Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The ice-core man -- The Deniers XXI
National Post ^ | May 04, 2007 | Lawrence Solomon

Posted on 03/27/2008 7:35:46 AM PDT by Delacon

Once upon a time, and for millennia before then, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were low and stable. Then came the industrial revolution and CO2 levels began to rise. The more man industrialized, the more that CO2 -- and the temperature -- rose. In the last half century, with industrialization at unprecedented levels, CO2 reached levels unprecedented in the human history. This is the story of global warming.

This story is a fable, says Zbigniew Jaworowski, past chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, a participant or chairman of some 20 Advisory Groups of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Environmental Program, and current chair of the Scientific Committee of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw.

Dr. Jaworowski agrees that CO2 levels rose in the last half century. Starting in 1958, direct, real-time measurements of CO2 have been systematically taken at a state-of-the-art measuring station in Hawaii. These measurements, considered the world's most reliable, are a good basis for science by bodies like the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the agency that is co-ordinating the worldwide effort to stop global warming.

But the UN does not rely on direct real-time measurements for the period prior to 1958. "The IPCC relies on icecore data -- on air that has been trapped for hundreds or thousands of years deep below the surface," Dr. Jaworowski explains. "These ice cores are a foundation of the global warming hypothesis, but the foundation is groundless -- the IPCC has based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Ice, the IPCC believes, precisely preserves the ancient air, allowing for a precise reconstruction of the ancient atmosphere. For this to be true, no component of the trapped air can escape from the ice. Neither can the ice ever become liquid. Neither can the various gases within air ever combine or separate.

This perfectly closed system, frozen in time, is a fantasy. "Liquid water is common in polar snow and ice, even at temperatures as low as -72C," Dr. Jaworowski explains, "and we also know that in cold water, CO2 is 70 times more soluble than nitrogen and 30 times more soluble than oxygen, guaranteeing that the proportions of the various gases that remain in the trapped, ancient air will change. Moreover, under the extreme pressure that deep ice is subjected to -- 320 bars, or more than 300 times normal atmospheric pressure -- high levels of CO2 get squeezed out of ancient air."

Because of these various properties in ancient air, one would expect that, over time, ice cores that started off with high levels of CO2 would become depleted of excess CO2, leaving a fairly uniform base level of CO2 behind. In fact, this is exactly what the ice cores show.

"According to the ice-core samples, CO2 levels vary little over time," Dr. Jaworowski sates. "The ice core data from the Taylor Dome in Antarctica shows almost no change in the level of atmospheric CO2 over the last 7,000 to 8,000 years -- it varied between 260 parts per million and 264 parts per million.

"Yet other indicators of past CO2 levels, such as fossil leaf stomata, show that CO2 levels over the past 7,000 to 8,000 years varied by more than 50 parts per million, between 270 and 326 parts per million. We also know that there have been great fluctuations in temperature over that time period -- the Little Age just 500 years ago, for example. If the icecore record was reliable, and CO2 levels reflected temperatures, why wouldn't the ice-core data have shown CO2 levels to fall during the Little Ice Age? "

Dr. Jaworowski has devoted much of his professional life to the study of the composition of the atmosphere, as part of his work to understand the consequences of radioactive fallout from nuclear-weapons testing and nuclear reactor accidents. After taking numerous ice samples over the course of a dozen field trips to glaciers in six continents, and studying how contaminants travel through ice over time, he came to realize how fraught with error ice-core samples were in reconstructing the atmosphere. The Chernobyl accident, whose contaminants he studied in the 1990s in a Scandinavian glacier, provided the most illumination.

"This ice contained extremely high radioactivity of cesium-137 from the Chernobyl fallout, more than a thousand times higher than that found in any glacier from nuclear-weapons fallout, and more than 100 times higher than found elsewhere from the Chernobyl fallout," he explained. "This unique contamination of glacier ice revealed how particulate contaminants migrated, and also made sense of other discoveries I made during my other glacier expeditions. It convinced me that ice is not a closed system, suitable for an exact reconstruction of the composition of the past atmosphere."

Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.

The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding.

Is there an alternative to ice-core samples, which are but proxies from which assumptions about the historical composition of the atmosphere can be made? "Yes, there are several other proxies, and they lead to different findings about CO2," Dr. Jaworowski states. "But we don't need to rely on proxies at all.

"Scientists from numerous disciplines have been examining CO2 since the beginning of the 19th century, and they have left behind a record of tens of thousands of direct, real-time measurements. These measurements tell a far different story about CO2 -- they demonstrate, for example, that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have fluctuated greatly, and that several times in the past 200 years CO2 concentrations have exceeded today's levels.

"The IPCC rejects these direct measurements, some taken by Nobel Prize winners. They prefer the view of CO2 as seen through ice."

LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

- - - - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation.

CV OF A DENIER:

Zbigniew Jaworowski is chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, where he has held various posts since 1973. He was a principal investigator of three research projects of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and of four research projects of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The author of four books and 300 scientific papers, he has held posts with the Centre d'Etude Nucleaires near Paris; the Biophysical Group of the Institute of Physics, University of Oslo; the Norwegian Polar Research Institute and the National Institute for Polar Research in Tokyo.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alarmists; climatechange; globalwarming; skeptics
I was going through my bookmarks and stumbled on this series by Lawrence Solomon of the National Post. I did a FR search and sure enough the ever vigilant FR posters didn't disappoint. Freeper Libwhacker had posted the first article in the series on 2/5/07. However at that time there were only 10 parts in the series and links to the other 9 parts in the series are only referenced in follow up posts on that thread. Since then the total number of parts in the series has grown to 27 with the last article dated 6/15/07. I checked as best I could but I don't think anyone posted any follow ups to the first in the series(my apologies if I missed anyone's efforts). Now I know that this series is a little bit dated but I can't think of a more comprehensive and fair coverage(don't let the frequent use of the term "deniers" throw ya) of climate change skepticism has been done since. This series does a thorough point by point analysis of the issues skeptics have with the so called "consensus". Heck, it not only uses frequent references to some of the biggest names in skepticism but then sites their CVs. Anyway, I am posting all 27 articles(if the administrators will let me) but here is the main site with links to all parts in the series if you don't want to wait. Dis is gonna take a lot of work.
 

Climate change: The Deniers

National Post  Published: Friday, February 09, 2007

The Post's series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science. Here is the series so far:

Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII
Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII
The heat's in the sun -- The Deniers XIV
Unsettled Science -- The Deniers XV
Bitten by the IPCC -- The Deniers XVI
Little ice age is still within us -- The Deniers XVII
Fighting climate 'fluff' -- The Deniers XVIII

Science, not politics -- The Deniers XIX
Gore's guru disagreed -- The Deniers XX
The ice-core man -- The Deniers XXI
Some restraint in Rome -- The Deniers XXII
Discounting logic -- The Deniers XXIII
Dire forecasts aren't new -- The Deniers XXIV
They call this a consensus? - Part XXV
NASA chief Michael Griffin silenced - Part XXVI
Forget warming - beware the new ice age - Part XXVII

 
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71

1 posted on 03/27/2008 7:35:47 AM PDT by Delacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Genesis defender; proud_yank; FrPR; enough_idiocy; rdl6989; TenthAmendmentChampion; Horusra; ...

ping


2 posted on 03/27/2008 7:37:25 AM PDT by Delacon (“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; honolulugal; SideoutFred; Ole Okie; ...


FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - Back On The Net!!(Mash Here!)



3 posted on 03/27/2008 7:38:13 AM PDT by xcamel (Forget the past and you're doomed to repeat it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

Great article. I’ve always wondered about the accuracy of ice cores data.


4 posted on 03/27/2008 7:43:52 AM PDT by Gullit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

EXCELLENT!
“The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be “immoral” if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.”
That’s what we’re up against!


5 posted on 03/27/2008 7:46:32 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ("Don't touch that thing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
We're up to three numbered sunspots now:


6 posted on 03/27/2008 7:53:03 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

great article one of the best I read in a while. What does up to three sunspots means re: climate?

thanks


7 posted on 03/27/2008 8:03:04 AM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
“The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be “immoral” if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.”

It's a long-running issue regarding research. Modern scientific research has been prostituted to the grant process. The researcher tends to be under pressure to avoid results which might cause grant issuers to be less enthusiastic about funding further research

8 posted on 03/27/2008 8:03:37 AM PDT by PapaBear3625
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

Really? Is this officially the beginning of the new cycle?

Us Ham operators are feeling lonely on the airwaves. ;->


9 posted on 03/27/2008 8:06:09 AM PDT by Wiseghy ("You want to break this army? Then break your word to it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wiseghy

According to other info, these spots are still attributed to cycle 23; don’t know what the official government position is...


10 posted on 03/27/2008 8:09:17 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Actually, looks like activity has just started to really pick up. Maybe cycle 24 is finally starting?
11 posted on 03/27/2008 8:11:46 AM PDT by Technocrat (McCain-Romney 2008. Crap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

another ping


12 posted on 03/27/2008 8:19:39 AM PDT by newberger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Technocrat

From what I can gather, Cycle 24 may be 6 months to a year off still.

Apparently, Cycle 24 is said to have begun when it’s characteristic “reversed polarity” sunspots, which also appear in the higher latitudes, outnumber the old Cycle 23 spots occurring at or near the equator.

The activity seen seems to be concurrent with Cycle 23 activity.

But I’m not a solar physicist.


13 posted on 03/27/2008 8:27:35 AM PDT by Gulf War One
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
Thanks for the post - and the excellent links!

“Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski’s science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding.”

That is the state of “science” today.

14 posted on 03/27/2008 11:41:16 AM PDT by ChessExpert (Reagan dismantled the Russian communist empire of 21 conquered nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
You have already done a lot of work. Kudos! This is a keeper.

The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.

Global Warming theory is anti-science. This kind of stuff will discredit all sciences for decades to come.

15 posted on 03/27/2008 7:57:19 PM PDT by TigersEye (A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
ALL - repeat ALL of this information was new to me!

Sobering. Very, very sobering.

16 posted on 03/27/2008 8:24:34 PM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Are those new spots reversed polarity?

Cycle 24 shows up 12 months late.

17 posted on 03/27/2008 8:25:34 PM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson