Skip to comments.
New Ice Cores Expand View Of Climate History
Science Daily ^
| November 28, 2005
Posted on 11/29/2005 1:00:49 PM PST by cogitator
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
To: A. Pole
" . . . it does not make sense. 200 years ago the industry produced gases were a tiny fraction of what is today . . "
You are almost certainly correct, but I wouldn't be surprised if the terribly inefficient wood/coal/peat burning back then produced similarly amounts of greenhouse gas for comparably little usable energy.
Lots of studies show both Europe and North America actually have MORE trees and forests now than existed when Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
And all the descriptions of old London were basically of a soot-filled nightmare.
That said, I would think you are correct. But I am not sure.
21
posted on
11/29/2005 1:18:46 PM PST
by
MeanWestTexan
(Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
To: emiller
They were recycled into DC-9's.
Hence, the striking resemblance.
22
posted on
11/29/2005 1:19:20 PM PST
by
MeanWestTexan
(Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
To: cogitator
in complex interactions between the atmosphere, ocean currents Let me know when they find evidence of massive 1000 mile diameter hurricanes pulling down tropospheric air to the surface capable of freezing helocopters and buildings. I'll then know its time to scream, run-around like nutz, and generally panic.
23
posted on
11/29/2005 1:20:54 PM PST
by
C210N
(While DOGS Have MASTERS, CATS Have STAFF!)
To: cogitator
I'd like to know what assumptions and methodologies are behind the interpretation of the evidence and whether they have been challenged. Meanwhile, it looks like there's good money to be had in digging holes and crying "wolf."
To: NeilGus
Now let me get this straight. Because they have found an ice core from 500,000 years ago to 650,000 years ago, there is "no question" that current global warming is due to human activity. How can this sample tell us that? You're right, it can't. But that is not what this is all about. From the article:
According to Brook, continuing research will help to address many of these questions.
This translates as: "Give me more money!"
That's the real point. The crises change from year to year, but the solution is always the same.
25
posted on
11/29/2005 1:23:42 PM PST
by
thulldud
(The Democratic military vote is the REAL "Army of One".)
To: emiller
The average American is obese- and thusly, emits various and sundry "gases." I think someday, the world will be shocked to find that we were the cause of global warming/cooling/lukewarming after all. I will be proven right, and will get the respect I deserve/crave. I am not a lunatic.Compared to a cow...you are insignificant!
To: cogitator
I once knew a guy who wanted to drill in Antarc 2000-yrs deep to gather ice to sell to churches for "Holy Water from the Time of Christ"--
He was serious, too, until he went on his next freakish pseudo-science-entrepeneur binge. I don't think he had any offers from Rome, and I don't think he'd have been allowed to "harvest" any ice, anyway.
27
posted on
11/29/2005 1:32:55 PM PST
by
Mamzelle
(evosnide#1--"You need to get back to biology class")
To: Mamzelle
Technically, all the water around or in you dates from the time of Christ -- and even earlier. After all, it's all just recycled dinosaur pee.
28
posted on
11/29/2005 1:34:34 PM PST
by
Junior
(From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
To: cogitator
The ice cores being taken from Greenland, Antarctica and other sites provide an invaluable record of Earth's past climates, researchers say. By testing the gases and trace elements found trapped in these cores, scientists gain a better understanding of how climate and atmospheric gases interact and evolve.Unfortunately, ice cores taken longer than about 10 years ago are useless for use as science. The cores were not taken with gas sampling in mind and could have been contaminated is so many ways as to make any argument silly.
I do know that this article fails to address this aspect of controversial conclusions drawn from "uncontrolled" ice cores aimed at analyzing simply water, particulate matter and possible vetetable traces... Not gases.
29
posted on
11/29/2005 1:42:31 PM PST
by
Publius6961
(The IQ of California voters is about 420........... .............cumulatively)
To: Junior
Oh, this guy is a PhD pencilneck "skeptic" with a hilariously inflated sense of his own intellect--and thought Rome was a fool ripe for the picking. The Jesuit consiglieri must have just hooted at his preening, if they listened to him at all--and he lost some money before he remembered that Antarctica has its own interesting rules about exploitation.
But, he was amusing in his enthusiasm, for the brief time it lasted. Then he was off to lose another fortune and waste more of everyone's time.
30
posted on
11/29/2005 1:43:38 PM PST
by
Mamzelle
(evosnide#1--"You need to get back to biology class")
To: cogitator
"The levels of primary greenhouse gases such as methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide are up dramatically since the Industrial Revolution, at a speed and magnitude that the Earth has not seen in hundreds of thousands of years," Brook said. "There is now no question this is due to human influence." INVALID CONCLUSION
what a maroon
31
posted on
11/29/2005 1:46:32 PM PST
by
hang 'em
(Is devil worship "one of the world's great religions"?)
To: SolidSupplySide
Yet this is evidence that the imperceptible change we have seen over the past few decades is the result of human activity. How is that?Climate scientists are still working on more accurately characterizing how atmospheric composition changes affect global temperature during a warm interglacial period (i.e., now). Abrupt changes such the 15 degree change cited weren't caused solely by changes in atmospheric trace gases (but might be related to slower changes pushing the climate to a so-called "tipping point" where an abrupt change happens).
To: cogitator
The deeper we go, the more we blow. What would we do without experts?
33
posted on
11/29/2005 1:55:34 PM PST
by
hgro
(A)
To: blam
All part of a normal cycle?Abrupt changes might signal the end of the normal cycle and a transition to a new cyclic timing. Reading various sources indicates that there was a transition between a dominate 41,000 year cycle and a dominant 100,000 year cycle. The cause(s) of the 100,000 year cycle are harder to figure out.
To: PatrickHenry
"Now we have a glimpse into the past of up to 650,000 years, and we believe it may be possible to go as much as one million years or more," Brook said. "This will give us a fuller picture of Earth's past climates, the way they changed and fluctuated, and the forces that caused the changes. We'll be studying this new data for years." "But were you there?" Bump.
35
posted on
11/29/2005 1:58:21 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: cogitator
Bush's Fault...What was the topic? /sarc
36
posted on
11/29/2005 1:59:13 PM PST
by
add925
(The Left = Xenophobes in Denial)
To: A. Pole
Hmm, it does not make sense. 200 years ago the industry produced gases were a tiny fraction of what is today and even smaller fraction of what volcanoes spit out.Volcanoes produce (on average) about 150 times less CO2 than human industrial (energy-related) processes. They produce a lot more S02, but due to its short lifetime in the atmosphere, cooling effects from volcanic S02 only last a few years after major eruptions.
To: NeilGus
Now let me get this straight. Because they have found an ice core from 500,000 years ago to 650,000 years ago, there is "no question" that current global warming is due to human activity. How can this sample tell us that?The comment was about changes in atmospheric gases (CO2 and methane), not global temperature.
To: VadeRetro
Obviously a hummasexshil plot.
39
posted on
11/29/2005 2:04:12 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, dotard, or incurable ignoramus.)
To: PatrickHenry
Thunder outside just now. Think I'll shut down for a bit in awed tribute. Talk about global warming!
40
posted on
11/29/2005 2:05:55 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson