ddoubleez

That is not how ice cores work at all..... Gases or liquids are trapped and you can measure the gas compisition when it is released... They also check various elements for decay, like carbon dating....

The lenth of them is due to a very high spacific heat which is unique to water.... The lag time is aprox 55 years...........



The oceans are warmer now than they were in the 1950s, but hold much more co2, due to the fact that there is more co2 in the atmosphere.... This is changing the PH of the oceans and is driving a dieoff in the oceans... Current 'sea food' populations and 10% of their numbers 75 years ago... Coral are disolving............

Lastly, we use mud cores in addition to icecores, and those do not get heated.... And get the same results....

ravenshrike

http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm


Don't know what I'm talking about indeed.

Note the presence of liquid water invalidates CO2 measurements.

ddoubleez

As I said, they use mud core samples, in addition, they can determine co2 concentrations for time periods by examining fossils of plants and by measuring the number of pours specifically designed to absorb co2..... There are dozens more ways of determining co2 levels as well...... Rings in trees will also help.......

If you had only one way to determine co2 levels and nothing to collaborate these calculations you could be right, but when you have dozens of pieces of data collabotating what the mud cores, ice core, fossil records, mineral deposits, etc, you should question your source that is trying to discredit a very sound methodology of calculating atmospheric composition.......
And again, can you come up with a global warming period that did not have high levels of co2????

And next, can you explain how you can dump billions of tons of gasses into the atmosphere, annually, and expect no changes?

And a little info on the author of the post you copied a link to:

Jaworowski is a global warming skeptic.

His works on ice cores were published in Jaworowski (1994, 1992) and in reports Jaworowski (1990, 1992).





You also need to understand that this man is not arguing that there is not link between co2 and warming, he is trying to say that the co2 now is nearly the same as co2 before 1850!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The amount of co2 has increased by nearly 35 parts per billion in my lifetime, which would lead a pre-schooler to believe he is wrong..........

Also, if this guy is who you are relying on, he is trying to say we are heading to a cooling of the planet, and he maybe right..... And it does not matter, a drastic change in climate in either direction will make the planet hostile to the life that has been evolving for the past 90 million years............

Lastly, I never said you do not know what you are talking about, I only asked for more information..............

ravenshrike

Um, no, he's not saying that CO2 levels have stayed the same at all. Rather, he's saying that the 1800's measure is flawed, and presents his reasoning for such an argument, something you have failed to do in attempting to refute him(unless you're willing to explain why Callendar cherry picked his measurements) as well as the fact that the low levels were not constant as the stomata records from the Holocene show. In point of fact, the stomata records for plants we have current live examples of all disagree with the ice core measurements. Also, mud, it's made of dirt and liquid water. This means that any chemical reactions present in ice core data, are also present in mud core data.

ddoubleez

Thank you for bringing up Callendar, because Jaworowski actually has the spectacular brass to take a figure from a paper that agreed with Callendar’s choice of data, redraw it and offer it as evidence that Callendar was biased!


Now lets look at you article in depth.....

1) I can find no evidence that Jaworowski gave testimony before the US Senate on March 19, 2004!!!!!!!! This is the first problem with the paper, and it has not even started!

2) When we look for Jaworowski in the literature, he seems never to have done any primary research on the extraction and measurement of gases in ice. Later on, Jaworowski says that climate researchers’ motives are suspect. But when it suits his purposes, he is happy to claim to be a climate researcher.

3) Mulvaney, Wolff and Oates were reporting on concentrations of H2SO4 in extremely tiny volumes at the boundaries between ice crystals. Many of Jaworowski’s claims reveal a lack of understanding of the relevant chemistry, but it is unlikely that even he believes that significant quantities of CO2 are dissolved in these interstitial volumes.

4) Jaworowski describes the clathrate transformation in a fundamentally misleading way. With increasing depth and pressure, the air bubbles trapped in the ice are steadily compressed. Clathrates appear at depths of several hundred meters (700 - 1300m for GRIP), and coexist with air bubbles over a wide range of depths, until all air bubbles disappear reported that “air bubbles disappeared completely between 1500 and 1600m. Upon decompression, the clathrate crystals revert to gas, with the bubbles expanding as the ice relaxes. These physical processes, as well as the fractionation Jaworowski describes, have been extensively studied, and are routinely taken into account in reconstructing atmospheric records from ice cores.

5) Jaworowski knows perfectly well that drilling fluids, for example butyl acetate, are chosen to have minimal interaction with the studies that will be performed; also, that sample handling is a well worked-out technique and is conducted with excruciating care. Most of these developments were in place long before Jaworowski wrote his 1994 paper, as Hans Oeschger reminded him at that time. That he continues to spread this falsehood is disgraceful.

6) Jaworowski eludes on that clathrate crystals “explode”, presumably fracturing the samples beyond usefulness. He cites Shoji and Langway (1983) as support for the statement “In the bubble-free ice the explosions form a new gas cavities and new cracks.” But what Shoji and Langway actually observed was the expansion of pre-existing bubbles, and new bubbles from air hydrate inclusions, over a period of days — in what would have to qualify as one of the most languid “explosions” on record.

7) It is puzzling that Jaworowski makes claims that are so easily checked and shown to be untrue. CO2 levels vary widely within deep cores, and are well correlated with climatic changes, as indicated by independent measures such as (for example) the type and composition of organic residue in ocean sediments.

8) The CO2 record from Siple, Antarctica shows an increase from 275 ppm to 315 ppm from around 1750 to 1950 AD. Atmospheric measurements beginning in 1958 agree well with those from the ice cores, reinforcing the conclusion that CO2 has indeed been rising over the last two centuries. But Jaworowski argues that the lower concentrations of CO2 with increasing depth and age should actually be seen as a reduction in CO2 concentrations with increasing depth and pressure. The Siple data to which he refers could be interpreted either way, since CO2 continues to drop all the way down to the lowest level sampled. Jaworowski’s vague theory of CO2 concentration in ice cores being determined by depth has a superficial plausibility, which is why he invoked it in connection to Siple. But it won’t stand up to scrutiny, which is why he doesn’t dwell on it.

9) The experiments demonstrating the age of the firn-ice transition, and of the air trapped above and below that depth, have been quite successful, a fact Jaworowski has been diligently ignoring at least since 1992.

10) There are huge problem with Jaworowski's study of stomatal frequency,this is one of the few new arguments — that is, not just warmed over from the 1992 paper — made in this statement. Unfortunately for Jaworowski, it is bogus. In fact, studies of stomatal response to CO2 concentration across several species have shown “Without evolutionary changes, SI and SD may not respond to atmospheric [CO2] in the field and are unlikely to decrease in a future high CO2 world.” In other words, stomatal frequency does not change quickly enough to reveal the rapid changes Jaworowski claims occurred.

11) Jaworowski’s contempt for climatologists, and his true purpose in writing this paper, become clearer as he approaches its end. He offers zero evidence that there has been “[i]mproper manipulation, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming … in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases.” In fact, the very papers that he cites afford powerful evidence to the contrary. Yet he feels comfortable in making this blanket condemnation of a discipline, because he has support from Zbigniew Jaworowski, of course! In citing (yet again) his 1992 and 1994 papers, he displays a certain pride in having “exposed” all the bad behavior in the climate science community. But his pride may be misplaced, considering that the only comment ESPR published regarding his 1994 paper said that it “deserves little attention.”

12) Among Jaworowski’s citations, this is my very favorite. Jaworowski knows he has a problem when the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field do not believe as he does. He is not the first to notice this, so he does what others have done in the same situation: he implies that climate researchers are all biased in the same direction because they slurp from the same trough. This an implausible accusation on its face (there is more money to be made arguing the other side); moreover, there is no evidence to support it. Nevertheless, Jaworowski asserts boldly that outsiders are far more reliable than the experts corrupted by the fount of government money, and who does he offer as an example? The gang that couldn’t compute straight!
When choosing an authority to counter the accepted ones in an observational science, it is usually smart to pick one that can tell the difference between degrees and radians.

ravenshrike

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

? Really? More money to be made arguing against CO2 driven global warming? I'm gonna have to see cites for this, because the last time I checked entire industries have sprung up about the reverse being assumed true, notwithstanding all the government money being thrown at it since the '70s. One or two people making more money is by and far not any kind of evidence that more money is being made.