criticism of ice core data

[dbo...@mindspring.com]

Here is a link to a criticism of CO2 ice core data.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

I can find no discussion of this problem anywhere on Real Climate or on
any other site.

[Coby Beck]

<dbo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1144116498....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

This crap has been torn to shreds before.
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

[Jim McGinn]

"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote

>> Here is a link to a criticism of CO2 ice core data.
>>
>> http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
>>
>> I can find no discussion of this problem anywhere on Real Climate or on
>> any other site.
>
> This crap has been torn to shreds before.
> http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

All the more reason for Real Climate to include it (or, at least, links to
it) on their website. (Unless they have something to hide.)

Jim

[dbo...@mindspring.com]

THANK YOU Coby. At last, some real information instead of ad hom
attacks. I agree with most of the criticism of Jaworski. However,
where CO2 formed clathrates NOT IN BUBBLES, when the pressure was
relieved it would form microcracks and leak out when the pressure was
relieved. There would be no sign of this. This is the problem I'd
like to see addressed.
Actually, I suggest an IN-SITU measurement of CO2 in the ice using a
probe that is pushed down into the ice without ever relieving the
pressure. Backscattering of light by the CO2 would be used to measure
concentration.

[Coby Beck]

"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:M2lYf.61852$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote

>
>>>
>>> http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
>>>
>>> I can find no discussion of this problem anywhere on Real Climate or on
>>> any other site.
>>
>> This crap has been torn to shreds before.
>> http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7
>
> All the more reason for Real Climate to include it (or, at least, links to
> it) on their website. (Unless they have something to hide.)

I'm sure it is this same fear that keeps them from mentioning you on their
site as well.

[Alexi Tekhasski]

"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message news:rNkYf.32101$%H.17263@clgrps13...

Torn to shreds? I would say that the whole structure of the "rebuttal" of an anonymous author is
strikingly suspicious.
The rebuttal begins with mentioning "consensus", then mentions importance of Kyoto protocol and
emission-limiting proposals,
and then upfront accuses Dr. Jaworowski with "extravagant claims of bias and dishonesty in the
scientific community".
Do I need to read more? I think this is already enough to discard this rebuttal.

Just out of curiosity: the rebuttal then proceeds with picking fractions of phrases, two-three
words, obviously out of context,
and then "torn them to sheds". Pretty pathetic picture overall. For example, item #1 on the "shred
list" is the phrase
" .written for the Hearing before the US Senate ." . The author tries to discredit the article by
searching for
Jaworowski in Senate lists. Obviously the author has deficient reading comprehension skills and do
not realize that
"written for" does not imply that the testimony actually occurred; the text could have been written
on request, but then it
might be excluded from hearing schedule for variety of reasons. The other 20+ items are of the same
sort of
arguments. In short, the whole "rebuttal" in no way can be classified as "torn to shreds", but just
a pathetic nitpicking
crap.

Apparently, the method involves a lot of steps and assumptions, including solid-state chemistry of a
100,000 year scale
(which cannot be easily reproduced in independent experiments). So, let me ask you this: what are
error margins in the
whole method of ice CO2 measurements?

- aap

[dbo...@mindspring.com]

It hass been know for years that deep ide from Greenland will pop and
fracture when brought to the surface due to the pressurized gases being
released. In fact, about 20 yrs ago I read of a millionaire obtaining
such ice for a party where it was used as a novelty in drinks where it
would spit and pop. Obviously, gas can be expected to leak from ice
cores.

[dbo...@mindspring.com]

I too went back over the criticisms of Jaworski in that paper linked by
Coby and here is what I find:

Criticism #1 This IS pure nonsens as Jaworski does not say he
testified before Congress, just that he wrote this for them.

#2 This is basically saying jaworski has few pubs but the criticisms
are self discrediting as later criticisms cite papars by Jaworski. I
have to call this nonsense too.

#3Not sure
#4 Basically the criticism is that Jaworksi has no ideas to mitigate
the problem with ice cores..........huh?
#5 Semantics with no meaning
#7I agree
#8Havent had time to check this
#9Jaworski really is correct
#10More semantics
#11 Maybe correct but has no bearing on science
#12 I'd like to see these experimental results but havent found them
yet
#13?
#14Jaworski is correct
#15 I dont know
#16 Jaworski is correct

I went no further as it is obvious that the author had no intention of
fairly judging Jawiorski's point about problems with the ice core data.

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <1144116498....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,

"dbo...@mindspring.com" <dbo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Here is a link to a criticism of CO2 ice core data.
>
>http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
>

Oh geez, you cite one contrary Russian scientist. You ignore all in the IPCC
report, etc.

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <JapYf.41108$uX5....@tornado.texas.rr.com>,

Realclimate is maintained by, real scientists. Like you'll find at the IPCC,
or NASA, or the National Academy of Sciences. Read them.

[Scott Nudds]

<dbo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message

That is good news indeed since it's not the escape of old air that we are
concened with but with the exchange of ambient air within the old air
pockets.

Having a positive pressure inside precludes mixing from outside.

Stupid... Stupid... Dbohara.

[Jim McGinn]

<dbo...@mindspring.com> wrote

> http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
>
> I can find no discussion of this problem anywhere on Real Climate or on
> any other site.
>

And there's the paper also:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zj21c97.pdf

Wow, if even one tenth of what this guys saying is true then it's pretty
damning of the climatologists.

Jim

[H2-PV NOW]

You should talk. All the internet is buzzing with reports about your
track record...

DAMNING LINKS, eh?

Jim McGinn begin to spin the mortal sin of lies worn thin, his din of
has-been tactics herein a siamese twin of crooks, kissing kin of
pigskin, gets his foreskin pinned in a tailspin to his chagrin. He'll
never win, sad, play the violin, he cops it on the chin.

Sparky @zig-zag.net wrote:
> http://snipurl.com/opq6
> Google Results "Jim McGinn" arrest warrant issued.

> http://snipurl.com/oppy
> Google Results: "Jim McGinn" arrested for fraud.

> Does anybody know if this is the same McGinn that used to post on
> sci.environment? I always knew he would turn up bad in the end, all his
> association with organized crime figures.

> http://snipurl.com/opqb
> Google Results "Jim McGinn" connected to organized crime.

It looks like there are reports that Jim McGinn has been arrested for
fraud.

http://snipurl.com/oqp1
Google Results for "Jim McGinn" arrested for fraud

I looked up some other keywords on a hunch based on his displayed
morality. This is what I found...

http://snipurl.com/oqpb
Results for "Jim McGinn" arrest child pornography.

http://snipurl.com/oqph
Results for "Jim McGinn" fellatio OR "Koch-Sucker"

http://snipurl.com/oqpk
Results about 23 for "Jim McGinn" AND Organized Crime.

http://snipurl.com/oqpp
Results for "Jim McGinn" Accomplice to Crime.

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <gUXYf.12231$tN3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,

"If one-tenth of what creationists say is true..."

"If pigs had wings..."

[Roger Coppock]

Real climate discusses it here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

[dbo...@mindspring.com]

Thie following text is taken directly from REAL CLIMATE but I replace
CO2 with H2O in many places. Obviously, CO2 and H2O can be thought of
as a possible amplifier for warming caused by increased solar
irradiiance as indicated by sunspot number increase from the 1890s to
later part of the 20th century.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate.
Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's
orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been
known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean
circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

>From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable
sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some
(currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean
to warm. This process also causes H20 to start rising. Then H2O and CO2
further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping
properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 should be
thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from
putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an
amplifier once they are underway.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much
about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about
why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the
amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural
ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice
ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]

[Roger Coppock]

> Thie following text is taken directly from REAL CLIMATE
> but I replace CO2 with H2O in many places.

Suppose I relplaced the name "Zacarias Moussaoui" with the
name "D B Ohara" on the execution order, wouldn't that be
just as valid as replacing "CO2" with "H2O?"

[Michael Tobis]

First, ice cores yield local near-surface temperature and global CO2.
So there is the thermal inertia of the ice caps to contend with before
presuming that the lag between CO2 and temperature is all that
problematic; the rest of the world was presumably warming up already.

The time constant of water vapor equilibration is related to the mean
overturning time of the troposphere, or about a week, and the ocean
surface provides an accessible, essentially infinite reservoir in
direct contact with the atmosphere.

With carbon there are multiple subsystems with multiple time scales,
but the large reservoir that sets the dominant adjustment time of the
atmosphere as far as OC2 concentration is concerned is the deep ocean.
The ocean is stably stratified in most places, and the overturning
takes a long time, about 2000 years.

On the time scales that dominate political discussions about climate
change policy, water vapor adjusts instantaneously, and carbon is
forever. It's a very robust approximation for such purposes.

mt

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <1144358069.1...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,

"dbo...@mindspring.com" <dbo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Thie following text is taken directly from REAL CLIMATE but I replace
>CO2 with H2O in many places. Obviously, CO2 and H2O can be thought of
>as a possible amplifier for warming caused by increased solar
>irradiiance as indicated by sunspot number increase from the 1890s to
>later part of the 20th century.
>
>It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate.
>Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's
>orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been
>known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean
>circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.
>
>>From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable
>sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some
>(currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean
>to warm. This process also causes H20 to start rising. Then H2O and CO2
>further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping
>properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 should be
>thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from
>putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.
>
>In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an
>amplifier once they are underway.

CO2 has initiated THIS one. That's undisputed fact.

[Retief]

On Fri, 07 Apr 06 09:23:41 GMT, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>>In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an
>>amplifier once they are underway.
>
>CO2 has initiated THIS one. That's undisputed fact.

It's only undisputed in Lloyd's World.

Retief

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <sbvi329nq20ukra1q...@4ax.com>,

Retief's idiocy is growing by leaps and bounds.