Measuring ice core CO2
Robert Grumbine
I'm not participating by any regular means, but saw that this
topic had come up and my references happened to be right at hand.
The notion of measuring past atmospheric CO2 values by examining
glacial ice, and air bubbles therein, goes back to at least 1928 --
Barnes, H. T. _Ice Engineering_ Renouf Publishing Company, McGill
College Ave, Montreal, Canada, 364 pp., 1928.
The results from attempts then were hopeful, but not extremely good.
Work continued off and on, more off than on, through to the
1970's, when improved lab equipment, and a greater concern for
what the glacial record of atmospheric CO2 might have to say,
made the topic both more interesting and more manageable. One
of the important papers on the methods then was Stauffer, B.,
W. Berner, "CO2 in natural ice", J. Glaciology, 21, 291-300, 1978.
Along with demonstrating the reasonability of obtaining a
useful representation of atmospheric CO2, the authors noted
some of the problems which they had overcome and which ones
still remain. Popular chatting about the method leaves one
with the idea that there are bubbles of air formed, and it is
those and only those which are analyzed. A poor reading, or
a worse than usual popular author, may also leave one with
the notion that the bubbles are closed off from the atmosphere
immediately. None of that is true.
The closure of the bubbles is not a major concern of that paper,
so I'll add some discussion here. The thing is, when snow falls,
you have just a bunch of snow/ice crystals resting on top of each
other -- and an open network of air passages between those crystals.
As time passes, there is a sintering process (though below the
freezing point, there is a vapor pressure which results in
some evaporation and redeposition of vapor on other crystals).
This turns the ice crystals from their initial fairly elaborate
shapes over towards spheres -- and the spheres pack more tightly
than the original. So the snow gets denser, more compact, and
starts to close off those air passages. As you dump more snow
on top of the layer you're thinking about, the pressure goes up,
and compresses the snow even further. Once there is sufficient
sintering and pressure, the passages close off. These are the
air bubbles.
CO2, unlike most atmospheric gases, is capable (they noted) of
diffusing into the ice crystal lattice. This is not a fatal problem,
but does make for the measurements being more difficult. One does
need to extract both the bubble gas, and the lattice gas. The
easiest thing to do, melting, is not a good idea because this leads
to contaminating the results with bicarbonate (CO3--), they mention.
But, although it is possible for CO2 to migrate into the ice crystal
lattice, the linear CO2 molecule is not a good fit with the triangular
H2O molecule. In ice cores, therefore, you don't see extensive migration
into the lattice until the pressure is quite high. Conversely, once
the pressure is reduced (say by removal from the ice sheet), the CO2
seeps back into the bubbles -- or out to the lab equipment you're using
to try to measure ice core CO2 levels.
Improvements in the technique for making the extraction reliable
against those problems were in press by 1982 --
Zumbrunn, R., A. Neftel, H. Oeschger, "CO2 measurements on 1 cm^3 ice
samples with an IR laser spectrometer (IRLS) combined with a new dry
extraction device", Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 60, 318-324, 1982.
To avoid the water (bicarbonate) problem, they work at -80 C. To
ensure that all the CO2 is extracted from the lattice, they break
it up with a grid of needles.
There was work before, between, and after these two, but by 1982
ice core CO2 measurements had become reasonably reliable.
On this topic, see also (and, of course, citations therein!):
Berner, W., H., Oeschger, B. Stauffer, Information on the CO2 cycle from
ice core studies, Radiocarbon, 22, 227-235, 1980
Delmas, R. J., J. M. Ascencio, M. Legrand Polar ice evidence that
atmospheric CO2 20,000 yr BP was 50% of present, Nature, 284, 155-157, 1980
Neftel, A., Oeschger, H., et al. Ice core sample measurements give
atmospheric CO2 content during past 40,000 years, Nature, 295, 220-233, 1982
Stauffer, B., Hofer, H., et al. Atmospheric CO2 during the last
glaciation, Annals of Glaciology, 5, 160-164 1984
Barnola, J. M., D. Raynaud, et al., Vostok ice core provides 160,000
year record of atmospheric CO2, Nature, 329, 408-414, 1987
Genthon, C., J. M. Barnola, et al. Vostok ice core: climatic response
to CO2 and orbital forcing changes over the last climatic cycle,
Nature, 329 414-418, 1987
For reminders that it isn't just ice cores that lead to the conclusion that
atmospheric CO2 is now high relative to recent geological history:
Berger, W. H., R. S. Keir, Glacial-Holocene changes in Atmospheric CO2
and deep sea record, IN Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity,
Hansen and Takahashi eds, AGU Wash DC., AGU Monograph Series, #29,
337-351, 1984
Lasaga, A. C., R. A. Berner, R. M. Garrels, An improved geochemical
model of atmospheric CO2 fluctuations, AGU Monograph #32, 397-411, 1985
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
dbo...@mindspring.com
Thank you for this, its the first anybody has actually dealt with the
issue rather simply attacked the messenger. Unfortunately, I do not
have access to the journals you cite. Do you know anyplace on the net
where I can read about the most recent storage of ice cores and
extraction of CO2?
Thank You
David OHara
H2-PV NOW
BEFORE you start smearing a lot of scientists and institutions,
shouldn't you have LOOKED UP THE DATA FIRST!
You have previously received, on the public record, LEGAL NOTICE that a
science fraud crime is in progress and you are identified aiding the
felons.
http://www.iplease-florida.com/write.asp?category=873206&letter=p
Parallax Research Inc
1380 Blountstown Hwy
Tallahassee, FL 32304
850-580-5481
http://tinyurl.com/btjjw
MAP: 1380 Blountstown Hwy
http://www.parallax-x-ray.com/ = [ 64.82.100.115 ]
Registrant:
PARALLAX RESEARCH INC
1380 BLOUNTSTOWN HWY
TALLAHASSEE FL 32304-2730
US
Domain Name: PARALLAX-X-RAY.COM
Administrative Contact:
PARALLAX RESEARCH no.vali...@worldnic.com
1380 BLOUNTSTOWN HWY
TALLAHASSEE FL 32304-2730
US
8505805481 fax: 123 123 1234
Technical Contact:
hostm...@earthlink.net
Earthlink Inc
1430 West Peachtree St. NW Ste. 400
Atlanta GA 30309
US
888-932-1997 fax: 123 123 1234
Record expires on 09-Feb-2009.
Record created on 09-Feb-2000.
Database last updated on 7-Oct-2005 19: 31: 46 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
SPEAKEASY.EARTHLINK.NET 207.69.188.200
HEARSAY.EARTHLINK.NET 207.69.188.201
RUMOR.EARTHLINK.NET 207.69.188.202
http://www.mdatechnology.net/techsearch.asp?articleid=404
Company Profile:
David OHara incorporated Parallax in March 1996. He is currently the
only full-time employee.
Contact Information:
David OHara
Parallax Research, Inc.
PO Box 12212
Tallahassee FL 32317
Tel:850-580-5481 (lab)
904-668-4133 (voice mail)
Fax:850-576-9076
E-mail: dbo...@mindspring.com
United States Patent 6,442,231
O'Hara August 27, 2002
Apparatus and method for improved energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer
Inventors: O'Hara; David B. (4356 David Ct., Tallahassee, FL 32308)
Appl. No.: 485526
http://tinyurl.com/8ttcx
cache of
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/Reunion/Graduate/Responses.asp?Class=1979&ID=250
O'Hara, David Bruce
Mailing Address
4356 David Ct.
Tallahassee FL 32308-6473
850 668-7810
BS 1979 FSU Physics
MS 1985 FSU Physics
Message posted on 1/1/1989
Many Schemes. Our daughter Krista is now 2. We finally moved back to
Tallahassee from Huntsville. I worked for Dr. Testardi for about 6
months making superconducting thin films. One of my proposals submitted
through Physic on was accepted so I am now working for them from my
house. The project is to build an x-ray delay line which also alters
the temperature of an x-ray black body emitter. I have several other
projects in the works and hope to open a Physic on off ice here in the
next 9 months.
Message posted on 1/1/1991
Our second child, Nickolas, was born in September. Kathy is taking a
couple of years off work to stay with the kids and get a second masters
degree. Little Krista, 4 years old, is going to preschool. Work is
going well. I am still designing soft x-ray reflectors for defense
applications. Trying to get into cold neutron optics for NDT.
Investigating many other schemes and chasing after money. It's tough to
be a technical person in Tallahassee.
Phonebook results for 850 668-7810
David Ohara, (850) 668-7810, 4356 David Ct, Tallahassee, FL 32309
dbo...@mindspring.com
that online. It brings back memories. Other than that, your info is
really outdated. We are up to 6 people here at Parallax, new bldg too,
more patents, no defense work at all.
Global_Warming @Peacemail.com
That means, unlike some fraudsters here online, you actually have
wealth worth going after in lawsuits -- a sitting duck. I'll enjoy
turning over your wealth, delivered by a judge or jury in a verdict
that you had LEGAL NOTICE but failed the subsequent MANDATORY DUTY of
every citizen to abstain from frauds, to use to file a slew of more
lawsuits against the others.
This is a litiguous society, didn't you know? Expensive hobby you
enjoy. How much can I get for your sailboat on auction?
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
ORGANIZED CRIME FELONY FRAUD operation, that you have joined in an
"enterprise" as defined by law, have committed one or more acts of
fraud using WIRES or U.S. Mail in collaboration with the illegal
enterprise. From this date forward any further actions on your part to
aid this enterprise are legally considered prima facia premeditated,
willful intent to violate FEDERAL LAW.
SEPPtic Tank is an ORGANIZED CRIME front operation headed by lifelong
career-criminal S. Fred Singer.
In 1994 Singer wrote a science hoax piece for big tobacco. The piece
was submitted to RJ Reynolds lawyers pre-publication. The piece was
short some "peer-reviewers" so a request was made for some names of
tame "whitecoats" willing to lie for money to sign off on the document.
Ultimately a bunch of names appeared on this science hoax document, as
well as inside it's pages. The whole thing became evidence in the
FEDERAL trial of the Big Seven Tobacco Companies in the late 1990s. The
documents were produced by subpoena (a turm meaning "under pain", like
we will hurt you bad if you don't comply). The evidence passed due
process of law in a trial admitted as evidence. The judge ordered the
evidence posted online for 10 years at Big Tobacco's expense -- oh,
year, the Tobacco Companies also agreed to pay $246,000,000,000.00 too.
Fred Singer is corrupt and I have seen the evidence from the trial that
proved he is corrupt. He is an ORGANIZED CRIME figure who uses science
hoaxes for corporate clients to falsify the state of knowledge on
subjects his clients need confused and obfuscated.
SEPP was organized in the premises of a Sun Myung Moon-owned office
suite. Moon is also a career criminal who was convicted of tax evasion
and money laundering, sent to FREDERAL PRISON, and is a known felon
convict.
FRED SINGER's SEPPtic Tank moved to the offices of Charles G. Koch
Summer Fellows Program at the Koch-owned George Mason University.
Killer Charles G. Koch and brother Killer David Koch operate KOCH
INDUSTRIES, which itself has been convicted of the largest fine in
corporate history -- $35,000,000.00 for pollution of air, lands and
waters of six states.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2000/January/019enrd.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/51_koch.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37628-2004Jul8.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/981d17e5ab07246f8525686500621079?OpenDocument
Charges G. Koch co-founded CATO Inst., David Koch sits on it's board
watching the family interests, and SINGER, MILLOY, MICHAELS, LINDZEN &
BALLING are all organized crime figures on the payrolls of a known
ORGANIZED CRIME ring founded by known ORGANIZED CRIME Lords.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=361
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.atlasusa.org/highlight_archive/1995/H1995-02-Environment.html
Dr. Singer. SEPP's address is 4084 University Drive, Suite 101,
Fairfax, VA 22030 (Tel. 703-934-6932).
http://snipurl.com/og9j
Results about 172 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 Koch.
http://snipurl.com/og9o
Results about 92 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 SEPP.
http://snipurl.com/og9s
Resultsabout 149 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA 22030
IHS | "Institute for Humane Studies"
http://snipurl.com/oga1
Results about 581 for Fred Singer Koch IHS | "Institute for Humane
Studies".
http://snipurl.com/ogai
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
Documenting the Corruption of S. Fred Singer
http://snipurl.com/ogay
Results about 333 for "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A
Critical Examination".
dbo...@mindspring.com
Global_Warming @Peacemail.com
dbo...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Yawn
Is that a subpoena-man giving you a wakeup call that EVERYBODY has to
obey the law?
The HAMMER is going to the SLAMMER and you don't have those kind of
legal defense funds.
dbo...@mindspring.com
bet H2 posts correllate well with Mann's "data".
Jim McGinn
<dbo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1144196578.7...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Is that white noise, red noise, or even pink noise, I can't decide. I
> bet H2 posts correllate well with Mann's "data".
>
And his thought processes coorelate well with the unabomber's thought
processes.
Jim
Scott Nudds
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> And his thought processes coorelate well with the unabomber's thought
> processes.
You mean Timothy McVeigh.
Scott Nudds
"Global_Warming @Peacemail.com" <Global_...@Peacemail.com> wrote
> The HAMMER is going to the SLAMMER and you don't have those kind of
> legal defense funds.
You will note that Delay is already trying to escape his home state.
Like all Republicans the man is a complet crook and a complete coward.
Global_Warming @Peacemail.com
I would expect you to be the expert in unabomber thought processes. You
should rent the movie Bareback Mountin' in anticipation for your
conviction for organized crime frauds where you might be on the same
cellblock with the unabomber. I'm sure you will be the sweetheat of the
cellblock.
HAMMER's going to the SLAMMER and you don't have his kind of legal
defense money.
Jonathan Kirwan
<dbo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Thank you for this, its the first anybody has actually dealt with the
>issue rather simply attacked the messenger.
That is patently untrue, David. And if you think even for a moment
you would know it isn't. This wasn't the first time anyone tried to
deal with the issues you present. I've seen it happen before. I've
been a small part of it. You are wrong to say that.
>Unfortunately, I do not
>have access to the journals you cite. Do you know anyplace on the net
>where I can read about the most recent storage of ice cores and
>extraction of CO2?
David, I'd write the authors right away. That's the way I do it over
the net. All of the various researchers involved in this area will
likely respond very quickly and positively to an earnest interest in
and a request for their papers. More, you may find them well able to
answer questions for even more detail -- pictures and detailed
procedures. Some of the papers may even go into mind-numbing detail
on their procedures, so keep an eye out for that too and make sure to
ask for that kind of information when you write. I'm sure you will be
more than satisfied.
Robert has given you names to start out with. Should be easy to look
up their email addresses. You don't need to wait to have those handed
to you on a silver platter. I've never needed any help and I've found
it more than easy to get into quick contact. And if push comes to
shove and this "net method" isn't working for you in some regard,
visit a local library and use the copy machine. Another technique
I've used.
Jon
Jim McGinn
Global_Warming @Peacemail.com
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Am I the only one that thinks David is being sent on a wild goose chase?
Are you the only one who gives a damn what the lazy David B. O'Hara
does or doesn't do. Nobody has ever seen O'Hara ever even ask google
the simplist question, let alone do real research to find out how
professional scientists work. O'Hara at least has a degree in physics
for the Tallahassee Florida University of Creation Science -- he's not
a lowly intern in the windowless boiler room of CATO institute working
for minimum wage like you are.
Jim McGinn
"Global_Warming @Peacemail.com" <Global_...@Peacemail.com> wrote
> Jim McGinn wrote:
>> Am I the only one that thinks David is being sent on a wild goose chase?
>
> Are you the only one who gives a damn what the lazy David B. O'Hara
> does or doesn't do.
Well, if nobody else I expect that cats do, especially around dinner time.
dbo...@mindspring.com
also expect to see their experimental methods on the net, otherwise it
looks as if they are hiding something. I've googled this topic more
than anybody here. I do not intend to pay for the papers either like I
do for work.
Sparky @zig-zag.net
Like you cite papers all the time instead of some drunken recollections
about vague rumors that somebody said something once somewhere,
whenever it suits YOUR purpose.
You graduated from the university in your own hometown there. Didn't
you ever ONCE learn where the library on campus was? Has anybody ever
explained what that office FAX machine you own can do? Have you ever
ONCE picked up the phone and talked to another scientist -- you with
seven patents to your credit?
We are expected to believe you that you want to know, but you don't
actually go to links provided to you? The only explanation is you are
sitting by a desk with a bunch of empty plastic gin bottles strewn
around the floor, too drunk to actually remember how many times you
have just made up lies out of malice and venom.
dbo...@mindspring.com
malaria at bay.
I go to most of the links provided. IN this case, links were NOT
provided, simply titles and authors of papers and journal names. The
university library here is user hostile to non-university people. I
appreciate his listing them but I'm not going to sit in traffic to go
to the university library.
I do not believe in arguing by appeals to authority so I do not like to
list my credentials unless asked. I think amateurs are just as good
scientists as the so-called pros.
As far as patents go, my attitude is that they are a marketing gimmick
that sometimes make money. Just about anybody who is determined can
get a patent, numbers of patents is not directly related to scientific
ability. Oddly, the best scientists I know would never apply for
patents.
Alexi Tekhasski
>
> I'm not participating by any regular means, but saw that this
> topic had come up and my references happened to be right at hand.
>
> The notion of measuring past atmospheric CO2 values by examining
> glacial ice, and air bubbles therein, goes back to at least 1928 --
This is really kind of you to provide this nice historical excurse to the subject. However, this
does not answer my original question: what are margins of error in the whole series of historical
CO2 concentration data? Please keep in mind that I am not interested in accuracy of particular gas
chromatograph of Finnigan mass spectrometer when it deals with a purified sample in its chamber; I
am interested in accuracy of assumptions that follow the atmospheric air when it percolates first
through the fern, waits there 6000 years before the bubbles get actually trapped while being exposed
to surface bacteria and who knows what else, what is the chemistry of carbon radicals (or whatever
they are, CO3) during the following 400,000 years, what happened during drilling, after pressure
relieve, sample transportation, storage, crunch stage, vacuum extraction, cryogenic separation, etc
etc.
Thanks,
-aap
Lloyd Parker
Doesn't keep you doofuses from citing them.
Robert Grumbine
Extracting the science parts of the ensuing thread ...
A popular, and popularly available, book which I expect addresses
many points related to these sorts of questions is Richard Alley's
_The Two Mile Time Machine_. Haven't read the book myself, but
know his professional work and presentations, so expect the book
to be very good.
In Message-ID: <1144185159.1...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
dbohara writes:
>Thank you for this, its the first anybody has actually dealt with the
>issue rather simply attacked the messenger. Unfortunately, I do not
>have access to the journals you cite. Do you know anyplace on the net
>where I can read about the most recent storage of ice cores and
>extraction of CO2?
I'm far from the first to address the issues.
Most of the papers I cited appeared in Nature. Most US public
libraries carry that.
Your questions, to date, are not about most recent work or methods.
They are questions that were answered 15+ years ago. As such, you'll
have to hit the old literature if you want them answered in detail.
The citations I gave are also a good start on who does the work, so
you can see what they're up to these days if you are interested in
current work. But the current work won't be going back over the
old and solved problems -- that was why the old papers on the solutions
to the old problems got published.
In Message-ID: <VlJYf.1309$yy4...@tornado.texas.rr.com>
"Alexi Tekhasski" writes:
>This is really kind of you to provide this nice historical excurse to
>the subject. However, this does not answer my original question: what
>are margins of error in the whole series of historical CO2 concentration
>data? Please keep in mind that I am not interested in accuracy of
>particular gas chromatograph of Finnigan mass spectrometer when it
>deals with a purified sample in its chamber; I am interested in accuracy
>of assumptions that follow the atmospheric air when it percolates first
>through the fern, waits there 6000 years before the bubbles get actually
>trapped while being exposed to surface bacteria and who knows what else,
>what is the chemistry of carbon radicals (or whatever they are, CO3)
>during the following 400,000 years, what happened during drilling, after
>pressure relieve, sample transportation, storage, crunch stage, vacuum
>extraction, cryogenic separation, etc etc.
Your questions are historical -- the historical literature I cited
answers them. Check it out.
You also have an error there (firn, by the way, not fern) -- the
closure time is much less than 6000 years. It's a function of site
temperature in part, with warmer sites closing faster (and shallower)
than colder sites. A very cold site has a closure depth of about 80 m,
while warmer sites can be more like 40 m. At the ca. 1 m/year (ice
equivalent) snow rates of Greenland, closure time is a matter of
decades. Even at the ca. 0.1 m/year (ice equivalent) snow rates of
Antarctica, it is only a matter of centuries to closure.
Alexi Tekhasski
> In Message-ID: <VlJYf.1309$yy4...@tornado.texas.rr.com>
> "Alexi Tekhasski" writes:
>
>>This is really kind of you to provide this nice historical excurse to
>>the subject. However, this does not answer my original question: what
>>are margins of error in the whole series of historical CO2 concentration
>>data? Please keep in mind that I am not interested in accuracy of
>>particular gas chromatograph of Finnigan mass spectrometer when it
>>deals with a purified sample in its chamber; I am interested in accuracy
>>of assumptions that follow the atmospheric air when it percolates first
>>through the fern, waits there 6000 years before the bubbles get actually
>>trapped while being exposed to surface bacteria and who knows what else,
>>what is the chemistry of carbon radicals (or whatever they are, CO3)
>>during the following 400,000 years, what happened during drilling, after
>>pressure relieve, sample transportation, storage, crunch stage, vacuum
>>extraction, cryogenic separation, etc etc.
>
> Your questions are historical -- the historical literature I cited
> answers them. Check it out.
>
It seems to me that if you are an expert (or have other vested interest) in this field, you should
be able to answer my basic question easily. You elected to defer the answer. I am afraid that you
either don't know what the answer is, or you never asked this question yourself, or nobody raised
this question in a straightforward form, so the answer does not exist, or all of the above.
BTW, I tried to do my best using Google. For example, some details in the following original
material
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm
have caught my attention. The article raises the question about 6000years in contrast with 4000 as
assumed before, so their opinion implies is that any time data for CO2 age must be no less granular
than, say, 1000years. Yet their starting timestamp, 2342 years, is reported to 4 digit precision.
Don't you think that their methodology overstates a thing or two?
About sample handling, I found the following facinating evidence:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/gallery/icecore_4.jpg
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/gallery/icecore_2.jpg
Where can I see an analysis of errors for the above steps? Not something "very unlikely", but some
estimations, numbers, anything?
The other article,
http://spot.colorado.edu/~flueckig/papers/stauffer03nipr.pdf
is dated as 2003. If you check the title, you will find out that your statement about historical
literature is wrong, otherwise the stalwarts of the ice research field would not discuss the topic
of records reliability in 2003.
In the article, they have made a strange statement:
"A larger scatter is assumed to be caused by reactions between impurities in the ice which show
generally short term variations. A low scatter of detailed high resolution records is therefore, a
prerequisite for reliable records."
I find it to be a big stretch.
They also dismiss some higher measured CO2 concentrations obtained from Greenland cores:
"It could be shown that the higher CO2 concentrations found in Greenland ice cores during warm
events in the last glacial epoch are artefacts (Anklin et al., 1997; Tschumi and Stauffer, 2000).
The surplus CO2 is most likely produced by chemical reactions in the ice."
How likely, I would ask? What about the other side of the data, low concentrations? Which other
theories were examined? Maybe the ice samples do not release all CO2 they accumulated in some
highly-hydrated forms over thousands of years?
The best place about involved processes is this:
"In these two samples, the younger ice shows a higher absolute scatter than the older ice, which is
surprising. All known processes which are discussed to possibly affect the CO2 concentration in
bubbles need a certain recrystallization which needs time. The relative deviations from the mean
concentration show in both depth intervals of the Dome Concordia record a mean scatter of 1%, but we
have no reasons to assume that the absolute mean deviations should depend on concentration. In
relatively shallow ice the size distribution and the form of bubbles change significantly with
depth. Our extraction efficiency does not exceed 80%. If there is a fractionation of the CO2
concentration between bubbles of different sizes, this could be an explication for the higher
scatter at shallower depth. The fractionation could even take place during extraction by diffusion
processes."
I still see no error analysis here, nor reference to any historically-known numbers.
> You also have an error there (firn, by the way, not fern) -- the
> closure time is much less than 6000 years. It's a function of site
> temperature in part, with warmer sites closing faster (and shallower)
> than colder sites. A very cold site has a closure depth of about 80 m,
> while warmer sites can be more like 40 m. At the ca. 1 m/year (ice
> equivalent) snow rates of Greenland, closure time is a matter of
> decades. Even at the ca. 0.1 m/year (ice equivalent) snow rates of
> Antarctica, it is only a matter of centuries to closure.
This is all nice, but I didn't invent the number 6000 (see the first reference above), and the
"fern" was a spell checker creature, sorry about that.
So, back to the original question: what is the error bounds for historical reconstructions of
atmospheric CO2 concentrations?
Cheers,
-aap
(BTW, my Microsoft Outlook Express still insists that the word "firn" does not exist. Funny).
Robert Grumbine
Alexi Tekhasski <a.predt...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@radix.net> wrote in message
>news:1237v1c...@corp.supernews.com...
>> In Message-ID: <VlJYf.1309$yy4...@tornado.texas.rr.com>
>> "Alexi Tekhasski" writes:
>>
>>>This is really kind of you to provide this nice historical excurse to
>>>the subject. However, this does not answer my original question: what
>>>are margins of error in the whole series of historical CO2 concentration
>>>data? Please keep in mind that I am not interested in accuracy of
>>>particular gas chromatograph of Finnigan mass spectrometer when it
>>>deals with a purified sample in its chamber; I am interested in accuracy
>>>of assumptions that follow the atmospheric air when it percolates first
>>>through the fern, waits there 6000 years before the bubbles get actually
>>>trapped while being exposed to surface bacteria and who knows what else,
>>>what is the chemistry of carbon radicals (or whatever they are, CO3)
>>>during the following 400,000 years, what happened during drilling, after
>>>pressure relieve, sample transportation, storage, crunch stage, vacuum
>>>extraction, cryogenic separation, etc etc.
>>
>> Your questions are historical -- the historical literature I cited
>> answers them. Check it out.
>>
>
>It seems to me that if you are an expert (or have other vested interest)
If you consider experts to be vested interests, rather than knowledgeable
about their field, there isn't much point in referring you to experts
and their work. Nor is there any honest pursuit by you about the topic.
As you have detailed questions, I refer you to the places with the
detailed answers -- the scientific literature.
The glacial-interglacial increase in CO2 is order 80 ppm. The
techniques (see refs already cited) have errors far less than that.
So the determination that CO2 rises in interglacials and falls in
glacials is safe. The interglacial to present CO2 increase is order
100 ppm. So the determination that current CO2 levels are unprecedented
vs. the glacial record is also safe.
>BTW, I tried to do my best using Google. For example, some details in
>the following original material http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm
>have caught my attention. The article raises the question about
>6000years in contrast with 4000 as assumed before, so their opinion
>implies is that any time data for CO2 age must be no less granular than,
>say, 1000years. Yet their starting timestamp, 2342 years, is reported
>to 4 digit precision. Don't you think that their methodology overstates
>a thing or two?
It seems you misunderstand what the closure time means. If you
read the paper cited at that point, Barnola, J.-M., P. Pimienta, D.
Raynaud, and Y.S. Korotkevich. 1991. CO2-climate relationship as deduced
from the Vostok ice core: A re-examination based on new measurements and
on a re-evaluation of the air dating. Tellus 43(B):83- 90., you'll gain
a much better understanding of what it means.
Up to closure time, the firn is exchanging air with the atmosphere.
Hence, as the article you're quoting notes, there is an offset between
the age of the ice and the age of the air trapped.
Note, too, that the 6 ky lag is "for the coldest periods". Today
is not one of the coldest periods -- it's an interglacial. We've
been in one for ca. 12 ky.
Why aren't you paying attention to what's actually in the paper you're
citing? Why, if you're concerned about this point, did you not
read that 1991 reference?
>The other article,
>http://spot.colorado.edu/~flueckig/papers/stauffer03nipr.pdf
>is dated as 2003. If you check the title, you will find out that your
>statement about historical literature is wrong, otherwise the stalwarts
>of the ice research field would not discuss the topic of records
>reliability in 2003.
Mighty large chip you've got there.
They're not re-slaying the slain, any more than the next paper to
test general relativity will do so. If you read the paper, you'll
find that they're aiming for absolute precision on both time and
concentration. While the methods are certainly good enough, as
they mention, for determining glacial to interglacial transitions,
or for determining that current CO2 is unprecedented vs. the glacial
record, they'd like to get every single wiggle with perfect precision.
It is the latter sort of reliability, not the former, that they are
exploring.
>In the article, they have made a strange statement:
>
>"A larger scatter is assumed to be caused by reactions between
>impurities in the ice which show
>generally short term variations. A low scatter of detailed high
>resolution records is therefore, a
>prerequisite for reliable records."
>I find it to be a big stretch.
They give their addresses, write them. Best, of course, if you'd
do so in German for Stauffer.
I don't see what you're finding such a stretch. They say that
large scatter (which is explained in the paper as being variation
in readings on time scales too fast to be the core recording the
atmosphere, is also cited and explained -- and they give their first
3 figures to illustrating the point and giving 1 sigma error bards to)
is a sign that artefacts are at work. The magnitude of those artefacts
is shown, again, in those figures, and is ca. 1% of the concentration
measured -- 2 ppm for 200 ppm measurements, 2.8 ppm for 272 ppm
measurements.
Such errors are negligible compared to the 80 ppm of glacial to
interglacial transitions.
But they'd like to study much smaller changes than that. In order
to do so, they need core stretches which do not have those artefacts --
so want to see low scatter. Further, they want high time resolution.
What's your complaint about scientists wanting data that don't show
any contamination at all, and give high(er) time resolution?
[snip]
The NCDC's archive of the Vostok data strikes me as having better
references, and support data (ice and gas ages), than the cdiac:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_co2.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/current.html for the index to
all ice cores (that they have data for).
Anyhow, what question is it that the ice core CO2 measurement
accuracy and precision is going to help you answer?
Michael Tobis
since we had any semblance of signal on the skeptics' side, though the
noise is coming through quite symmetrically. I hope you stick around,
and I hope people treat you reasonably well, but I also hope you argue
open-mindedly.
Unfortunately, demanding that other people do your work for you is a
poor start. If you don't have access to the literature, it's not really
a reasonable position to argue that scientists are being cagey. Younger
scientists tend to put their publications online despite the
requirements of journals to the contrary, but that is strictly speaking
illegal. The system is set up to reward publication in copyright
journals. This is an archaism in the scientific enterprise, not
caginess on the part of the researchers.
If you want to play along at a professional level, you will need to
negotiate your university library's requirements. I agree this is
unfortunate, but it's the way it is.
mt
Alexi Tekhasski
> In article <mV0Zf.1422$_26....@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
> Alexi Tekhasski <a.predt...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@radix.net> wrote in message
>>> Your questions are historical -- the historical literature I cited
>>> answers them. Check it out.
>>>
>>
>>It seems to me that if you are an expert (or have other vested interest)
>
> If you consider experts to be vested interests, rather than knowledgeable
> about their field, there isn't much point in referring you to experts
> and their work. Nor is there any honest pursuit by you about the topic.
Thank you for the attack on my personality. I just would like to mention one detail that have
escaped your attention. If you would read more carefully, you would notice that I used the word OR:
"if you are an expert or...". Even more, I put the "or" part in parentheses, to better separate
experts from those who has vested interest in the topic and apparently even cannot read.
>
> As you have detailed questions, I refer you to the places with the
> detailed answers -- the scientific literature.
First of all, I have only one question, which should be easy to answer if there is an answer.
> The glacial-interglacial increase in CO2 is order 80 ppm.
I am afraid you have a substantial leap of logic here. 80 ppm is the variation of measurements of a
gas composition extracted from ice samples. What I am asking is what is the relationship between the
gas from drilled, extracted, stored, crunched, etc. ice, and the real atmospheric composition that
was 400,000 years ago.
> The techniques (see refs already cited) have errors far less than that.
Yes, gas chromatograph has a smaller error, but it does not answer the question.
> So the determination that CO2 rises in interglacials and falls in
> glacials is safe.
No contest here. The question is only about actual amplitude of rises and falls.
> The interglacial to present CO2 increase is order
> 100 ppm. So the determination that current CO2 levels are unprecedented
> vs. the glacial record is also safe.
As I tried to explain above, you have no precedent to claim "unprecedented", a big chunk of error
analysis is missing. Also, see below.
>
>>BTW, I tried to do my best using Google. For example, some details in
>>the following original material http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm
>>have caught my attention. The article raises the question about
>>6000years in contrast with 4000 as assumed before, so their opinion
>>implies is that any time data for CO2 age must be no less granular than,
>>say, 1000years. Yet their starting timestamp, 2342 years, is reported
>>to 4 digit precision. Don't you think that their methodology overstates
>>a thing or two?
>
> It seems you misunderstand what the closure time means. If you
> read the paper cited at that point, Barnola, J.-M., P. Pimienta, D.
> Raynaud, and Y.S. Korotkevich. 1991. CO2-climate relationship as deduced
> from the Vostok ice core: A re-examination based on new measurements and
> on a re-evaluation of the air dating. Tellus 43(B):83- 90., you'll gain
> a much better understanding of what it means.
>
> Up to closure time, the firn is exchanging air with the atmosphere.
> Hence, as the article you're quoting notes, there is an offset between
> the age of the ice and the age of the air trapped.
I am afraid it is you who misunderstand the meaning and implications of slow closure of ice bubbles.
Aside the yonger gas age, the implication is that before the traps closed, old air in cavities get
partially percolated and mixed with new air for 4000-6000 years. In short, each particular ice bore
sample is effectively an average over several thousands of years. Therefore, until you collect CO2
concentrations from today's gas chromatographs for at least 4000 years, please don't bother to call
any observed fluctuations "unprecedented". You need to average current data over 5000 years before
comparing them with ice core data.
>
> Note, too, that the 6 ky lag is "for the coldest periods". Today
> is not one of the coldest periods -- it's an interglacial. We've
> been in one for ca. 12 ky.
How "today" has any relevance to 100,000 years ago? However, since interglacial closure occurs
faster during warmer times, and possible summer melting can create even smaller layers of closed
traps, the overall analysis gets more complicated and less reliable.
> Why aren't you paying attention to what's actually in the paper you're
> citing? Why, if you're concerned about this point, did you not
> read that 1991 reference?
I am paying, but you do not seem to have what I need :-)
>
>>The other article,
>>http://spot.colorado.edu/~flueckig/papers/stauffer03nipr.pdf
>>is dated as 2003. If you check the title, you will find out that your
>>statement about historical literature is wrong, otherwise the stalwarts
>>of the ice research field would not discuss the topic of records
>>reliability in 2003.
>
> Mighty large chip you've got there.
>
> They're not re-slaying the slain, any more than the next paper to
> test general relativity will do so. If you read the paper, you'll
> find that they're aiming for absolute precision on both time and
> concentration. While the methods are certainly good enough, as
> they mention, for determining glacial to interglacial transitions,
> or for determining that current CO2 is unprecedented vs. the glacial
> record, they'd like to get every single wiggle with perfect precision.
> It is the latter sort of reliability, not the former, that they are
> exploring.
I have read the paper, but did you? Could you point me the page where they conduct the analysis (or
even refer to it) I am asking for? What is the gross error margin?
>
>>In the article, they have made a strange statement:
>>
>>"A larger scatter is assumed to be caused by reactions between
>>impurities in the ice which show
>>generally short term variations. A low scatter of detailed high
>>resolution records is therefore, a
>>prerequisite for reliable records."
>>I find it to be a big stretch.
>
> They give their addresses, write them. Best, of course, if you'd
> do so in German for Stauffer.
I probably will be better off to write to N.Barkov, what do you think? But since you have stepped up
in the defense of the methodology, why don't you give a simple answer, here, and spare some time and
paper?
>
> I don't see what you're finding such a stretch. They say that
> large scatter (which is explained in the paper as being variation
> in readings on time scales too fast to be the core recording the
> atmosphere, is also cited and explained -- and they give their first
> 3 figures to illustrating the point and giving 1 sigma error bards to)
> is a sign that artefacts are at work. The magnitude of those artefacts
> is shown, again, in those figures, and is ca. 1% of the concentration
> measured -- 2 ppm for 200 ppm measurements, 2.8 ppm for 272 ppm
> measurements.
>
> Such errors are negligible compared to the 80 ppm of glacial to
> interglacial transitions.
You continue to miss the whole point. Again, I am not concerned about instrumental errors that occur
on prepared samples. Obviously, the possibility of faster closures in Greenland could be responsible
for higher variation and bigger scatter in higher-resolution records.
>
> But they'd like to study much smaller changes than that. In order
> to do so, they need core stretches which do not have those artefacts --
> so want to see low scatter. Further, they want high time resolution.
>
> What's your complaint about scientists wanting data that don't show
> any contamination at all, and give high(er) time resolution?
My complaint is that they don't present any analysis of gas occlusion process. Obviously, if the
layer of permeable firn is open for air for 4000-6000 years in Antarctica, the record would show
pretty smooth result as compared to warmer and possibly melting Greenland. Therefore, higher
variability in data is no indication of their less "reliability", and should not be a ground for
data dismissal.
>
> [snip]
What? You don't like the scientific way of handling the samples?
>
> The NCDC's archive of the Vostok data strikes me as having better
> references, and support data (ice and gas ages), than the cdiac:
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_co2.html
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/current.html for the index to
> all ice cores (that they have data for).
>
Miscommunication here again.The data above are outputs from analytic instruments, thanks they
calibrated them properly. But this is after the ice is broken (pun intended).What I am asking for is
the analysis of assumptions of what had happened to ice samples before that, staring with ancient
air occlusion, etc.
>
> Anyhow, what question is it that the ice core CO2 measurement
> accuracy and precision is going to help you answer?
>
There is a concern that the methodology of ice extraction leads to depletion of CO2 in the resulting
air samples. First, I haven't seen any error estimates from gas occlusion process. Second, I haven't
seen any error estimates due to difference in dynamics of different clathrates during volume
relaxation of ice bores.
So, back to my original question. What is the final number?
Cheers,
-aap
Robert Grumbine
Alexi Tekhasski <a.predt...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@radix.net> wrote in message
>news:123a32t...@corp.supernews.com...
>> In article <mV0Zf.1422$_26....@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
>> Alexi Tekhasski <a.predt...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>>"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@radix.net> wrote in message
>....
>>>> Your questions are historical -- the historical literature I cited
>>>> answers them. Check it out.
>>>
>>>It seems to me that if you are an expert (or have other vested interest)
>>
>> If you consider experts to be vested interests, rather than knowledgeable
>> about their field, there isn't much point in referring you to experts
>> and their work. Nor is there any honest pursuit by you about the topic.
>
>Thank you for the attack on my personality. I just would like to mention
>one detail that have escaped your attention. If you would read more
>carefully, you would notice that I used the word OR: "if you are an
>expert or...". Even more, I put the "or" part in parentheses, to better
>separate experts from those who has vested interest in the topic and
>apparently even cannot read.
or _other_ vested interest. You slam both the experts as having
vested interest, and those who have (you feel) some other sort of
vested interest.
>> As you have detailed questions, I refer you to the places with the
>> detailed answers -- the scientific literature.
>
>First of all, I have only one question, which should be easy to answer
>if there is an answer.
But you'd hardly take my word for it, whatever answer I gave.
You've demonstrated that more than amply.
You seem also to have failed to notice that I also don't expect,
or ask, you or others to take my word for it. That's why the
references to the scientific literature. If you want the answers,
that's where they are, in full detail.
That's a different side of why it is that I'm not presenting
everything myself here. I really don't think anyone can take
a few hundred pages of journal articles and render a paragraph
or two newsgroup explanation that preserves all the details.
Certainly I can't.
And it is a matter of a few hundred pages (at least) of articles.
No single journal article covers in full detail everything involved.
Hence, for example, an article you mention citing Barnola et al. 1991.
Everything from Barnola 1991 is included, by the reference. The
few paragraphs of your original source represent also that article,
which went in to a certain part of the physio-chemical details of
the problem. But not all, certainly. Barnola et al 1991 included
some of those others by reference as well. And those included more
references.
The Stauffer et al. 1978 and Zumbrunn et al. 1982 I cited previously
are two articles that most such search trees will take you back to.
(Your 2003 cite includes reference to the 1982 paper.)
>> The glacial-interglacial increase in CO2 is order 80 ppm.
>
>I am afraid you have a substantial leap of logic here. 80 ppm is the
>variation of measurements of a gas composition extracted from ice
>samples. What I am asking is what is the relationship between the gas
>from drilled, extracted, stored, crunched, etc. ice, and the real
>atmospheric composition that was 400,000 years ago.
Hardly a leap. The observations show changes of order 80 ppm for
the current glacial-interglacial, for the one ca. 100 kya, for
the one ca. 200 kya, for the one ca. 300 kya, and for the one ca.
400 kya. (also, more recently, for 500, 600, and 700 kya).
Pretty amazing coincidence to have 5 interglacials, at very
different depths, all report the same sort of answers. Even
more a coincidence to have the glacial periods all report similar
histories. Even more to have the timings of all those events
correlate well (that is, within the time resolution of the respective
records) with the unrelated deep ocean cores' view of ice age
timing and progression. etc. etc.
Further, if you go back to my first post, you'll find that by
way of unrelated chemistry, depressed atmospheric CO2 levels during
glacials also are reflected, themselves, in deep ocean cores.
Ice cores are not necessary to see that glacial periods are
low CO2 periods. But they do give us a confirmation, and more
detail. We'd like even more detail, of course.
[snip]
>How "today" has any relevance to 100,000 years ago? However, since
>interglacial closure occurs faster during warmer times, and possible
>summer melting
Do explain how it is that Vostok was experiencing melting 100 kya.
It's darn cold there, even at the warmest times (i.e., today).
[snip]
>So, back to my original question. What is the final number?
5.
Believe it? Trust it? Of course you don't.
See the literature. You may even turn out to have a useful
contribution to make on the question. But that won't happen
haranguing newsgroups and haunting web pages. That, too,
is going to require getting into the literature to verify
that your concerns in fact have not been addressed. It'll
be even more work, by you or others (yes, Barkov is a good
one to write, at least in terms of being knowledgeable)
to make a contribution into the scientific literature.
But don't hold your breath that the records are biased by
more than 100 ppm low.
Coby Beck
news:hAnZf.5886$yy4....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> I am afraid it is you who misunderstand the meaning and implications of
> slow closure of ice bubbles. Aside the yonger gas age, the implication is
> that before the traps closed, old air in cavities get partially percolated
> and mixed with new air for 4000-6000 years. In short, each particular ice
> bore sample is effectively an average over several thousands of years.
> Therefore, until you collect CO2
It is not at all clear to me that this needs to be, or is likely, the case.
Why shouldn't all the air from the surface down to the layer where closure
is occurring be well mixed?
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Coby Beck
> Pretty amazing coincidence to have 5 interglacials, at very
> different depths, all report the same sort of answers. Even
> more a coincidence to have the glacial periods all report similar
> histories. Even more to have the timings of all those events
> correlate well (that is, within the time resolution of the respective
> records) with the unrelated deep ocean cores' view of ice age
> timing and progression. etc. etc.
>
> Further, if you go back to my first post, you'll find that by
> way of unrelated chemistry, depressed atmospheric CO2 levels during
> glacials also are reflected, themselves, in deep ocean cores.
>
> Ice cores are not necessary to see that glacial periods are
> low CO2 periods. But they do give us a confirmation, and more
> detail. We'd like even more detail, of course.
I thought this should be the case, that there are independent corroborating
records, but didn't find anything I could be sure of with some half hearted
poking around the internet.
Alexi, do you not find some reassurance in the fact that there is agreement
with ocean sediment analysis? We are admittedly still left with your
hypothetical concern that the lack of sufficient (decadal to 1 or 2 century)
resolution still prevents a categorical statement that CO2 has never risen
so high so fast. But given the lack of any plausible mechanism, especially
for rapid removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, why should we think this is
anything but extremely unlikely?
Alexi Tekhasski
"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@radix.net> wrote in message news:123dasu...@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <hAnZf.5886$yy4....@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
> Alexi Tekhasski <a.predt...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@radix.net> wrote in message
>>news:123a32t...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> In article <mV0Zf.1422$_26....@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
>>> Alexi Tekhasski <a.predt...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>It seems to me that if you are an expert (or have other vested interest)
>>>
>>> If you consider experts to be vested interests, rather than knowledgeable
>>> about their field, there isn't much point in referring you to experts
>>> and their work. Nor is there any honest pursuit by you about the topic.
>>
>>Thank you for the attack on my personality. I just would like to mention
>>one detail that have escaped your attention. If you would read more
>>carefully, you would notice that I used the word OR: "if you are an
>>expert or...". Even more, I put the "or" part in parentheses, to better
>>separate experts from those who has vested interest in the topic and
>>apparently even cannot read.
>
> or _other_ vested interest. You slam both the experts as having
> vested interest, and those who have (you feel) some other sort of
> vested interest.
Ok, I have consulted with a linguist expert, and he confirmed that the shape of my original
statement does not imply what I meant, and indeed is a sort of insulting. Gee, what a language...
never guess what other screwheads will think about a seemingly logical construction.
>
>>> As you have detailed questions, I refer you to the places with the
>>> detailed answers -- the scientific literature.
>>
>>First of all, I have only one question, which should be easy to answer
>>if there is an answer.
>
> But you'd hardly take my word for it, whatever answer I gave.
Are you always making groundless assumptions such as above?
> You've demonstrated that more than amply.
How so? You gave no answer so far to my simple question, how would you know?
>
> You seem also to have failed to notice that I also don't expect,
> or ask, you or others to take my word for it.
No, I noticed long time ago that a person who suspects everyone in mistrust and lying used to be
accustomed to the same sort of behavior...
> That's why the
> references to the scientific literature. If you want the answers,
> that's where they are, in full detail.
Yep. References to scientific literature are usually made in support of some statement, idea, or a
number. So far this statement of yours is missing, so the reference without a statement is kind of
nonsense, would you agree?
>
> That's a different side of why it is that I'm not presenting
> everything myself here. I really don't think anyone can take
> a few hundred pages of journal articles and render a paragraph
> or two newsgroup explanation that preserves all the details.
> Certainly I can't.
Another excuse. I didn't ask for details, I asked a simple question. So far you didn't answer it,
nor all your references do not contain that answer. In a normal science it is customary to state
bounds of error when you report a measurement of some quantity. An experimental work in natural
sciences without estimations of error bound is a sign of ignorance and lack of qualification. And if
someone is using some reported "errorless" numbers to support models or formulate "policies" and
didn't ask the question about their accuracy, it is called "absence of qualification", and maybe up
to "data manipulation".
>
> And it is a matter of a few hundred pages (at least) of articles.
> No single journal article covers in full detail everything involved.
> Hence, for example, an article you mention citing Barnola et al. 1991.
> Everything from Barnola 1991 is included, by the reference. The
> few paragraphs of your original source represent also that article,
> which went in to a certain part of the physio-chemical details of
> the problem. But not all, certainly. Barnola et al 1991 included
> some of those others by reference as well. And those included more
> references.
>
> The Stauffer et al. 1978 and Zumbrunn et al. 1982 I cited previously
> are two articles that most such search trees will take you back to.
> (Your 2003 cite includes reference to the 1982 paper.)
So, as I see, you well are familiar with the relevant literature. Now, could you please just tell us
what are the typical error margins for experimental determination of prehistorical CO2
concentrations? Just few numbers will suffice, since you already was kind enough to give us all
references.
>
>>> The glacial-interglacial increase in CO2 is order 80 ppm.
>>
>>I am afraid you have a substantial leap of logic here. 80 ppm is the
>>variation of measurements of a gas composition extracted from ice
>>samples. What I am asking is what is the relationship between the gas
>>from drilled, extracted, stored, crunched, etc. ice, and the real
>>atmospheric composition that was 400,000 years ago.
>
> Hardly a leap. The observations show changes of order 80 ppm for
> the current glacial-interglacial, for the one ca. 100 kya, for
> the one ca. 200 kya, for the one ca. 300 kya, and for the one ca.
> 400 kya. (also, more recently, for 500, 600, and 700 kya).
>
> Pretty amazing coincidence to have 5 interglacials, at very
> different depths, all report the same sort of answers.
There is nothing spectacular. Since all ice core studies use similar techniques of handling ice
samples, the systematic errors must have identical trend.And again, the fact of data periodicity has
no relationship with absolute values of gas concentration.
> Even
> more a coincidence to have the glacial periods all report similar
> histories. Even more to have the timings of all those events
> correlate well (that is, within the time resolution of the respective
> records) with the unrelated deep ocean cores' view of ice age
> timing and progression. etc. etc.
I am afraid you are not familiar with the size of efforts to "tune" timing of records until they
would fit to certain expectations, to Milankowitch cycles or example...
>
> Further, if you go back to my first post, you'll find that by
> way of unrelated chemistry, depressed atmospheric CO2 levels during
> glacials also are reflected, themselves, in deep ocean cores.
>
> Ice cores are not necessary to see that glacial periods are
> low CO2 periods. But they do give us a confirmation, and more
> detail. We'd like even more detail, of course.
Although you completely lost me in the last two paragraphs, more details is certainly better.
Unfortunately, handwaiving and better details are not a substitution for detailed error analysis,
preferably with support by laboratory experiments.
>
> [snip]
>
>>How "today" has any relevance to 100,000 years ago? However, since
>>interglacial closure occurs faster during warmer times, and possible
>>summer melting
>
> Do explain how it is that Vostok was experiencing melting 100 kya.
> It's darn cold there, even at the warmest times (i.e., today).
>
I think it was clear that the concern was about Greenland cores, and how "unreliable" they might be
according to particular researcher's ideas. However, even if it is "darn cold" somewhere, try to
Google for ["subsurface melting" Antarctica] and see what you find.
> [snip]
>
>>So, back to my original question. What is the final number?
>
> 5.
>
> Believe it? Trust it? Of course you don't. See the literature.
Very funny. I take it that you have no even approximate idea about the error bounds of CO2
measurements in paleoclimate, nor you haven't seen one in the whole literature. Correct?.
> You may even turn out to have a useful
> contribution to make on the question. But that won't happen
> haranguing newsgroups and haunting web pages. That, too,
> is going to require getting into the literature to verify
> that your concerns in fact have not been addressed. It'll
> be even more work, by you or others (yes, Barkov is a good
> one to write, at least in terms of being knowledgeable)
> to make a contribution into the scientific literature.
I need to reiterate again. You opened a new topic on sci.environment, "Measuring ice core CO2", and
presented a coherent historical excurse into methods of extraction of paleoclimate CO2 from ice
cores. You even mentioned issues with carbonate formation, and even with clathrate formation. Yet
your presentation was lacking few important numbers, error margins, so I was under impression that
you are in a good position to simply recite that error bounds. For some reason you elected to play
"cat and mouse go to library". Why?
>
> But don't hold your breath that the records are biased by
> more than 100 ppm low.
Now, this is a sort of statement. Care to support it with data from literature?
Let me start:
Neftel, A., H. Oeschger, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, and R. Zumbrunn. 1982. "Ice core sample
measurements give atmospheric CO2 content during the past 40,000 yr." Nature 295:220-23.
The article allegedly shows error bars reaching as high as 500ppm.
Cheers,
- aap
Alexi Tekhasski
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message news:1KBZf.37507$Ph4.28578@edtnps90...
I don't know. I do not make statements here, I just ask simple questions. If the air passages in
firn do not provide mixing (and averaging), then the paradigm of "younger" CO2 in paleorecords must
be also untrue. You pick. I think the truth is somewhere in between, but again, it is hard to tell
without detailed analysis.
Cheers,
- aap
Alexi Tekhasski
Sorry, I am not familiar with the technique of CO2 concentration reconstructions from ocean
sediments yet. What is the accuracy of this reconstructions again? :-) :-)
Cheers,
-aap
Robert Grumbine
The Barnola et al. 1991 paper mentioned upthread gives details on
the processes. (You'll need to backtrack more references to get the
rest of the details.)
The two simple pictures are Alexi's extreme -- averaging over the entire
time until closure -- and being totally open and well-mixed to the
atmosphere until the instant of closure.
As usual, truth is between. In this case, favoring the open
picture over the uniform averaging. The thing is, as you move down
through the firn, the pore space for the air to move and diffuse through
gets smaller and more poorly interconnected. In the upper potions
of the firn, the pore space is well mixed with the overlying atmosphere.
As you get sufficiently deep, however, the narrowing pores shift you
from predominantly advective (wind-pumping, ex.) to diffusive transport
of air through the firn. Diffusion isn't as fast as advection, so some
averaging over time starts to occur. Given the nature of the process,
though, it still biases towards the present (age of pore closure).
If you're in a high accumulation rate area, you move rapidly from
fully ventilated to fully closed, so the distinction in age imposed
by the weighted averaging is small (it's allowed for nonetheless, but
it's small enough for casual discussion to ignore). If you're at
Vostok, however, as Barnola et al. were studying, the age distinction
isn't small. Reasons like this are why Vostok isn't used for
establishing details of timing in atmospheric gas content.
Perhaps this is what part of Alexi's objection is to the claim
that present CO2 is higher than anything from the glacial record.
He's possibly envisioning that there could have been a century long spike
of 200 ppm in the previous interglacial(s), but that averaging
over 1000 years (let's say), reduced that to a 20 ppm signal that
doesn't look as high as it 'should' -- if we had perfect time
resolution. If that's a basic objection, then, true, there's no _proof_
from the ice core record that CO2 didn't spike for a short time to a level
above present. But then again, science deals with evidence, not proof.
The thing we turn around to is, is there evidence anywhere else in
the climate system that shows that such a spike happened? Is there
a mechanism that can rapidly sling 200 ppm CO2 worth of carbon to
the atmosphere from ocean/terrestrial reservoirs on one century time scales?
Ocean critters with carbonate shells are one such data source. At
high CO2 levels -- like the present, but not like even the pre-industrial,
-- carbonate shells aren't as stable, and tend towards dissolution.
This is getting to be a problem for corals, and some types of plankton.
For other reasons, sedimentologists and geochemists keep an eye out
for dissolution markers. (They'd also be happy to catch something the
ice core people are missing!) No such evidence of ice age spikes to
380+ ppm has turned up. (The 1984/5 ocean paper cited in my first post
is one to check out for the ocean side of things.)
To my eye, the stronger objection is the absense of a mechanism to
fling that much carbon around that fast. Even the 80 ppm sloshing
across a few thousand years is difficult. The problem is that this
is a lot of carbon for the terrestrial sources. If land were the
source, we'd notice by the collapse of the terrestrial ecosystem.
Instead, forests expanded at the end of the last glacial. So the
source needs to be somewhere oceanic. Upper ocean isn't a valid
candidate as stripping that much carbon out of the upper ocean
would kill off anything with a carbonate shell, and deposition
of carbonate shells continued through the deglaciation. So we're
left with deep ocean. It has plenty of carbon (60x preindustrial
CO2 equivalent), so no problem there. The problematic part is
getting it out of the deep ocean fast enough -- deep ocean turnover
time is several hundred years currently, and this is fast compared
to glacial times. Mechanisms have been found, and seem to work
ok, but are also clearly incapable of making 200 ppm shifts in
the atmospheric concentrations in a single century, much less to
also flip around and take that much back out again just as fast.
Robert Grumbine
Alexi Tekhasski <a.predt...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@radix.net> wrote in message
>news:123dasu...@corp.supernews.com...
>> In article <hAnZf.5886$yy4....@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
>> Alexi Tekhasski <a.predt...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>>"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@radix.net> wrote in message
>>>news:123a32t...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> In article <mV0Zf.1422$_26....@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
>>>> Alexi Tekhasski <a.predt...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
>>>> As you have detailed questions, I refer you to the places with the
>>>> detailed answers -- the scientific literature.
>>>
>>>First of all, I have only one question, which should be easy to answer
>>>if there is an answer.
>>
>> But you'd hardly take my word for it, whatever answer I gave.
>
>Are you always making groundless assumptions such as above?
You don't take my word that the questions have been addressed
in the literature, I hardly expect you to take my word as to a number
I (say I) pulled out of the literature.
But that's the thing. Science doesn't work by 'take my word for it'.
I don't expect people to do so, and get a little nervous when they
do on scientific points.
If you don't want to read the literature, that's your call.
Just don't make assertions about what is or isn't there.
[snip]
>>>samples. What I am asking is what is the relationship between the gas
>>>from drilled, extracted, stored, crunched, etc. ice, and the real
>>>atmospheric composition that was 400,000 years ago.
>>
>> Hardly a leap. The observations show changes of order 80 ppm for
>> the current glacial-interglacial, for the one ca. 100 kya, for
>> the one ca. 200 kya, for the one ca. 300 kya, and for the one ca.
>> 400 kya. (also, more recently, for 500, 600, and 700 kya).
>>
>> Pretty amazing coincidence to have 5 interglacials, at very
>> different depths, all report the same sort of answers.
>
>There is nothing spectacular. Since all ice core studies use similar
>techniques of handling ice samples, the systematic errors must have
>identical trend.And again, the fact of data periodicity has
>no relationship with absolute values of gas concentration.
If the problem were one of depth effects, then the 150 kya segment
is lower than the 100 kya segment and should show more of it. The 200
kya segment is even lower, and should show even more. If depth effects
were major, then the 5 interglacials should show wildly different
concentrations (and with a particular, depth-related progression).
They don't. If depth effects were major, the 4 glacial maxima should
also show wildly different concentrations. They don't.
If the errors are systematic, they shift the entire curve, not
produce oscillations. Much less to produce oscillations at a
period established by unrelated data sources.
[snip]
If you'd rather call me names (screwhead? wtf is that?) than
read the literature that's capable of answering your questions
in reasonable detail, that, too, is your call. But it certainly
doesn't encourage me to do what you'd like, whatever that may
be.
Coby Beck
> So, as I see, you well are familiar with the relevant literature. Now,
> could you please just tell us what are the typical error margins for
> experimental determination of prehistorical CO2 concentrations? Just few
> numbers will suffice, since you already was kind enough to give us all
> references.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_co2.txt
Column 6 is the sigma and ranges from 0.7 to 10.4 ppm
Coby Beck
>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:1KBZf.37507$Ph4.28578@edtnps90...
>> "Alexi Tekhasski" <a.predt...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:hAnZf.5886$yy4....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>>
>>> I am afraid it is you who misunderstand the meaning and implications of
>>> slow closure of ice bubbles. Aside the yonger gas age, the implication
>>> is that before the traps closed, old air in cavities get partially
>>> percolated and mixed with new air for 4000-6000 years. In short, each
>>> particular ice bore sample is effectively an average over several
>>> thousands of years. Therefore, until you collect CO2
>>
>> It is not at all clear to me that this needs to be, or is likely, the
>> case. Why shouldn't all the air from the surface down to the layer where
>> closure is occurring be well mixed?
>>
>
> I don't know. I do not make statements here, I just ask simple questions.
You are definately making claims. You said "it is you who misunderstand the
meaning and implications of slow closure" and then made an additional claim
about what those implications are.
> If the air passages in firn do not provide mixing (and averaging), then
> the paradigm of "younger" CO2 in paleorecords must be also untrue. You
> pick.
You are not making any sense. It is perfectly plausible to me that the air
is well mixed until the layer closes off. At that point the air is a
snapshot of atmospheric CO2 levels x years ago relative to the age of the
ice.
Coby Beck
I see I could have read Robert Grumbine's description rather than
speculating here.
Coby Beck
>
> Perhaps this is what part of Alexi's objection is to the claim
> that present CO2 is higher than anything from the glacial record.
> He's possibly envisioning that there could have been a century long spike
> of 200 ppm in the previous interglacial(s), but that averaging
> over 1000 years (let's say), reduced that to a 20 ppm signal that
> doesn't look as high as it 'should' -- if we had perfect time
> resolution. If that's a basic objection, then, true, there's no _proof_
> from the ice core record that CO2 didn't spike for a short time to a level
> above present. But then again, science deals with evidence, not proof.
Yes, I believe that is the crux of his objection, and as you say it is
strictly correct that the ice cors can't rule it out. I have also raised
with him the absence of a plausible physical mechanism for dumping CO2 in
and taking it out. I actually had the impression that getting it out fast
is more of a stretch than getting it in. There are after all possibilities
of methane burps, natural coal fires and volcanic emissions for getting it
in.
I don't recall if he has ever answered that, either with an hypothesis or an
acknowledgment of that problem. Alexi? The arguments he usually puts
forward are based on the mathematics of chaos theory.
Alexi Tekhasski
Coby, the numbers you see are margins derived from sample scatter from gas chromatograph results.
These numbers show how consistent the researchers are at preparing and measuring the samples. In
contrast, your statement that current 100ppm jump is "unprecedented" relative to the gas
chromatograph glacial variations (of only 80ppm) includes an ASSUMPTION that the gas that enters the
instrument has the same composition as 100,000, 200,000, etc. years BP. Looking at available
literature, an impression forms that this assumption was not thoroughly validated, and no
quantitative error bounds have been identified and agreed on.
These numbers you quote do not include analysis of uncertainties that were accumulated in those
samples during processes of air occlusion, solid-state chemistry over hundreds of thousands of
years, and dynamics of pressure relief on bores. What I am asking is simple - where is that
quantitative analysis.
Cheers,
- aap
Alexi Tekhasski
Coby, there are conflicting opinions about "lifetime" of atmospheric CO2, or how long it takes to
"get it out". It seems that observed atmospheric C13/C12 isotope ratio is not consistent with the
amount of anthropogenic accumulation under assumption of CO2 lifetime of 200 years. The yearly
amount of anthropogenic CO2 is relatively well known, as well as it's C13/12 ratio. If one is to
assume the lifetime of 100 or 200 years, current atmospheric C13/12 ratio would be way too much like
the fossil ratio while it is not. The current C13/12 measurements are consistent with the history of
anthropogenic emissions only if the fromal CO2 lifetime is set to about 5 years. The plausible
explanation is that huge natural fluxes of ocean (outgassing in warm areas and uptake in cold areas)
levels things out - it looks like 80% of our emissions just sunk into cold oceans.
Coby Beck
There is a difference between the average time a particular molecule spends
in the atmosphere versus the amount of time a pulse of CO2 will last as a
higher concentration.
I was under the impression that 50 or 60% of additional CO2 put into the
system has been taken up by the oceans and land sequestering processes.
Otherwise I don't disagree with what you describe.
Alexi Tekhasski
Robert, you are talking nonsense. If you extract some result or conclusion from a published source,
and give a reference to it, why would you assume that people "wouldn't take your word for it"? Why
you are of so low opinion if people? After all, it is not "your word", it is a "expert published
word", unless you misunderstood or misrepresent it, or infer an unwarranted conclusion.
> [snip]
>
>>>>samples. What I am asking is what is the relationship between the gas
>>>>from drilled, extracted, stored, crunched, etc. ice, and the real
>>>>atmospheric composition that was 400,000 years ago.
>>>
>>> Hardly a leap. The observations show changes of order 80 ppm for
>>> the current glacial-interglacial, for the one ca. 100 kya, for
>>> the one ca. 200 kya, for the one ca. 300 kya, and for the one ca.
>>> 400 kya. (also, more recently, for 500, 600, and 700 kya).
>>>
>>> Pretty amazing coincidence to have 5 interglacials, at very
>>> different depths, all report the same sort of answers.
>>
>>There is nothing spectacular. Since all ice core studies use similar
>>techniques of handling ice samples, the systematic errors must have
>>identical trend.And again, the fact of data periodicity has
>>no relationship with absolute values of gas concentration.
>
> If the problem were one of depth effects, then the 150 kya segment
> is lower than the 100 kya segment and should show more of it. The 200
> kya segment is even lower, and should show even more. If depth effects
> were major, then the 5 interglacials should show wildly different
> concentrations (and with a particular, depth-related progression).
> They don't. If depth effects were major, the 4 glacial maxima should
> also show wildly different concentrations. They don't.
>
> If the errors are systematic, they shift the entire curve, not
> produce oscillations. Much less to produce oscillations at a
> period established by unrelated data sources.
>
Your arguments about the absence of depth effects look pretty coherent and almost convincing.
However, one or two things are missing. First, I didn't have in mind only depth effects, if there
are any. My primary concern was about possible processes of carbonate formations and shifts of
clathrate equilibriums, both during gas occlusion phase and pressurization phase, and what happened
when the process of pressure is reversed. Second, regarding the "depth effects": according to
geological studies, the Earth atmosphere has had a general historical trend of diminishing in CO2
concentration over time, a global trend. Even people who discovered the CO2 behavior in the last
400,000 years have mentioned that "CO2 concentrations were surprisingly stable" during the
reconstructed period. Therefore, the absence of global trend in ice core CO2 reconstructions in some
sense contradicts to the general trend of diminishing CO2. Could this "surprise" be a manifestation
of some missing depth dependency?
Third, you again are bringing up the oscillations. No one is questioning the presence of
oscillations. Even if the whole process of ice air extraction would loose 90% of CO2, the
oscillations will be still there, and likely preserving all frequency, phase, and relative amplitude
relationship. They will be just smaller, overall. But this is not the point. The point is that the
overall amplitude could be systematically reduced by the way of how ancient atmosphere got trapped
inside the ice, and what kind of chemical change did it undergo in the whole process.
> [snip]
>
- aap
Michael Tobis
The C13 depleted carbon is mixed through the fast reservoirs, which for
isotope signature purposes must be treated as unified. These consist of
the atmosphere, the upper ocean, the biota (mostly trees) and the soil.
The lifetime of carbon in the fast reservoirs is set by the ocean
overturning time. The deep ocean is a reservoir of intermediate time
scale, but it is much larger than the sum of the others, so it will
hide MOST of the perturbation. Then there is a transfer to even slower
reservoirs, mostly through limestone formation in the abyss.
It is true that the amount of carbon emitted can be estimated from
economic data. The amount that is staying in the atmosphere is
measured. The huge spike in CO2 can have no explanation other than that
about half of carbon emissions are staying in the atmosphere, net, but
this doesn't mean they have to be the same exact atoms.
It is my understanding that isotopic evidence is consistent with this
picture, though I've never actually seen a presentation of this
evidence.
mt
Alexi Tekhasski
> The two simple pictures are Alexi's extreme -- averaging over the entire
> time until closure -- and being totally open and well-mixed to the
> atmosphere until the instant of closure.
>
I don't think there is a need to put me down that low. It is obvious for anyone skilled in the field
of physics that averages in natural processes rarely (if ever) occur with a rectangular weighting
function, most likely the function has a bell-shape. The rectangular window of averaging occurs only
in scientific ball-park estimations and scholl programs, and as means to get the point across a
newsgroup.
[snip]
> Perhaps this is what part of Alexi's objection is to the claim
> that present CO2 is higher than anything from the glacial record.
> He's possibly envisioning that there could have been a century long spike
> of 200 ppm in the previous interglacial(s), but that averaging
> over 1000 years (let's say), reduced that to a 20 ppm signal that
> doesn't look as high as it 'should' -- if we had perfect time
> resolution. If that's a basic objection, then, true, there's no _proof_
> from the ice core record that CO2 didn't spike for a short time to a level
> above present. But then again, science deals with evidence, not proof.
Are you trying to dimiss the whole mathematics as a non-science here?
I am completely lost in the semantics of "proof" vs. "evidence" (even after two oil cans of Foster's
Bitter). But how about this:
(a) we _know_ that the Antarctic ice records are effectively 4000-6000 year averages over actual
air composition;
(b) the reconstructions are still full of jumps., e.g the Vostok data show a jump of 43ppm between
17.7 ky BP and 14 ky BP (over 3700 years), or 18.9% jump in CO2 between 11.3ky and 11.0 ky;
So, the question: what evidence do we have that these historical jumps were a result of smooth
5000-year-long variations, and not a result of abrupt jumps (as we witness today) but smoothened by
natural means of air bubble occlusion in ice cores?
>
> The thing we turn around to is, is there evidence anywhere else in
> the climate system that shows that such a spike happened? Is there
> a mechanism that can rapidly sling 200 ppm CO2 worth of carbon to
> the atmosphere from ocean/terrestrial reservoirs on one century time scales?
>
These are all good questions... :-)
- aap
Jim McGinn
"Alexi Tekhasski" <a.predt...@austin.rr.com> wrote
>>>>>> As you have detailed questions, I refer you to the places with the
>>>>>> detailed answers -- the scientific literature.
>>>>>
>>>>>First of all, I have only one question, which should be easy to answer
>>>>>if there is an answer.
>>>>
>>>> But you'd hardly take my word for it, whatever answer I gave.
>>>
>>>Are you always making groundless assumptions such as above?
>>
>> You don't take my word that the questions have been addressed
>> in the literature, I hardly expect you to take my word as to a number
>> I (say I) pulled out of the literature.
I want you both to take my word that my word can be taken and you got my
word on it.
>>
>> But that's the thing. Science doesn't work by 'take my word for it'.
>> I don't expect people to do so, and get a little nervous when they
>> do on scientific points.
>>
>> If you don't want to read the literature, that's your call.
>> Just don't make assertions about what is or isn't there.
>>
>
> Robert, you are talking nonsense. If you extract some result or conclusion
> from a published source, and give a reference to it, why would you assume
> that people "wouldn't take your word for it"? Why you are of so low
> opinion if people? After all, it is not "your word", it is a "expert
> published word", unless you misunderstood or misrepresent it, or infer an
> unwarranted conclusion.
Maybe he should hire a lawyer.
Robert Grumbine
Alexi Tekhasski <a.predt...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@radix.net> wrote in message
>news:123fdng...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> The two simple pictures are Alexi's extreme -- averaging over the entire
>> time until closure -- and being totally open and well-mixed to the
>> atmosphere until the instant of closure.
>>
>
>I don't think there is a need to put me down that low. It is obvious for
>anyone skilled in the field of physics that averages in natural processes
>rarely (if ever) occur with a rectangular weighting function, most likely
>the function has a bell-shape. The rectangular window of averaging occurs
>only in scientific ball-park estimations and scholl programs, and as
>means to get the point across a newsgroup.
Reread -- I never suggested you were taking rectangular weight. Just
that you were averaging (by means you didn't specify) over the entire
period from snowfall to closure. As I explained, this is incorrect.
It's also incorrect to say a bell shape. See the Barnola paper.
>[snip]
>
>> Perhaps this is what part of Alexi's objection is to the claim
>> that present CO2 is higher than anything from the glacial record.
>> He's possibly envisioning that there could have been a century long spike
>> of 200 ppm in the previous interglacial(s), but that averaging
>> over 1000 years (let's say), reduced that to a 20 ppm signal that
>> doesn't look as high as it 'should' -- if we had perfect time
>> resolution. If that's a basic objection, then, true, there's no _proof_
>> from the ice core record that CO2 didn't spike for a short time to a level
>> above present. But then again, science deals with evidence, not proof.
>
>Are you trying to dimiss the whole mathematics as a non-science here?
You haven't been talking about mathematics, so no. Your complaints
have appeared to be about other things. But as far as math goes,
no, mathematics is not science. If you want mathematical certainty,
you have to not do science. The certainty is math's strength.
Being necessarily about the real world is science's.
>I am completely lost in the semantics of "proof" vs. "evidence" (even
>after two oil cans of Foster's
>Bitter). But how about this:
>(a) we _know_ that the Antarctic ice records are effectively 4000-6000
>year averages over actual
>air composition;
Really? If you consider that we _know_ that, on what basis do
you reject that we know that the current CO2 levels are unprecedented
in the glacial record.
>> The thing we turn around to is, is there evidence anywhere else in
>> the climate system that shows that such a spike happened? Is there
>> a mechanism that can rapidly sling 200 ppm CO2 worth of carbon to
>> the atmosphere from ocean/terrestrial reservoirs on one century time scales?
>
>These are all good questions... :-)
Too bad you ignore the answers.
Robert Grumbine
Michael Tobis <mto...@gmail.com> wrote:
[deletia on grounds of correctness, to add a couple points]
>It is true that the amount of carbon emitted can be estimated from
>economic data. The amount that is staying in the atmosphere is
>measured. The huge spike in CO2 can have no explanation other than that
>about half of carbon emissions are staying in the atmosphere, net, but
>this doesn't mean they have to be the same exact atoms.
>
>It is my understanding that isotopic evidence is consistent with this
>picture, though I've never actually seen a presentation of this
>evidence.
Add 14C to the isotope list. While biota, soil, atmosphere, ocean
have 14C, fossil fuels have none, nor does the limestone used for
making cement. Adding 14C to the argument rules out some otherwise
possible non-anthropogenic sources.
For a discussion with citations to the literature which works out
the details of the isotopic arguments, see Jan Schloerer's FAQ
at http://www.radix.net/~bobg/scq.CO2rise.html
Coby Beck
> For a discussion with citations to the literature which works out
> the details of the isotopic arguments, see Jan Schloerer's FAQ
> at http://www.radix.net/~bobg/scq.CO2rise.html
That didn't work for me, but this did:
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
Alexi Tekhasski
> In article <FD2_f.9577$_26....@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
> Alexi Tekhasski <a.predt...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@radix.net> wrote in message
>>news:123fdng...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> The two simple pictures are Alexi's extreme -- averaging over the entire
>>> time until closure -- and being totally open and well-mixed to the
>>> atmosphere until the instant of closure.
>>>
>>
>>I don't think there is a need to put me down that low. It is obvious for
>>anyone skilled in the field of physics that averages in natural processes
>>rarely (if ever) occur with a rectangular weighting function, most likely
>>the function has a bell-shape. The rectangular window of averaging occurs
>>only in scientific ball-park estimations and scholl programs, and as
>>means to get the point across a newsgroup.
>
> Reread -- I never suggested you were taking rectangular weight. Just
> that you were averaging (by means you didn't specify) over the entire
> period from snowfall to closure. As I explained, this is incorrect.
Really? Then you must have some very special meaning when you said "averaging over the entire time
until closure -- and being totally open and well-mixed to the
atmosphere until the instant of closure." I my books, "totally open" and "instant closure" is a
strict equivalent of "rectangular function". In any case, regardless the shape of weighting
function, 5000 years is a lot, and the percolated firn will smooth variation in amplitudes of
trapped CO2 to large extent (as you suggested yourself, maybe by a factor of 20). As I explained,
this simplification was necessary to get your attention to the inconsistency in your logic about
"unprecedented peak". As I see, I succeeded, of which I am very glad.
> It's also incorrect to say a bell shape. See the Barnola paper.
Technically speaking, this kind of phraseology covers pretty much all weighting functions other than
"rectangular window", with an exception for dual and more maximums, which is covers pretty much
every reasonable weightings. Therefore, I could not be incorrect here. Bells do have different
shapes.
>>[snip]
>>
>>> Perhaps this is what part of Alexi's objection is to the claim
>>> that present CO2 is higher than anything from the glacial record.
>>> He's possibly envisioning that there could have been a century long spike
>>> of 200 ppm in the previous interglacial(s), but that averaging
>>> over 1000 years (let's say), reduced that to a 20 ppm signal that
>>> doesn't look as high as it 'should' -- if we had perfect time
>>> resolution. If that's a basic objection, then, true, there's no _proof_
>>> from the ice core record that CO2 didn't spike for a short time to a level
>>> above present. But then again, science deals with evidence, not proof.
>>
>>Are you trying to dimiss the whole mathematics as a non-science here?
>
> You haven't been talking about mathematics, so no. Your complaints
> have appeared to be about other things. But as far as math goes,
> no, mathematics is not science. If you want mathematical certainty,
> you have to not do science. The certainty is math's strength.
> Being necessarily about the real world is science's.
>
Although I have difficulties in parsing the above statement, I can say that Mathematics has now a
probabilistic branch, fuzzy logic branch, and topology. Applications of these disciplines to
physical phenomena provide a lot of certainties (and bounds!!!) to conclusions derived from
observations for those who "do real science".
>>I am completely lost in the semantics of "proof" vs. "evidence" (even
>>after two oil cans of Foster's Bitter). But how about this:
>>(a) we _know_ that the Antarctic ice records are effectively 4000-6000
>>year averages over actual air composition;
>
> Really? If you consider that we _know_ that, on what basis do
> you reject that we know that the current CO2 levels are unprecedented
> in the glacial record.
>
Man, you clearly have some difficulty in the process of logical deduction. You confuse at least two
things in the above: (1) Smoothing mechanism of firn closure does not effect "levels", it affects
only relative amplitudes of variations (which is linked to your problems with periodicity in the
records); therefore the above construction of yours is non-sequitur. (2) Regarding overall "levels",
yes, I share concerns that ice core samples may represent substantially-skewed concentrations of CO2
due to physio-chemistry of long ice-gas interactions and limits of the methods used to extract
samples from cores; so far the available literature shows no comprehensive discussions of this
chemistry, and lacks of quantitative analysis of associated systematic shifts. This is my basis for
rejection.
>>> The thing we turn around to is, is there evidence anywhere else in
>>> the climate system that shows that such a spike happened? Is there
>>> a mechanism that can rapidly sling 200 ppm CO2 worth of carbon to
>>> the atmosphere from ocean/terrestrial reservoirs on one century time scales?
>>
>>These are all good questions... :-)
>
> Too bad you ignore the answers.
Too bad I have not seen yet a single answer to my concerns, and you failed to provide any. I refuse
to go and waste half of my day in a library only to find out hand waiving and speculations about
"not well understood" processes that will be ignored for the sake of convenience.
Cheers,
- aap
Jim McGinn
"Alexi Tekhasski" <a.predt...@austin.rr.com> wrote
> I am completely lost in the semantics of "proof" vs. "evidence" (even
> after two oil cans of Foster's Bitter). But how about this:
> (a) we _know_ that the Antarctic ice records are effectively 4000-6000
> year averages over actual air composition;
> (b) the reconstructions are still full of jumps., e.g the Vostok data show
> a jump of 43ppm between 17.7 ky BP and 14 ky BP (over 3700 years), or
> 18.9% jump in CO2 between 11.3ky and 11.0 ky;
> So, the question: what evidence do we have that these historical jumps
> were a result of smooth 5000-year-long variations, and not a result of
> abrupt jumps (as we witness today) but smoothened by natural means of air
> bubble occlusion in ice cores?
Well stated.
>
>>
>> The thing we turn around to is, is there evidence anywhere else in
>> the climate system that shows that such a spike happened? Is there
>> a mechanism that can rapidly sling 200 ppm CO2 worth of carbon to
>> the atmosphere from ocean/terrestrial reservoirs on one century time
>> scales?
>>
>
> These are all good questions... :-)
Volcanoes? Meteor impacts?
Science Cop
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Volcanoes? Meteor impacts?
Organized Crime?
Why does "Jim McGinn" name pop up when searching Cato Institute
"Organized Crime"?
How did search terms: Cato Institute "Organized Crime" become synomous
with "Jim McGinn"?
Easy. Practice, practice, practice. In the few short weeks that agent
McGinn has attempted to be a disrupter of usenet environmental groups
he has associated himself with Killer Koch Brothers Organized Crime
operations, including Cato Institute, so strongly that GOOGLE.COM
automatically pops Jim McGinn up to the top of the list if you look up
Cato Institute "Organized Crime".
Looking up "Fred Singer" "Organized Crime" also puts Jim McGinn at the
top of the list.
http://snipurl.com/owo7
Results 1 - 100 of 116 for "Fred Singer" "Organized Crime"
But CATO INSTITUTE has far more Organized Crime links on record...
... In fact, Cato co-founder Charles G. Koch, and David Koch director
of Cato were both called ORGANIZED CRIME by David Koch's twin-brother
Bill on CBS national television...
http://snipurl.com/owoc
Results for "Bill Koch" "Organized Crime"
http://snipurl.com/owok
Results about 81 for "Bill Koch" "Organized Crime".
Here's the Jim McGinn links to Cato Institute "Organized Crime"
http://snipurl.com/ownc
Results 1 - 100 of 1,700 for Cato Institute "Organized Crime"
News
Also, The Koch Pipeline Co., LP, another subsidiary of Koch Industries,
had agreed to pay some $35 million in fines and penalties for
violations of the ...
http://waternet.com/news.asp?mode=4&N_ID=14430 - 16k
News
Koch hit with record Clean Water Act fine. HOUSTON - The Koch
Pipeline Co., ... of Koch Industries, Inc. in Wichita, KS, has agreed
to pay some $35 million ...
http://waternet.com/news.asp?mode=4&N_ID=11149 - 16k
Forbes.com: Forbes Faces: The Koch Brothers
In September 1999, Koch Industries paid $8 million in damages after a
... It was forced to pay a $35 million settlement for 300 separate oil
spills in six ...
http://www.forbes.com/2001/01/04/0104faces.html - 27k
Forbes.com: Forbes World's Richest People 2001
Brothers Charles and David run Koch Industries, the $35 billion oil
... mishap in its Corpus Christi refinery; the company agreed to pay a
$20 million fine. ...
StealthPacs.org | Overview of Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE ...
CSE co-founder David H. Koch is a member of Cato's board of
directors.13 Koch ... of Koch Industries, an oil and gas company that
paid a $35 million fine in ...
http://www.stealthpacs.org/profile.cfm?Org_ID=162 - 31k
July/August 2002 - Sierra Magazine - Sierra Club
In January, Koch Industries agreed to pay about $35 million for
violations of the Clean ... but also to pay a $1 million fine for
air-pollution violations. ...
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200207/thinktank.asp - 41k
David H. Koch - SourceWatch
Koch Industries received a $30000000.00 criminal fine in March 2000:
... for more than 300 oil spills in five states, prompting a penalty of
$35 million. ...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_H._Koch - 14k
The Center for Public Integrity
The owners of Koch Industries, the nation's second wealthiest privately
owned business, the brothers were recently given a $35 million federal
fine in ...
http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=508 - 35k
Cato Institute co-founder Charles G. Koch, and David Koch director of
Cato were both called ORGANIZED CRIME by David Koch's twin-brother Bill
on CBS national television...
http://snipurl.com/owpi
Results 80 for "Bill Koch" "Organized Crime".
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/27/60II/main252545.shtml
CBS News | Blood And Oil | August 15, 2001 18:38:51
... my legacy, my father's legacy to be based upon organized crime."
... Bill Koch says that his brother Charles made a fortune stealing
oil. ...
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/27/60II/main252545.shtml - 55k
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/CSE_Organized_Crime.html
Organized Crime Ring - Killer Koch's Citizens for a Sound Economy
Twin Brother, Bill Koch Claims on CBS National TV that David Koch and
Koch ... Because CSE is an organized crime ring, and because it is
funded by Killer ...
www.ecosyn.us/adti/CSE_Organized_Crime.html - 67k
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Koctopus_01.html
Killer Koch Empire of Think Tanks
David's twin brother Bill Koch claims on CBS National TV that
Charles and David and Koch Industries are engaged in "Organized Crime."
...
www.ecosyn.us/adti/Koctopus_01.html - 113k
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Killer_David_Koch.html
The Clear and Present Danger of the Sociopathic Insanity of David
...
I did not want my family, my legacy, my father's legacy to be
based upon organized crime." ... Bill Koch says that his brother
Charles made a fortune ...
www.ecosyn.us/adti/Killer_David_Koch.html - 71k
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/51_koch.html
David H. Koch (with Julia)
Bill Koch has also alleged that Koch Industries underreported the
amount and quality of oil it garnered from drilling operations on
federal and tribal lands ...
www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/51_koch.html - 24k -
Apr 7, 2006
http://www.raisingkaine.com/164
Raising Kaine :: Koch Industries and Kilgore: An "Explosive ...
I did not want my family, my legacy, my father?s legacy to be based
upon organized crime." Bill Koch also charges that "his brother Charles
made a fortune ...
www.raisingkaine.com/164 - 35k
http://www.corpwatch.org///article.php?id=1789
CorpWatch: Another Oily Tie That Binds: Koch Industries
Bill Koch, a brother of Charles and David, told CBS's 60 Minutes II
last year That Koch Industries is "engaged In "organized crime. ...
www.corpwatch.org///article.php?id=1789 - 29k
http://www.larryville.com/forum/index.cgi?frames=n;read=17112
Cato Sucks (Kochs)
I did not want my family, my > legacy, my father's legacy to be based
upon organized crime." > ... Bill Koch says that his brother Charles
made a fortune ...
www.larryville.com/forum/index.cgi?frames=n;read=17112 - 24k
http://www.larryville.com/forum/index.cgi?frames=n;read=17060&expand=1
US/World: CATO stuff especially for Old Sam *LINK* clockworkowl ...
I did not want my family, my legacy, my father's legacy to be
based upon organized crime." ... Bill Koch says that his brother
Charles made a fortune ...
www.larryville.com/forum/index.cgi?frames=n;read=17060&expand=1 -
103k
http://www.larryville.com/forum/index.cgi?frames=n;form=17112
Post Response
I did not want my family, my > legacy, my father's legacy to be
based upon organized crime." > ... Bill Koch says that his brother
Charles made a fortune ...
www.larryville.com/forum/index.cgi?frames=n;form=17112 - 12k
http://corpwatch.live.radicaldesigns.org/print_article.php?id=1789
CorpWatch
Bill Koch, a brother of Charles and David, told CBS's 60 Minutes II
last year that Koch Industries is "engaged in "organized crime. ...
corpwatch.live.radicaldesigns.org/print_article.php?id=1789 - 4k
http://corpwatch.live.radicaldesigns.org/article.php?id=1789
CorpWatch: Another Oily Tie That Binds: Koch Industries
Bill Koch, a brother of Charles and David, told CBS's 60 Minutes II
last year That Koch Industries is "engaged In "organized crime. ...
corpwatch.live.radicaldesigns.org/article.php?id=1789 - 29k
http://uttm.com/stories/2000/11/27/60II/main252545.shtml
CBS News | Blood And Oil | August 15, 2001 18:38:51
... I did not want my family, my legacy, my father's legacy to be
based upon organized crime." When Bill Koch's father, Fred Koch, died
in 1967, he passed to ...
uttm.com/stories/2000/11/27/60II/main252545.shtml - 49k
http://ecosyn.us/adti/AdTI_Contents/AdTI_Contents.html
The Destruction of Science By Organized Crime -- How AdTI's ...
Koch is Organized Crime, brother says ... David's twin brother Bill
Koch claims on CBS National TV that Charles and David and Koch
Industries are engaged in ...
ecosyn.us/adti/AdTI_Contents/AdTI_Contents.html - 23k
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0407&L=sanet-mg&T=0&O=D&F=&S=&P=22979
SANET-MG Archives -- July 2004 (#190)
On CBS national television, Bill Koch, twin brother to David, calls
Koch Industries and his two brothers "organized crime". Certainly From
the evidence I ...
lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0407&L=sanet-mg&T=0&O=D&F=&S=&P=22979
- 37k
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0407&L=sanet-mg&T=0&F=&S=&P=3492
SANET-MG Archives -- July 2004 (#32)
This "Organized Crime" operation (as brother Bill Koch told It on
CBS news) involves scores of million of corruption DOLLARS upholding a
propaganda Network ...
lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0407&L=sanet-mg&D=0&I=-3&P=3492
- 38k
http://www.factbites.com/search.php?kp=David+H.+Koch
David H Koch - Factbites
David's twin brother Bill Koch claims on CBS National TV that Charles
and David and Koch Industries are engaged in " Organized Crime." ...
www.factbites.com/search.php?kp=David+H.+Koch - 45k
http://www.eveningnews.com/stories/2000/11/27/60II/main252545.shtml
CBS News | Blood And Oil | August 15, 2001 18:38:51
Bill Koch says Koch Industries has made millions by stealing Oil from
The government. ... my legacy, my father's legacy to be based upon
organized crime." ...
www.eveningnews.com/stories/2000/11/27/60II/main252545.shtml - 48k
http://www.usenetarchive.org/Dir26/File714.html
Usenet Archive
... This "Organized Crime" > operation (as > brother Bill Koch told it
on CBS news) involves scores of million of > corruption dollars >
upholding a propaganda ...
www.usenetarchive.org/Dir26/File714.html - 93k
http://www.usenetarchive.org/Dir26/File834.html
Usenet Archive
... This "Organized Crime" > > operation (as > > brother Bill Koch
told it on CBS news) involves scores of million of > > corruption
dollars > > upholding a ...
www.usenetarchive.org/Dir26/File834.html - 93k
http://energy.edu.pl/oil-125.html
Who are the "Killer Koch Brothers" and why are they paying l
Twin Brother, Bill Koch Claims on CBS National TV that David Koch and
Koch Industries is engaged in "Organized Crime."
http://tinyurl.com/ax2p9 ...
energy.edu.pl/oil-125.html - 11k
http://election.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/27/60II/printable252545.shtml
CBSNews.com: Print This Story
the question is: was Bill Koch a renegade out to ruin his brother, ...
not want my family, my legacy, my father's legacy to be based upon
organized crime. ...
election.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/27/60II/printable252545.shtml -
21k
http://election.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/27/60II/main252545.shtml
CBS News | Blood And Oil | August 15, 2001 18:38:51
Bill Koch says Koch Industries has made millions by stealing Oil
from The government. ... my legacy, my father's legacy to be based
upon organized crime." ...
election.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/27/60II/main252545.shtml - 51k
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/27/60II/main252545.shtml
CBS News | Blood And Oil | August 15, 2001 18:38:51
Bill Koch says Koch Industries has made millions by stealing Oil from
The government. ... my legacy, my father's legacy to be based upon
organized crime." ...
www.cbsnews.com%A0/stories/2000/11/27/60II/main252545.shtml - 51k
Alexi Tekhasski
news:1144333748.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Unfortunately, demanding that other people do your work for you is a
> poor start.
You have it all backwards. The gentleman _volunteered_ his expertise in "Measuring ice core CO2".
Therefore a simple question is not of any sort of "demand". If he volunteered, he might know the
answer. If he does not know the answer, just say so, and then refer to literature where the possible
answer might be, and no more questions. Instead, he resorted to all kind of stall tactics, ending up
with "if I say so, you wouldn't trust me anyway" because I might have "dishonest pursuit about this
topic". Also, this is not about "other people do your work". Most people here are not college
students searching for quick answer for their homework. I have done my work already (to a reasonable
extent), but those who just repeat dogmatic statements have apparently not, which shows up in
exchanges on this newsgroup.
> If you don't have access to the literature, it's not really
> a reasonable position to argue that scientists are being cagey. Younger
> scientists tend to put their publications online despite the
> requirements of journals to the contrary, but that is strictly speaking
> illegal. The system is set up to reward publication in copyright
> journals. This is an archaism in the scientific enterprise, not
> caginess on the part of the researchers.
I think it is just a lame excuse. I guess you know that the space in published articles is always
very limited, there is never a room for original raw data or details of methods and algorithms.
However, if a scientist works in a hot controversial field and is absolutely positive that his
position and results are absolutely correct, there is no reason not to put a expanded versions of
published works online, with proper references, expanded or more detailed graphs, explanation of
details, expanded motivations for certain set of assumptions, with more polished arguments, etc.
After all there always must be students around who should be doing this as part of their involvement
in the research. If it is not done, it is cagey, and ppl have all rights to suspect that some
arguments may not be as solid as they are currently presented, all without a shred of questioning.
> If you want to play along at a professional level, you will need to
> negotiate your university library's requirements. I agree this is
> unfortunate, but it's the way it is.
I don't get it. If it is a state university (and there is always is one or two in close proximity),
the library is public.
Cheers,
-aap
Michael Tobis
> published works online, with proper references, expanded or more detailed graphs, explanation of
> details, expanded motivations for certain set of assumptions, with more polished arguments, etc.
I agree that this should be encouraged, but it isn't. In many circles,
it is actively discouraged, as recent news from NASA indicates.
Some find the time and courage to communicate with the public and some
don't. Some have the skills to do this and some don't.
The talents required to do good science are not the same as the talents
required to comunicate with the public. Indeed, that's the problem in a
nutshell. The side that is making stuff up doesn't have to expend any
energy on getting any real depth of knowledge.
Whatever else our disagreements, I agree that there ought to be better
communication channels. That doesn't make the science wrong, though.
mt
Robert Grumbine
Coby Beck <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
>"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@radix.net> wrote in message
>news:123hur0...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> For a discussion with citations to the literature which works out
>> the details of the isotopic arguments, see Jan Schloerer's FAQ
>> at http://www.radix.net/~bobg/scq.CO2rise.html
>
>That didn't work for me, but this did:
>http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
Oops. That's the correct one.
Robert Grumbine
Alexi Tekhasski <a.predt...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@radix.net> wrote in message
>news:123hucu...@corp.supernews.com...
>> In article <FD2_f.9577$_26....@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
>> Alexi Tekhasski <a.predt...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>>"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@radix.net> wrote in message
>>>news:123fdng...@corp.supernews.com...
[snip]
>>>Are you trying to dimiss the whole mathematics as a non-science here?
>>
>> You haven't been talking about mathematics, so no. Your complaints
>> have appeared to be about other things. But as far as math goes,
>> no, mathematics is not science. If you want mathematical certainty,
>> you have to not do science. The certainty is math's strength.
>> Being necessarily about the real world is science's.
>>
>Although I have difficulties in parsing the above statement, I can say
>that Mathematics has now a
>probabilistic branch, fuzzy logic branch, and topology. Applications of
>these disciplines to
>physical phenomena provide a lot of certainties (and bounds!!!) to
>conclusions derived from
>observations for those who "do real science".
Mathematics is very useful to science. But it is not, itself, science.
Math will enable us to solve (at least approximately) F = mv, as well
as F = ma. But the former is not science. Nor was it mathematics
that showed that F = ma is an incomplete statement, only true in
limiting cases. Again, it was science that discovered that mathematics
was solving the (physically) wrong problem.
Robert Grumbine
Alexi Tekhasski <a.predt...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>"Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1144333748.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Unfortunately, demanding that other people do your work for you is a
>> poor start.
>
>You have it all backwards. The gentleman _volunteered_ his expertise in
>"Measuring ice core CO2".
But not an unbounded response to any and all questions, with
answers to be pigeon holed and explained to the satisfaction of
everybody. Nor even merely you and yours.
>Therefore a simple question is not of any sort of "demand". If he
>volunteered, he might know the
>answer. If he does not know the answer, just say so, and then refer to
>literature where the possible
>answer might be, and no more questions.
I've referred you repeatedly to the literature. You refuse to look
at it. My considered opinion, having read the literature, is that
the question you label as simple is, in fact, not simple. My opinion
is that if you really do want to get the answer, and be sure that
all of your concerns have been addressed along the way to that answer,
you have to read that literature.
That I'm not spending my time to package up the answer to what I
_think_ your question might be, in the way you want it packaged, and
to serve as your target for attacks on me and the field, does not
change any of the science.
The science is still there, in the scientific literature. And
I've given you good pointers on where to look. If you'd rather
complain that I'm not doing enough work for you and packaging up
the answer the way you want, your choice.
[snip]
>> If you want to play along at a professional level, you will need to
>> negotiate your university library's requirements. I agree this is
>> unfortunate, but it's the way it is.
>
>I don't get it. If it is a state university (and there is always is one
>or two in close proximity),
>the library is public.
So why don't you take advantage of that free library?