But in this modern era, even a big (Pinatubo) eruption only causes a short cooling period. Now, if we could initiate a new flood basalt episode...
(There may be some drawbacks to the implementation of that idea.)
Posted on 11/29/2005 1:00:49 PM PST by cogitator
I don't think that's accurate at all. One of the main reasons these guys do the coring is with the knowledge that they want to accurately measure the concentration of trace gases in the trapped bubbles. By making the statement you're making above, you're impugning the methodology of an entire community of scientists that has being doing this type of study for years. That's very bold of you. While I admire your audacity, I'd have to consider your comment as having little support until you published a critique addressing their methodology.
Right now, industry produces 10 times more atmosphereic Carbon Dioxide per year than volcanoes do, so pollution has been producing more CO2 than volcanoes for quite some time.
And, of course, volcanoes produce huge amounts of Sulfur Dioxide, which blocks sunlight and cools the earth, so overall volcanic eruptions tend to cool the earth.
Does it? If so, how large part of the total Earth emission of CO2 the industry makes, do you know by any chance?
But in this modern era, even a big (Pinatubo) eruption only causes a short cooling period. Now, if we could initiate a new flood basalt episode...
(There may be some drawbacks to the implementation of that idea.)
This research must be fundamentally flawed. A good test might compare gas from old ice to gas in new ice. But they are saying that the glaciers are retreating. If the ice is retreating, there is no way to capture current ice samples to compare the history to. So they are comparing gases stored in old ice to gases sampled some other way. Sounds like bad science to me.
Water vapor is a climate feedback, not a climate forcing. As the global temperature warms, relative humidity will increase. The reason water vapor is a feedback is the high variability of water vapor concentration in the atmosphere.
Well, the Russian Academy of Sciences does not agree with you and, nothing personal, but for this subject I will go with their analyses.
Granted, ice core sampling today complies with the guidelines that you suggest, but the older cores, which were never intended for that type of test were initally and erroneously used to validate the "man-is-at-fault" faith.
They set out to find proof and, lo and behold, they found it!
200 years ago we had no weather data. Hell, even 50 years ago our weather data globally was suspect.
The newest core is from a site in Antarctica, and they are comparing its results to results from other sites.
I thought the main intent of seeking these samples was the organisms--"extremophiles", etc.--although I felt a bit eirie about thawing out ancient bacteria...
Actually I was mistaken; Industry actually contributes a lot more than 10 times as much CO2 as volcanoes...
It's actually 10 billion tons of CO2 a year from human activity, only 110 million tons a year from volcanoes, or somewhere in the vicinity of 100 times more CO2 from human activity.
You don't need a "current ice sample"...you can just sample the atmosphere directly.
I don't understand what you mean about glaciers retreating; these are ice caps, not glaciers, and they're drilling in the center of them where they're not melting.
How far back does "today" go? I.e., has Lonnie Thompson been doing it right since he started collecting cores on far-flung peaks? Is the Siple Dome data good, or flawed? I will assume that the Vostok core data is good, since it's been collected in the past decade with climate study at the forefront.
What would be of interest is what cores/studies the Russian Academy of Sciences considers erroneous -- and whether or not data from these cores is still utilized in paleoclimate analyses and modeling.
The new site for the old sample, which still may be comparing apples to oranges. Excuse my ignorance, but are gas concentrations uniform around the globe at all times? Also, the main point I was trying to make is that there are no new ice samples, because it’s melting, right?
Gas concentrations are fairly uniform around the globe. CO2 varies seasonally, but the bubble samples don't have that level of resolution.
There are still places where ice is accumulating, such as the center of Greenland. The ice edges on Greenland are retreating (it appears).
That might not be a good comparison. The conditions whereby air bubble get captured in ice need to be controlled or accounted for a good experiment.
It's not melting everywhere, just on the edges.
You are still accumulating yearly ice layers in the middle of Greenland and Antarctica every year.
It would mean almost two tons of CO2 by person per year or 10 pounds per person per day. How large part of natural emissions people produce, I wonder.
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.