the planet -etl]. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
_______________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
_______________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change

ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2008) — Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm

12 posted on 12/26/2010 9:14:32 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
These idiotic words are from the article...

Gas doesn't tend to migrate downward through sediment. Being less dense than rock and water, it migrates upward.

The fact is that gases, as with all other elements and elememt combinations, have atomic weights; and those gases lighter than air will rise in air ... and vice versa.

What does the weight of gases relative to air have to do with their weight relative to rock and water?

13 posted on 12/26/2010 9:16:19 AM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

>>links don’t work....!?!?!

Try these...

The first links to the article at the top (scroll down page for it), the second link, I think, to the source of the info for the article.

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2010/12/very-selective-precautionary-principle.html

http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/12/25/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata-wuwt/


14 posted on 12/26/2010 9:21:25 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Interestingly, even when CO2 levels rise (naturally via warming oceans), the additional CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t lead to any additional warming, the so-called “runaway greenhouse effect” Al Gore tries to scare kids about. The ice core record shows this clearly.


15 posted on 12/26/2010 9:30:03 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: steveab

Ha! This is an important result. Finally some evidence to counter the CO2 haters. Warming causes CO2. He He he... Those idiots. Hadley will of course say this is wrong. They are banking on the ice core analysis that they’ve done and will fight this tooth and nail.


16 posted on 12/26/2010 9:33:20 AM PST by marmot84
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL

Yup.

All of the global warming pundits ignore the basic data and try to wallow in minutia as a way to get the focus of of the dominant basic data.


17 posted on 12/26/2010 9:35:37 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Sorry, try http://antigreen.blogspot.com


18 posted on 12/26/2010 9:40:51 AM PST by steveab (When was the last time someone tried to sell you a CO2 induced climate control system for your home?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bob
What does the weight of gases relative to air have to do with their weight relative to rock and water?

From a Cal-Tech entrance exam ...

Picture a gas filled balloon suspended in midair inside a constant velocity moving train boxcar. When the train slows down, will the ballon move forward or backward?

19 posted on 12/26/2010 9:49:21 AM PST by OldNavyVet (One trillion days, at 365 days per year, is 2,739,726,027 years ... almost 3 billion years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: marmot84

Water vapor plays an overwhelmingly large role in the greenhouse effect, accounting for something like 95% of it. See my earlier post above on the subject.


20 posted on 12/26/2010 9:52:02 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Yep!

I was hauled off to the hospital with CO2 poisoning I got whle working in the very bottom of a hydroelectric power plant underground cavern. CO2 is heavier than air (O2 & N2) and had accumulated down there.


21 posted on 12/26/2010 9:54:51 AM PST by BwanaNdege ("a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites" - Charles Krauthammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE; meyer; Normandy; Whenifhow; TenthAmendmentChampion; Clive; scripter; ...
Thanx Robert A. Cook, PE !

 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

22 posted on 12/26/2010 10:37:53 AM PST by steelyourfaith (ObamaCare Death Panels: a Final Solution to the looming Social Security crisis ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
From a Cal-Tech entrance exam ...

Picture a gas filled balloon suspended in midair inside a constant velocity moving train boxcar. When the train slows down, will the ballon move forward or backward?

What the heck are you talking about? The original statement you objected to talked about the weights of gases relative to rock and water, not other gases.

Incidentally, I would expect that the mass of the rubber in the balloon and the string would tend to make the balloon move forward due to its inertia.

23 posted on 12/26/2010 10:54:21 AM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: steveab

Here is the simple, simple rebuttal to CO2 driven warming.

1. The oceans give off CO2 as they warm and absorb CO2 as they cool.
2. The oceans are the principal well for all CO2.
3. IF CO2 was a significant driver of temperature, the Earth would drive to one extreme or the other (with the maximum amount of CO2 released or absorbed) and stay at that extreme with no way to get back. In fact, it would be impossible for the earth to stay at any equilibrium in the middle.


24 posted on 12/26/2010 11:18:28 AM PST by SampleMan (If all of the people currently oppressed shared a common geography, bullets would already be flying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

I would think it would work the other way around.

Othewise, we would have had a runaway move into one extreme or the other by now.


25 posted on 12/26/2010 11:23:41 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mylife
Gore simply altered the sample points to lower the resolution of the data in order to “suggest” that temperature was a function of CO2.


Gore also used some slight of hand....when comparing data sets on a time graph, data lines are never juxtaposed....they are always overlayed, and the lines are given different colors or textures. This allows for immediate observation of how and when the lines on the chart cross or diverge. This would immediately show that CO2 driven climate temperature is utter nonsense, the facts on the table show the opposite of what is being represented by Gore and his legions of Gorons, and the whole CO2-Greenhouse effect GW theory is absolute bunk.
26 posted on 12/26/2010 11:29:05 AM PST by rottndog (Be Prepared for what's coming AFTER America....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rottndog

In other words:

Gore is a flat out charlatan.


27 posted on 12/26/2010 11:32:24 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mylife

yup.


28 posted on 12/26/2010 11:33:39 AM PST by rottndog (Be Prepared for what's coming AFTER America....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Bob
the mass of the rubber in the balloon and the string would tend to make the balloon move forward due to its inertia.

Correct on the string; incorrect on the balloon .

You can test it yourself with a helium filled balloon inside a closed vehicle.

Centrally locate a balloon in a moving car, step on the brakes ... and the balloon will move backwards. What causes it to happen is the air inside the vehicle moves forward, thereby increasing air pressure in the front and lowering air pressure in the back ... and that floating balloon will float toward the lower pressure.

29 posted on 12/26/2010 11:33:58 AM PST by OldNavyVet (One trillion days, at 365 days per year, is 2,739,726,027 years ... almost 3 billion years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Interesting, but what has that got to do with the weight of gases relative to rock and water (in the article) versus the weight of gases relative to air (in your comment on it)?


30 posted on 12/26/2010 12:24:57 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Bob
These idiotic words are from the article...

Gas doesn't tend to migrate downward through sediment. Being less dense than rock and water, it migrates upward.

You and the idiot author don't seem to realize that some gases are heavier than air; and that such gases are quite capable of migrating downward through air, or downward through rocks via holes and crevices, or into liquids via absorbtion.

31 posted on 12/26/2010 1:07:07 PM PST by OldNavyVet (One trillion days, at 365 days per year, is 2,739,726,027 years ... almost 3 billion years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
I would think it would work the other way around. Othewise, we would have had a runaway move into one extreme or the other by now.

Hot water can't keep as much gas in solution, thus colder water equals more trapped CO2 and warmer equals more released CO2.

This is not disputed by the AGW crowd. In fact, they trumpet the fact that the warmer seas will release CO2 and create a runaway effect. What they don't explain is why this hasn't already happened in one direction or another during the Earth's long history and how it could possibly come back from one extreme.

This is truly the stake through the heart of AGW. If CO2 was a driver, the oceans would ensure that CO2 would go to one extreme and stay there.

32 posted on 12/26/2010 1:09:15 PM PST by SampleMan (If all of the people currently oppressed shared a common geography, bullets would already be flying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
You and the idiot author don't seem to realize that some gases are heavier than air; and that such gases are quite capable of migrating downward through air, or downward through rocks via holes and crevices, or into liquids via absorbtion.

In the meantime, you don't seem to realize that any holes and crevices in and between rocks underwater tend to be filled with water. Only a minuscule amount of air, if any, will be found in them.

Your continuing to evade the point that was being made is getting rather tiresome. I'm done.

33 posted on 12/26/2010 1:35:39 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
"This is truly the stake through the heart of AGW. If CO2 was a driver, the oceans would ensure that CO2 would go to one extreme and stay there."

Yes, I would agree that finding has falsified CO2-based AGW. Now they'll have to find some other culprit to justify AGW. Well, not as long as they ignore the science of it, but eventually.

34 posted on 12/26/2010 4:32:51 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 75thOVI; aimhigh; Alice in Wonderland; AndrewC; aragorn; aristotleman; Avoiding_Sulla; BBell; ...
David Middleton points out large problems with ice-core data and suggests that fossil Plant Stomata give a much more accurate account of past CO2 levels
Thanks steveab.
 
Catastrophism
 
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·
 

35 posted on 12/26/2010 4:34:17 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: steveab; StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; 1010RD; 21twelve; 24Karet; 2ndDivisionVet; ...

· GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach ·
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·

 
 Antiquity Journal
 & archive
 Archaeologica
 Archaeology
 Archaeology Channel
 BAR
 Bronze Age Forum
 Discover
 Dogpile
 Eurekalert
 Google
 LiveScience
 Mirabilis.ca
 Nat Geographic
 PhysOrg
 Science Daily
 Science News
 Texas AM
 Yahoo
 Excerpt, or Link only?
 


Thanks steveab. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
 

· History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword ·
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·


36 posted on 12/26/2010 4:45:09 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ETL

So is water vapor the primary cause of Global Warming? I thought it was CO2?


37 posted on 12/26/2010 8:46:23 PM PST by marmot84
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: steveab

I can’t find the article referenced. Has the post been taken down?


38 posted on 12/26/2010 11:01:49 PM PST by WePledge (Semper Fidelis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steveab

Found some local history to prove it was warmer in the past.

We use to have alligators in our river.

http://sgrivertexas.blogspot.com/


39 posted on 12/27/2010 5:05:48 AM PST by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; All

Here is a link about our year of catastrophic/bad weather that you might want to post separately.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/19/2010-natural-disaster-photos/


40 posted on 12/28/2010 12:53:01 PM PST by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin

Not a bad idea! Here’s an easy to use link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post_article?forum=chat;keywords=catastrophism;topics=astronomy,%20science

:’)


41 posted on 12/28/2010 6:49:33 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson