Global Warming?

[Combustix]

We've been here that long!

I think we have overstayed our welcome:laughing:

 

[EE_Bota]

That explains your post...

I wound up, when people were inquiring "did anyone read the last two lines" thinking about the first lines...having to do with "wobble." Maybe we need to drop discussion of CO2 and start discussion of "wobble" since that was the precursor event.

 

[EE_Bota]

How nice that there are some who notice this. Alas, it will be flushed to the wayside in the great omnipresent current of exaggeration and erroneous extrapolation.
larry

I don't understand the ice core data that well yet, I admit. But they must be a form of extrapolation, but you guys in the know about them are pretty sure it is not erroneous extrapolation, I take it.

 

[EE_Bota]

In the blink of an eye a bullet can pass through your brain. It doesn't take long to wipe out a species including man. But let's not look behind the curtain and keep denying science.

Man not getting wiped out eventually...that is an entirely different topic, no?
That topic is much more intractable.

 

[EE_Bota]

I think we have overstayed our welcome:laughing:

You are joking I know, but life was never welcome as best I can tell. Life fights a "life or death" struggle every day.

 

[Short Game]

I don't understand the ice core data that well yet, I admit. But they must be a form of extrapolation, but you guys in the know about them are pretty sure it is not erroneous extrapolation, I take it.

The way I understand it is, most year's depositions of snow are identifiable, and these depositions can be counted. These annual layers contain bubbles that were that year's atmosphere at that location. The bubbles can be isolated and analyzed as to their compositions. The fact that the CO2 amounts vary both upwardly and downwardly suggests that they can be trusted to be a stable indicator within ice.

 

[powerpace]

Hi all



Collected weather data also includes ice cores. We now have accurate temperature data for over 400,000 years from Antaractica. Your comparisons are illogical and silly. Your doing invalid extrapolations.

The extrapolations are from the ice cores. Ice cores are unreliable unless you have a representative sample over a wide area. Samples from the Antarctic have been taken from less than one-hundred locations. The majority of samples are from the coastal bases. Being the 5th largest continent twice the size of Australia I don't believe core samples tell much of anything. The lakes under the Arctic have been there for thousands of years under ice that never gets above -32 degrees. My theory is Volcanic action creating the heat.

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ice core - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Isotopic analysis of the ice in the core can be linked to temperature and global sea level variations. Analysis of the air contained in bubbles in the ice can reveal the palaeocomposition of the atmosphere, in particular CO2 variations. There are great problems relating the dating of the included bubbles to the dating of the ice, since the bubbles only slowly "close off" after the ice has been deposited. Nonetheless, recent work has tended to show that during deglaciations CO2 increases lags temperature increases by 600 +/- 400 years.[2] Beryllium-10 concentrations are linked to cosmic ray intensity which can be a proxy for solar strength.

 

[EE_Bota]

The way I understand it is, most year's depositions of snow are identifiable, and these depositions can be counted. These annual layers contain bubbles that were that year's atmosphere at that location. The bubbles can be isolated and analyzed as to their compositions. The fact that the CO2 amounts vary both upwardly and downwardly suggests that they can be trusted to be a stable indicator within ice.

Thanks. Although I do have a few doubts about it, that part may be the part I find most straightforward.

If we look at only ice cores, and are willing to be a bit silly (I am always willing to be a bit silly) we know that all the CO2 concentrations found in ice to date are concentrations that are conducive to ice buildup. See...silly.

So, the cores we are most interested in are the ones that can't be found. Silly I know, but I admitted I am not above silly.

Another silly way of looking at it, but less silly perhaps...if we find CO2 concentrations in the air that are higher or lower than can be found in any ice core...we should probably puzzle over that, and worry a little about if that is meaningful and dangerous.

We should not worry long in any case unless it is actionable. I brought up the actionable aspect when I mentioned the plant engineer's perspective. Worrying about things that are not actionable is truly silly, but very human.

A parallel thread to this one should be "Undemocratic one world government control of global warming policy." This is not because we have such, but because we would need such to enhance the possibility of actionable solutions that could work.

 

[Combustix]

You are joking I know, but life was never welcome as best I can tell. Life fights a "life or death" struggle every day.

Yea I thought Egons statement was pretty funny. But in all perspective if we are lucky we are here 90 years some a little longer some a little shorter. In the the overall time frame we are here less than a nano second on the big time line which makes all our second guessing and calling each other idiots for not seeing it the way we see it, pretty insignificant.

If I can make it past 12/21/12 then I'm just gonna enjoy the years I got left on this planet whether it's getting hotter or colder, so yes one day we will have overstayed our welcome, I just may not be here to pack my bags and make an exit.

 

[powerpace]

The way I understand it is, most year's depositions of snow are identifiable, and these depositions can be counted. These annual layers contain bubbles that were that year's atmosphere at that location. The bubbles can be isolated and analyzed as to their compositions. The fact that the CO2 amounts vary both upwardly and downwardly suggests that they can be trusted to be a stable indicator within ice.

The extrapolations are from the ice cores. Ice cores are unreliable unless you have a representative sample over a wide area. Samples from the Antarctic have been taken from less than one-hundred locations. The majority of samples are from the coastal bases. Being the 5th largest continent twice the size of Australia I don't believe core samples tell much of anything. The lakes under the Arctic have been there for thousands of years under ice that never gets above -32 degrees. My theory is Volcanic action creating the heat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
Isotopic analysis of the ice in the core can be linked to temperature and global sea level variations. Analysis of the air contained in bubbles in the ice can reveal the palaeocomposition of the atmosphere, in particular CO2 variations. There are great problems relating the dating of the included bubbles to the dating of the ice, since the bubbles only slowly "close off" after the ice has been deposited. Nonetheless, recent work has tended to show that during deglaciations CO2 increases lags temperature increases by 600 +/- 400 years.[2] Beryllium-10 concentrations are linked to cosmic ray intensity which can be a proxy for solar strength.