The North Pole could melt this year

[Chris]

Because they are an imperfect measure of temperature, the difference between the ice age and gas age can be off by 1000 years or more, and they only provide records of local temperature and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. How does a global warming theory show a trend using records of local conditions and a measurement that doesn't show the relationship between temps and gas concentrations for a particular point in time?

The ice cores are used to measure gas concentrations not temperature. The main point being that none of the ice cores had CO2 as high as it is today, and the record goes back 600,000 years!

 

[Chris]

Dee,
I think you made an excellent post!

NASA admits, they do not have enough data to predict anything at the North Pole. Other researchers say it will take years to make any headway.

The sad part about all of this talk is that the heart of it is research funding greed. The scientists that just make up something that fits a political agenda get most of the funding, when the honest scientists looking for reliable data are left with nothing to continue their work.

All of this is about stealing taxpayers money and protecting the environment is not an objective.

Did the North Pole have a "political agenda" when it melted?

 

[Wow]

The ice cores are used to measure gas concentrations not temperature. The main point being that none of the ice cores had CO2 as high as it is today, and the record goes back 600,000 years!

What?
There are no records that go back 600,000 years.
Your attempt to oppress the American people is admirable but try using something with more credibility.

Carbon-14 decays with a halflife of about 5730 years by the emission of an electron of energy 0.016 MeV. This changes the atomic number of the nucleus to 7, producing a nucleus of nitrogen-14. At equilibrium with the atmosphere, a gram of carbon shows an activity of about 15 decays per minute.

The low activity of the carbon-14 limits age determinations to the order of 50,000 years by counting techniques. That can be extended to perhaps 100,000 years by accelerator techniques for counting the carbon-14 concentration.
Carbon Dating

 

[BrianH]

DAMN!!! BITCH SLAP!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYP_MgWF8hw]YouTube - Dave Chapelle, Rick James - Slap baltimore REMIX[/ame]

 

[BrianH]

CO2 was not a factor in every climate change in the past. We know that. But this change has been very rapid and the effects dramatic, and we are pumping out CO2 at a faster and faster rate. CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing twice as fast as it did 40 years ago. In a few years we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

But!!! CO2 is a natural component of the atmosphere. And even though we're going to double it...it still makes up a minority of the atmosphere. It is not the death gas you suggest it does.

 

[BrianH]

I misused a word.

But if you deny CO2 warming. You have to have an answer for why the earth is warming. The scientists say the sun is not the answer. So what is it?

Scientist also say that CO2 is not the answer... It just depends on which scientist you're listening to Kirk. Many scientist have resigned from the IPCC because their reports are censored. The IPCC has left out numerous statements from numerous scientists that studies, in no way, point to man-made global warming...

 

[BrianH]

Natural warming trends caused by what? The sun? The scientists who study the sun say it hasn't changed enough to create the increased temperatures we are seeing.

Kirk,

If you acknowledge that the earth has NATURALLY warmed before, dozens of times without human help...and at different rates...why is it so hard to believe that it's doing it now??? The only difference now, is that there's scientist that actually have the technology to attempt to figure out what's going on. The problem is, is that they've been unable to find any conclusive study that pin-points a direct problem. They only hint at what it "could" be. The earth has had natural warming trends before at different rates of heating and cooling. It's not a hard concept to grab.

 

[BrianH]

They have.

When was the last time the North Pole melted in such a short time?

Not even scientists have a clue of that Kirk...Some people believe the Ice Age came about so fast, that many of the Earth's animals had no time to adapts...and many died. This leads us to believe that RAPID climate change CAN happen.... Why is it so hard to imagine that the earth could heat rapidly as well. This may be the first time the North Pole wil lbe ice free since recorded climate study---but that's not very long Kirk. Also, the ice at the North Pole is only about 2-3 meters thick...very fragile and sensitive to slight temperature changes. And I garauntee you there will be ice there this winter....

 

[Chris]

What?
There are no records that go back 600,000 years.
Your attempt to oppress the American people is admirable but try using something with more credibility.

Carbon-14 decays with a halflife of about 5730 years by the emission of an electron of energy 0.016 MeV. This changes the atomic number of the nucleus to 7, producing a nucleus of nitrogen-14. At equilibrium with the atmosphere, a gram of carbon shows an activity of about 15 decays per minute.

The low activity of the carbon-14 limits age determinations to the order of 50,000 years by counting techniques. That can be extended to perhaps 100,000 years by accelerator techniques for counting the carbon-14 concentration.
Carbon Dating

Sorry to spoil your fantasy, but here is an article about the peer reviewed study in Science magazine...

Greenhouse Gas at 650,000-year High | LiveScience

 

[Chris]

Kirk,

If you acknowledge that the earth has NATURALLY warmed before, dozens of times without human help...and at different rates...why is it so hard to believe that it's doing it now??? The only difference now, is that there's scientist that actually have the technology to attempt to figure out what's going on. The problem is, is that they've been unable to find any conclusive study that pin-points a direct problem. They only hint at what it "could" be. The earth has had natural warming trends before at different rates of heating and cooling. It's not a hard concept to grab.

Because the scientists who study the sun say it is only a fractional component of global warming.

Since we know that CO2 warms the earth, why is it so hard to admit that increasing CO2 by one third will create a dramatic effect?

 

[BrianH]

Because the scientists who study the sun say it is only a fractional component of global warming.

Since we know that CO2 warms the earth, why is it so hard to admit that increasing CO2 by one third will create a dramatic effect?

Kirk, it's no doubt that CO2 is increasing. Nobody is debating the fact that humans are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. THe point is, the earth has done THIS numerous times before without humans pumping anything into the atmosphere.

 

[Wow]

DAMN!!! BITCH SLAP!!!

YouTube - Dave Chapelle, Rick James - Slap baltimore REMIX

These avatars are something Brian Hussein would have in his posts.

 

[Chris]

Kirk, it's no doubt that CO2 is increasing. Nobody is debating the fact that humans are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. THe point is, the earth has done THIS numerous times before without humans pumping anything into the atmosphere.

We are not debating the cause of past changes, we are debating the cause of this change. CO2 is only one component of the change, but the climatologists feel it is the main component.

And we may have done this before, but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than at anytime in the last 600,000 years. And it is going higher all the time.

It will be interesting to see where all this leads. Once the North Pole melts, some of the effects will be accelerated.

 

[Chris]

Not even scientists have a clue of that Kirk...Some people believe the Ice Age came about so fast, that many of the Earth's animals had no time to adapts...and many died. This leads us to believe that RAPID climate change CAN happen.... Why is it so hard to imagine that the earth could heat rapidly as well. This may be the first time the North Pole wil lbe ice free since recorded climate study---but that's not very long Kirk. Also, the ice at the North Pole is only about 2-3 meters thick...very fragile and sensitive to slight temperature changes. And I garauntee you there will be ice there this winter....

We are not debating past changes, we are debating the cause of the current changes. Climatologists have computer models that can predict the effect of raising CO2 by one third. They feel confident that they understand what is going on. Could Nature trump the effect of the rise in CO2? Of course. Is there any evidence that this is happening? I don't think so. The pole continues to melt, the glaciers continue to melt, and the temperatures continue to rise. At what point does this become a problem for us?

 

[Wow]

We are not debating the cause of past changes, we are debating the cause of this change. CO2 is only one component of the change, but the climatologists feel it is the main component.

And we may have done this before, but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than at anytime in the last 600,000 years. And it is going higher all the time.

It will be interesting to see where all this leads. Once the North Pole melts, some of the effects will be accelerated.

I thought carbon taxes would lower C02 levels, what happened?

Maybe these carbon taxes have created so called global cooling in Texas and Alaska?

Why not study 1980 global warming?
That was one of the warmest years on record.

Are you under the impression that high levels of C02 for certain time periods are bad?

Why do C02 levels fluctuate?

 

[Charles_Main]

We are not debating the cause of past changes, we are debating the cause of this change.

now that is an ignorant statement if I ever saw one. How can you debate the current change, but want to exclude the facts of previous changes.

Talk about an unscientific approach.

 

[DeeJ1971]

The ice cores are used to measure gas concentrations not temperature. The main point being that none of the ice cores had CO2 as high as it is today, and the record goes back 600,000 years!

You asked why we need to validate ice core sampling as a scientific method, and later stated that they are only used to show CO2 concentration, not to measure temperature.

1) One of the main points of the now infamous hockey stick graph shown in Al's movie was the direct relation between C02 concentrations and temperatures over the past 650,000 years. In fact, this link is a main "proof" of AGW theory. If you are willing to concede that ice core samples are not/can not be used to measure temperature, then we can assume Al's point on that relation is invalid right away.

2) If AGW theorists are going to continue to use ice core samples to show that CO2 levels have increased due to human intervention, then they need to be able to prove two things. A) The date of a sample with a reasonable tolerance for time (i.e. a sample advertised as being from a certain date would probably need to be from that actual date +/- ten years in order to show human intervention in climate change). B) The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at the time of the sample.

Very few, if any, measurements go back in time as far as ice core samples. Therefore, without any VALIDATION, the time tolerance and CO2 accuracy of very old ice core samples is mere theory, not proof. What if the dating used in ice core samples is off by 10s, 100s, or 1000s of years? (dating inaccuracies have already shown to be off by 200 to over 1000 years). What if the CO2 levels in an air pocket of an ice core sample deteriorate over large spaces of time?

From my understanding, they have been validated by data actually taken at that time for about the past 40 years. A reasonable person might grant that the same levels of inaccuracy PROVEN over the past 40 years could be EXTRAPOLATED out to 100 years. To assume that those levels of inaccuracy hold steady for 650,000 years is theory.

Nothing else goes back 650,000 years to validate the level of accuracy of CO2 concentration found in the ice cores. We are making policy decisions that will impoverish millions of people. These decisions are only justified if the apocalyptic predictions based on a stand alone theory are true. How sure do you want to be?

 

[DeeJ1971]

But!!! CO2 is a natural component of the atmosphere. And even though we're going to double it...it still makes up a minority of the atmosphere. It is not the death gas you suggest it does.

And aren't negative feedbacks in nature PROPORTIONAL? In other words, the more CO2 that gets put into the atmosphere, the more those negative feedbacks counterbalance it.

 

[Charles_Main]

You asked why we need to validate ice core sampling as a scientific method, and later stated that they are only used to show CO2 concentration, not to measure temperature.

1) One of the main points of the now infamous hockey stick graph shown in Al's movie was the direct relation between C02 concentrations and temperatures over the past 650,000 years. In fact, this link is a main "proof" of AGW theory. If you are willing to concede that ice core samples are not/can not be used to measure temperature, then we can assume Al's point on that relation is invalid right away.

2) If AGW theorists are going to continue to use ice core samples to show that CO2 levels have increased due to human intervention, then they need to be able to prove two things. A) The date of a sample with a reasonable tolerance for time (i.e. a sample advertised as being from a certain date would probably need to be from that actual date +/- ten years in order to show human intervention in climate change). B) The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at the time of the sample.

Very few, if any, measurements go back in time as far as ice core samples. Therefore, without any VALIDATION, the time tolerance and CO2 accuracy of very old ice core samples is mere theory, not proof. What if the dating used in ice core samples is off by 10s, 100s, or 1000s of years? (dating inaccuracies have already shown to be off by 200 to over 1000 years). What if the CO2 levels in an air pocket of an ice core sample deteriorate over large spaces of time?

From my understanding, they have been validated by data actually taken at that time for about the past 40 years. A reasonable person might grant that the same levels of inaccuracy PROVEN over the past 40 years could be EXTRAPOLATED out to 100 years. To assume that those levels of inaccuracy hold steady for 650,000 years is theory.

Nothing else goes back 650,000 years to validate the level of accuracy of CO2 concentration found in the ice cores. We are making policy decisions that will impoverish millions of people. These decisions are only justified if the apocalyptic predictions based on a stand alone theory are true. How sure do you want to be?

Great post, and to answer your question, I want to be very sure

 

[Chris]

You asked why we need to validate ice core sampling as a scientific method, and later stated that they are only used to show CO2 concentration, not to measure temperature.

1) One of the main points of the now infamous hockey stick graph shown in Al's movie was the direct relation between C02 concentrations and temperatures over the past 650,000 years. In fact, this link is a main "proof" of AGW theory. If you are willing to concede that ice core samples are not/can not be used to measure temperature, then we can assume Al's point on that relation is invalid right away.

2) If AGW theorists are going to continue to use ice core samples to show that CO2 levels have increased due to human intervention, then they need to be able to prove two things. A) The date of a sample with a reasonable tolerance for time (i.e. a sample advertised as being from a certain date would probably need to be from that actual date +/- ten years in order to show human intervention in climate change). B) The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at the time of the sample.

Very few, if any, measurements go back in time as far as ice core samples. Therefore, without any VALIDATION, the time tolerance and CO2 accuracy of very old ice core samples is mere theory, not proof. What if the dating used in ice core samples is off by 10s, 100s, or 1000s of years? (dating inaccuracies have already shown to be off by 200 to over 1000 years). What if the CO2 levels in an air pocket of an ice core sample deteriorate over large spaces of time?

From my understanding, they have been validated by data actually taken at that time for about the past 40 years. A reasonable person might grant that the same levels of inaccuracy PROVEN over the past 40 years could be EXTRAPOLATED out to 100 years. To assume that those levels of inaccuracy hold steady for 650,000 years is theory.

Nothing else goes back 650,000 years to validate the level of accuracy of CO2 concentration found in the ice cores. We are making policy decisions that will impoverish millions of people. These decisions are only justified if the apocalyptic predictions based on a stand alone theory are true. How sure do you want to be?

Who said anything about Al Gore's movie? We are talking about the cause of the current global warming, not some movie which I have never seen.

There is no need to test the validity of the ice core samples because they are testing the actual air from ancient eras.

Nice try though.