| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6308 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
 Fri Jul 03, 2015 7:23 am |
|
|
For the uneducated, you have no excuse now. These links should tell you everything you would need to know to answer your questions. If you still don't understand the relationship of this methodology (and climate modeling as that is within these links as well) I can only assume you choose to remain ignorant and have political motivation.
Methodology of ice core studies and how they can be related to climate:
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/
The relationship of CO2 and temperature in glacial cores:
| Quote: | | The role of greenhouse gases in glacial-interglacial cycles
From the air in our oldest Antarctic ice core, we can see that CO2 changed in a remarkably similar way to Antarctic climate, with low concentrations during cold times, and high concentrations during warm periods (see Fig. 3 overleaf). This is entirely consistent with the idea that temperature and CO2 are intimately linked, and each acts to amplify changes in the other (what we call a positive feedback). It is believed that the warmings out of glacial periods are paced by changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun, but the tiny changes in climate this should cause are amplified, mainly by the resulting increase in CO2, and by the retreat of sea ice and ice sheets (which leads to less sunlight being reflected away). Looking at the warming out of the last glacial period in detail, we can see how remarkably closely Antarctic temperature and CO2 tracked each other. It is often said that the temperature ‘leads’ the CO2 during the warming out of a glacial period. On the most recent records, there is a hint that the temperature started to rise slightly (at most a few tenths of a degree) before the CO2, as expected if changes in Earth’s orbit cause an initial small warming. But for most of the 6,000-year long ‘transition’, Antarctic temperature and CO2 rose
together, consistent with the role of CO2 as an important amplifier of climate change (see Fig. 4 overleaf). In our modern era, of course, it is human emissions of CO2 that are expected to kick-start the sequence of events. We see no examples in the ice core record of a major increase in CO2 that was not accompanied by an increase in temperature. Methane concentration also tracks the glacial-interglacial changes, probably because there were less wetlands in the colder, drier glacial periods. |
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/journalists/resources/science/ice_cores_and_climate_change_briefing-sep10.pdf
Tree ring dendrochronology:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/tree-ring
The reliability and precision of ice core methodology. An exhaustive historical look at the basis for the methodology, methods of cross-referencing data using multiple variables and locations, and a listing of all important scientific work in this field up to 2010:
http://www.igsoc.org:8080/journal/56/200/j10j201.pdf
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12830 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Fri Jul 03, 2015 10:05 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | For the uneducated, you have no excuse now. |
yeah.. I do... I don't think I like your attitude, so I won't be clicking your links.
you are free to assume any goddam thing you like.
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cefire
Member
Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 523 | TRs | Pics
|
|
cefire
Member
|
Fri Jul 03, 2015 10:27 am |
|
|
| gb wrote: | | For the uneducated, you have no valid excuse now. |
fixed 
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6308 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:20 am |
|
|
| Ski wrote: | | Quote: | | For the uneducated, you have no excuse now. |
yeah.. I do... I don't think I like your attitude, so I won't be clicking your links.
you are free to assume any goddam thing you like. |
You just proved it. You choose to remain Ignorant. Go on blustering if you must but your arguments will not be credible.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:23 pm |
|
|
Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans
| Quote: | | MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report) – Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life, a sobering new study reports.
The research, conducted by the University of Minnesota, identifies a virulent strain of humans who are virtually immune to any form of verifiable knowledge, leaving scientists at a loss as to how to combat them.
“These humans appear to have all the faculties necessary to receive and process information,” Davis Logsdon, one of the scientists who contributed to the study, said. “And yet, somehow, they have developed defenses that, for all intents and purposes, have rendered those faculties totally inactive.”
More worryingly, Logsdon said, “As facts have multiplied, their defenses against those facts have only grown more powerful.”
While scientists have no clear understanding of the mechanisms that prevent the fact-resistant humans from absorbing data, they theorize that the strain may have developed the ability to intercept and discard information en route from the auditory nerve to the brain. “The normal functions of human consciousness have been completely nullified,” Logsdon said.
While reaffirming the gloomy assessments of the study, Logsdon held out hope that the threat of fact-resistant humans could be mitigated in the future. “Our research is very preliminary, but it’s possible that they will become more receptive to facts once they are in an environment without food, water, or oxygen,” he said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cohokiller
Member
Joined: 18 May 2015
Posts: 462 | TRs | Pics
|
| Quote: | | Past air temperatures
It is possible to discern past air temperatures from ice cores. This can be related directly to concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gasses preserved in the ice. Snow precipitation over Antarctica is made mostly of H216O molecules (99.7%). There are also rarer stable isotopes: H218O (0.2%) and HD16O (0.03%) (D is Deuterium, or 2H)[9]. Isotopic concentrations are expressed in per mil δ units (δD and δ18O) with respect to Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (V-SMOW). Past precipitation can be used to reconstruct past palaeoclimatic temperatures. δD and δ18O is related to surface temperature at middle and high latitudes. The relationship is consistent and linear over Antarctica[9]. |
How are they able to infer the average temperature in North America down to + or -1 degree from a 5000 year old ice core sample from antarctica based on the amount/type of precipitation and melting and the amount % of greenhouses trapped in the sample?
How would they even tell the air temperature in the immediate vicinity of the ice at that time other than simple cutoffs such as snow/rain or below/above freezing.
In my opinion, the believers believe because they believe anything that points a finger at a certain group as being the problem. I don't believe they have actually studied the information and drawn a logical conclusion. (see disclaimer about being my opinion before responding)
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Fri Jul 03, 2015 10:30 pm |
|
|
| Cohokiller wrote: | | How are they able to infer the average temperature in North America down to + or -1 degree from a 5000 year old ice core sample from antarctica based on the amount/type of precipitation and melting and the amount % of greenhouses trapped in the sample?
How they would even tell the air temperature in the immediate vicinity of the ice at that time other than simple cutoffs such as snow/rain or below/above freezing.
In my opinion, the believers believe because they believe anything that points a finger at certain group as being the problem. I don't they have actually studied the actual information and drawn a logical conclusion. (see disclaimer about being my opinion before responding) |
Maybe that PHD in physics is useful for something. I recall similar arguments being used in atempt to discredit scientific claims that the earth is some 5 billion years old instead of the 5776 year figure provided by the bible.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cohokiller
Member
Joined: 18 May 2015
Posts: 462 | TRs | Pics
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | Maybe that PHD in physics is useful for something. |
In other words you don't know. It's ok to say that rather than trying to be "cute" and "clever" and pretending to know.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6308 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:24 am |
|
|
| Cohokiller wrote: | | How are they able to infer the average temperature in North America down to + or -1 degree from a 5000 year old ice core sample from antarctica based on the amount/type of precipitation and melting and the amount % of greenhouses trapped in the sample? |
Why would that degree of precision for a remote location from the ice core be necessary, anyway. We are talking climatology not daily weather forecasting.
Authors
Jean Jouzel
Institut Pierre Simon Laplace,
Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement UMR CEA-CNRS 1572,
Saclay, Orme des Merisiers,
CEA Saclay, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
DOI
10.3334/CDIAC/cli.007
Period of Record
740,000 years BP-present
Methods
Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (2H) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic fraction of 18O or 2H in precipitation, it is possible to derive temperature records from the records of those isotopes in ice cores.
Deuterium values are expressed as δD, which is defined as:
δD = {[(2H/1H)sample - (2H/1H)V-SMOW] (2H/1H)V-SMOW} X 1000
where (2H/1H)sample is the ratio of deuterium to ordinary hydrogen in sample corresponding to a particular datum, and (2H/1H) V-SMOW is the ratio of deuterium to ordinary hydrogen in Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (V-SMOW).
The deuterium content distribution is well documented over East Antarctica and over a large range of temperatures (-20° to -55° C); there is a linear relationship between the average annual surface temperature and the snow deuterium content. The slope of this δD/surface temperature relationship was found by Jouzel et al. (1993, 1996) and Petit et al. (1999) to be 9°/°° per °C. Further details on the methodology are presented in Jouzel et al. (1987), Lorius et al. (1985), and Petit et al. (1999).
The record presented by Jouzel et al. (1987), based on data in a 2083-meter ice core from the Russian Vostok station in central east Antarctica, was the first such record to span a full glacial-interglacial cycle. Drilling continued at Vostok until January 1998, reaching a depth of 3623 m, and a corresponding time of ~420 kyr BP. More recently, a 740-kyr deuterium record has been extracted from an ice core taken at Dome C (EPICA Community Members, 2004). Deuterium fractions were determined in meltwater from 55-cm long sections of the ice core the surface down to the bottom of the core.
| Quote: | | How would they even tell the air temperature in the immediate vicinity of the ice at that time other than simple cutoffs such as snow/rain or below/above freezing. |
See above. Here is a primer designed for college level education in meteorological sciences (it includes a graph of the relationship between deuterium and temperature):
http://uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/icecore_temp_uwinhs_schoenemann_draft_lowres.pdf
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Sat Jul 04, 2015 9:36 am |
|
|
| Cohokiller wrote: | | In other words you don't know. It's ok to say that rather than trying to be "cute" and "clever" and pretending to know. |
Your post didn't seem like a honest query about ice core dating methods, which is a complex subject that I'm not qualified to explain the details. Since a number of my friends and family are scientists , I know that developing method of measuring all sorts of phenomenon takes a lot of work and study that people dedicate entire careers pursuing.
Based on the tone if your posts I figure that no set of facts will sway your opinion , so why should expect any other than snark responses to your posts?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:56 am |
|
|
| Cohokiller wrote: | | In my opinion, the believers believe because they believe anything that points a finger at a certain group as being the problem. |
Group of chemicals?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cefire
Member
Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 523 | TRs | Pics
|
|
cefire
Member
|
Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:01 pm |
|
|
| Cohokiller wrote: | | RandyHiker wrote: | | Maybe that PHD in physics is useful for something. |
In other words you don't know. It's ok to say that rather than trying to be "cute" and "clever" and pretending to know. |
Indeed, I also do NOT know.
As Randy said, it probably requires a PhD plus postdoctoral training to fully understand. The difference is when I don't know, I trust the people who have trained for years investigating these questions. When you don't know, you trust your intuition (perhaps your intuition has a physics PhD?).
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:56 pm |
|
|
| Ski wrote: | | Quote: | | For the uneducated, you have no excuse now. |
yeah.. I do... I don't think I like your attitude, so I won't be clicking your links. |
This suggests that you don't accept the science because of gb's attitude. Maybe you could clarify if that's not the correct interpretation.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cohokiller
Member
Joined: 18 May 2015
Posts: 462 | TRs | Pics
|
| cefire wrote: | | Indeed, I also do NOT know.
As Randy said, it probably requires a PhD plus postdoctoral training to fully understand. The difference is when I don't know, I trust the people who have trained for years investigating these questions. When you don't know, you trust your intuition (perhaps your intuition has a physics PhD?). |
Quick answer: If you look, they aren't making any such claim about temperatures. They are inferring what global Temps were based on the behavior observed in the sample and then looking at the gh gas makeup and using current models of observed Temps to guess what the global average temp might have been back then.
Definitely not even close to accurate enough when compared to direct measurements at 1000's of sites we have today.
Have you even checked to see if their method gets the Temps correct using samples taken recently?
I know you haven't so why are "believers" so confident? I'm a denier because I have a higher standard of proof.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:36 pm |
|
|
| Cohokiller wrote: | | I'm a denier because I have a higher standard of proof. |
Do you apply the same level of skepticism to "research" that disputes IPCC findings?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
