Posted on 05/14/2008 1:14:31 PM PDT by Red Badger
The ice core boring at Dome C in Antarctica shows that the curves for the temperature and the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane follow each other over the past 800,000 years -- with few deviations. (See arrows) Credit: Professor Thomas Blunier, Centre for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen
The newest analysis of trace gases trapped in Antarctic ice cores now provide a reasonable view of greenhouse gas concentrations as much as 800,000 years into the past, and are further confirming the link between greenhouse gas levels and global warming, scientists reported today in the journal Nature.
They also show that during that entire period of time, there have never been concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane as high as the current levels, said Edward Brook, an associate professor of geosciences at Oregon State University, and author of a Nature commentary on the new studies.
“The fundamental conclusion that today’s concentrations of these greenhouse gases have no past analogue in the ice-core record remains firm,” Brook said in the report. “The remarkably strong correlations of methane and carbon dioxide with temperature reconstructions also stand.”
The latest research, done by members of the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica, extend the data on trace gases back another 150,000 years beyond any studies done prior to this, Brook said. Ultimately, researchers would like to achieve data going back as much as 1.5 million years.
The tiny bubbles of ancient air trapped in polar ice cores have been used to provide records of trace gases in the atmosphere at distant points in the past, and better understand the natural fluctuations that have occurred, largely as a result of cyclical changes in Earth’s orbit around the sun.
“These natural cycles that occur on the order of tens or hundreds of thousands of years can help us understand both the forces that have controlled and influenced Earth’s climate in the past, and the implications of current changes on future climate” said Brook, who is co-chair of an international group that organizes global studies in this field.
According to the data, the current levels of primary greenhouse gases – those that are expected to cause global warming - are off the charts.
The concentration of carbon dioxide is now a bit more than 380 parts per million, compared to a range of about 200-300 parts per million during the past 800,000 years. The current concentration of methane is 1,800 parts per billion, compared to a range of about 400-700 parts per billion during that time.
In every case during that extended period, warm periods coincide with high levels of greenhouse gases. Of some interest, the latest studies are showing that the temperature increases have been even more pronounced during the most recent 450,000 years, compared to several hundred thousand years prior to that.
“It appears there may even be very long term natural cycles that have operated on much longer periods of 400,000 years or more,” Brook said. “We still have quite a bit to learn about these past cycles and all the forces that control them.”
Most of the time during the past 800,000 years, the Earth has experienced long, cooler periods about 80,000 to 90,000 years long, which eventually lead to ice ages. Those have been regularly interrupted by “interglacial” periods about 10,000 to 20,000 years long that are considerably warmer – this is the stage the Earth is in right now. Abrupt climate changes on much shorter time scales are also possible, researchers believe, possibly due to shifts in ocean circulation patterns or other forces.
Scientists are continuing to search for the optimal sites in Antarctica that will allow them to take the ice core records back even further, Brook said.
Ping!......
The Best Global Warming Videos on the Internet |
Statistics 101:
Correlation does not imply causality.
The graph above represents temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. It is the same exact data Al Gore and the rest of the man-made global warmers refer to. The blue line is temps, the red CO2 levels. The deep valleys represent 4 separate glaciation periods. Now look very carefully at this relationship between temps and CO2 levels and keep in mind that Gore claims this data is the 'proof' that CO2 has warmed the earth in the past. But does the graph indeed show this? Nope. In fact, rising CO2 levels all throughout this 400,000 year period actually lagged behind temperature increases --by an average of 800 years! So it couldn't have been CO2 that got Earth out of these 4 past glaciations. Yet Gore dishonestly and continually claims otherwise.
FWD:
So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?
Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.
In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).
The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ ______________________________________________
FWD:
Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html ______________________________________________
I don’t get it. In looking at that blurry chart, it seems that the current peaks aren’t “off the chart” as compared with previous peaks, instead they appear in line with them.
How do thay explain the previous peaks in greenhouse gasses? Did cavemen drive SUV’s?
bump
At most, this shows correlation, not causation. Two VERY different things.
It is the epitome of dishonesty for this article to fail to mention that CO2 increases lag temperature increases in this data. This fact completely falsifies the premise of what is being said. It is absolutely incredible.
Aliens cause global warming. Google “Michael Crichton aliens global warming” for his 2003 Caltech Lecture.
From BBC News [yr: 2004]:
"A new [2004] analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years. Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past. They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer."..."In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few sunspots were seen on the Sun's surface. This period is called the Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer who studied it. Ice core disc, Epica Ice cores record climate trends back beyond human measurements It coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to as the "Little Ice Age". Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a link between the two events - but the exact mechanism remains elusive."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm
It's really hard to imagine how this little ball of fire could have any impact on our climate at all.
But the main arguments being made for a solar-climate connection is not so much to do with the heat of the Sun but rather with its magnetic cycles. When the Sun is more magnetically active (typically around the peak of the 11 year sunspot cycle --we are a few yrs away at the moment), the Sun's magnetic field is better able to deflect away incoming galactic cosmic rays (highly energetic charged particles coming from outside the solar system). The GCRs are thought to help in the formation of low-level cumulus clouds -the type of clouds that BLOCK sunlight and help cool the Earth. So when the Sun's MF is acting up (not like now), less GCRs reach the Earth's atmosphere, less low level sunlight-blocking clouds form, and more sunlight gets through to warm the Earth's surface...naturally. Clouds are basically made up of tiny water droplets. When minute particles in the atmosphere become ionized by incoming GCRs they become very 'attractive' to water molecules, in a purely chemical sense of the word.-Eye On The Left
____________________________________________________
2008: "The Center for Sun-Climate Research at the DNSC investigates the connection between variations in the intensity of cosmic rays and climatic changes on Earth. This field of research has been given the name 'cosmoclimatology'"..."Cosmic ray intensities – and therefore cloudiness – keep changing because the Sun's magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy, before they can reach the Earth." :
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate
I believe it was MIT’s Linzer who explained that the delay between temp and CO2 could be explained by the ocean.
It is the largest sink of CO2 and releases when warmed. This would also explain the lag, since it is very slow in reacting to atmospheric temp changes.
I would like to see a chart that shows the CO2 levels in the atmosphere since the invention of carbonated soft drinks versus the sales of those products...........Coke & Pepsi, et al........we could just as well blame them for GW as anything else........
Pretty much.......
And the reason for the lag (800 yrs on avg), most probably, is that it takes a period of time for the oceans to warm and release their dissolved CO2. There is little if any evidence that CO2 initiated any additional warming following the initial warming related to the natural glaciation cycles. The source of the natural cycles is still being debated today. Some say it's related to periodic deviations in Earth's orbit and tilt angle, others say there's a galactic cosmic ray/cloud formation/sunspot cycle connection (see my previous post for more info on this).
How about sales of B&M and other baked beans! I'd bet there is a direct correlation there. Also between the number of times Al Bore has opened his big fat dishonest mouth.
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - back on the net!! (click here)
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
I was busy writing up a response when you posted this. I basically wrote the same thing. Thanks.
I think what they might have observed was a solar 'prominence' (looped plasma-filled structures associated with high arching magnetic field lines). And what sunspots are are the circular cross sections of magnetic field lines (tight bundles of them) poking out of the sun's surface. They are dark because they are significantly cooler than the rest of the sun's surface. However, as in the case with many solar prominences, field lines can poke out of the surface and not create dark spots. This is because the magnetic field lines associated with them may not be as tightly bundled and energetic as the ones that create sunspots. Apparently, intense magnetic field lines locally suppress heat energy and convection on the solar surface. Often around sunspots are lighter, much hotter regions called faculae. Overall, these hotter regions more than make up for the cooling effect of the sunspots and the sun does give out more radiant heat energy as a result during sunspot outbreaks. However, it's apparently not all that much as to effect climate very much. The main solar-climate link appears to be in the galactic cosmic ray/cloud formation/sunspot cycle mechanism I wrote about earlier.
I think they were Hummers but then they may have been round saucers instead but if humans are responsible for the temperature increase now then they would have to have been a great technical civilization then also. But of course if humans are responsible then there has never been climate change or ice ages in the past.
Read more at http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
And here is the website for the place where he does his research:
2008: "The Center for Sun-Climate Research at the DNSC investigates the connection between variations in the intensity of cosmic rays and climatic changes on Earth. This field of research has been given the name 'cosmoclimatology'"..."Cosmic ray intensities – and therefore cloudiness – keep changing because the Sun's magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy, before they can reach the Earth." :
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate
Regards,
GtG
Note that this report says that the rises in temperature and CO2 are "contemporaneous." Two centuries afterward is, in geologic terms, contemporaneous. But telling the truth would shoot down the theory of global warming. And, we can't have that, now can we?
Congressman Billybob
Actually, there was one completely honest statement in this article: “Brook said, “We still have quite a bit to learn about these past cycles and all the forces that control them.””
Truth is, they have no idea. This is a chaotic system, and EVERYTHING they say is essentially a WAG.
With a name like SOLanki, he MUST know something about the Sun! Thanks for the info. I looked him up and found this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041030221144.htm
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
ABSTRACT
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere. <\blockquote>
That is the research I meant. There was extensive discussion about it a year or so ago. Of course, the IPCC is bound and determined that the Sun can have nothing to do with how warm Earth is, so they ignore such data as charts showing nearly perfect correlation of temperature with solar output, after phase shift lags are taken into account.
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.