Scientists drill back in time in Antarctica

Reuters ^ | Friday, Dec 15, 2006 | Deborah Zabarenko

[jimtorr]

ROSS ICE SHELF, Antarctica (Reuters) - From a distance, the ANDRILL operation appears out of nowhere like a mirage: a white-draped tower amid giant blue boxcars laid out on a frozen sea.

But this mammoth venture to drill through ice, ocean and back through time is as real as a science lab and as practical as an oil rig: hard-hatted drillers and scientists work in concert to find clues to a time when Antarctica was warm and wet.

Because the researchers are convinced that a warmer age is in prospect as a result of human-spurred global climate change, they want to know what things were like 10 million years ago, when warmer periods tended to wax and wane on the southern continent.

[jimtorr]

Scientists find that Antarctica has been much warmer many times in the past.

[Thinkin' Gal]

Ping.

[Gaffer]

....... Because the researchers are convinced that a warmer age is in prospect as a result of human-spurred global climate change......

It isn't scientific discovery if you already are biased toward the outcome you to which you want your data to point. It is junk science.

[Dallas59]

You already know what the answer will be...

[jsh3180]

5 warmer mperiods in the last 4 million years. What makes this period different? Guilt ridden men are here to report on it this time, that's what.

[proud_yank]

Why on earth are they still conducting research???!!! Al Gore told us all, that 'science' has proven Global Warming(TM) is caused by humans, and is going to kill us all in the next few years.

Second, why aren't the tree huggers complaining about drilling in pristine, untouched Antarctica? If this were an oil rig, we'd never hear the end of it.

[olezip]

Informative article that is besmirched by the unsupported assertion ..."of human-spurred global climate change." It is good science to investigate the climate changes of the past. The extra unsupported claim just lowers the entire article to a tabloid level. Whenever I come across a clearly unsupported assertion, I put the entire missive into a special bin for reading later with more scrutiny.

While there is scientific evidence to support a global warming trend, there is very little data to support human induced causal factors. Data from the investigation might provide needed evidence to prove or disprove the hypothesis that global warming is caused by man. The objectivity of the current investigation is questionable, though.

[proud_yank]

Throw money at hand-picked researchers, they'll tell you whatever you want.

My friend's graduate advisor has travelled to Antarctica, to conduct ice-core research. He took me through one of the freezers where they are stored, which was pretty neat.

I asked him what his advisor's opinion on the matter was, and he said that there is no way yet to prove that human activity is responsible for this.

[proud_yank]

While there is scientific evidence to support a global warming trend, there is very little data to support human induced causal factors. Data from the investigation might provide needed evidence to prove or disprove the hypothesis that global warming is caused by man. The objectivity of the current investigation is questionable, though.

I don't argue that things have gotten warmer, just look at photos of glaciers over a hundred year span. Here in Alaska, you can see where they have receded too. Temperatures always fluctuate, and always have. Furthermore, the temp of the sun is not constant.

With any global warming(TM) study, my first question is 'Who is paying for the research?'.

[Gaffer]

Whenever you ask one of these "researchers" about Krakatoa or Mt. Pinatubo's effect on the atmosphere and climate, you get a bunch of gobbledygook about it doesn't matter. Yet, a few cows fart, someone drives to work in the US, it is a catastrophic effect. Let alone all of the industrial pollution in Ukraine, Russia, and other former Soviet Union countries.

All of this is really rabid liberalist academics pandering for attention and research dollars. Very very rarely is a benefactor willing to plop down cash for something about which he doesn't have a desired outcome. This goes equally the same for these "media" researchers.....snake oil...

[proud_yank]

Let alone all of the industrial pollution in Ukraine, Russia, and other former Soviet Union countries

Funny how none of that never gets mentioned by the enviros. Then again, going back to the good old Soviet days seems to be their ambition.

[maica]

Perhaps the people of London would prefer going back to coal fireplaces, giving up central heating. All that London smog probably kept the temp down a few degrees.

How horrible that clean air thins the atmosphere, Now the fearmongers want us to fear carbon dioxide! Hello - it is an essential molecule in cycle of life.

[olezip]

With any global warming(TM) study, my first question is 'Who is paying for the research?'

Yes, "scientists" with a vested interest in human caused global warming, should declare their bias.

We are experiencing global warming on Mars and Venus. The only thing in common is our Sun. The solar cycle just completed its solar max period. I do not know what the leftist scientists do with the volume of greenhouse gases coming from China, Africa, and India. Biomass burning adds tons of greenhouse gases to our atmosphere; one wood burning stove contributes more greenhouse gases than dozens of SUVs.

Our molten core, the Earth's magnetic field, the Moon, Sunspots (or Solar activity) and the timing of the Solar activity, our orbital relationship to the Sun among many other variables determine the climate. It is highly likely that Mankind has no measurable comparable impact on the climate of our earth. For example, with global warming from the Sun, the ocean's dissolved carbon dioxide is being expelled to the atmosphere as the ocean warms, like a cold soda or beer that goes flat, thus transporting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere; the Earth has a considerable volume of oceans compared to land masses.

[bert]

..... It is junk science......

It is grant science. It is scientist welfare.

[proud_yank]

I've got an article I linked on my page about glaciers on Mars receding if you care to check it out.

The UN/IPCC funds a lot of this, certainly no bias or agenda there.

Another good one to learn about is Maurice Strong, the 'architect' of the Kyoto wealth-redistribution scam. He is similar to Soros, but not well known.

I'm still waiting for one of these nobs to explain to me what caused the last ice age to end, and how we know to a tenth of a degree what the earth's temp will be in 50 years, yet we can't get an accurate 5-day forecast.

[Gaffer]

I don't mind if someone with money to burn funds one of these "scientists" if he just wants to figure out why a bee doesn't fart. But when their motive is political and aimed at needlessly devolving life in the United States while curiously omitting the rest of the world, that's when I call it junk science (really just another word for bullshit science if you ask me).

[proud_yank]

I don't have a source, but I have read that a single volcano emits more CO2 than people generate.

[visualops]

when warmer periods tended to wax and wane on the southern continent.

But if it trends warmer now, it's not natural. /idiocy

[proud_yank]

Hello - it is an essential molecule in cycle of life.

CO2 emissions also correlate directly to one's economy. Odd that the foundation of Kyoto was selling and trading of CO2 'credits'....

[sure_fine]

"Because the researchers are convinced that a warmer age is in prospect as a result of human-spurred global climate change"




thats where I lost my interest