In prehistory, CO2 and warming went in lock-step

Feb 28, 2013
Giant tabular icebergs surrounded by ice floe drift in Vincennes Bay in the Australian Antarctic Territory on January 11, 2008. Levels of carbon dioxide rose hand-in-hand with warming at the end of the last Ice Age, according to a study Thursday that deals a blow to climate skeptics.

Levels of carbon dioxide rose hand-in-hand with warming at the end of the last Ice Age, according to a study Thursday that deals a blow to climate skeptics.

French researchers said they had answered a riddle that has perplexed scientists.

The question arises from bubbles of atmospheric air, trapped in cores of ice drilled from Antarctica that date back to the last deglaciation, which ended some 10,000 years ago.

These tiny bubbles are closely scrutinised, for they contain carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal behind global warming.

The higher or lower the CO2, according to the conventional benchmark, the greater or lower the .

The anomaly is this: the CO2 in the bubbles do not correspond to the level of warming indicated by the surrounding snowfall of that time.

Climate skeptics argued that this showed the CO2 rose after Earth's atmosphere warming.

It would thus imply that global warming today may come, at least in part, from natural means—not from from fossil fuels as the scientific consensus maintains.

Writing in the journal Science, a team led by French Frederic Parrenin looked at ice from five deep drilling expeditions in Antarctica.

By analysing the of the in these samples, the researchers said they were able to filter out the confusing signal from the data.

During the last deglaciation, the temperature rose by 19 degrees Celsius (34.2 degrees Fahrenheit) while at the same time CO2 levels in the atmosphere rose by about 100 parts per million, they said.

The discrepancy comes from the physical process by which CO2 bubbles are formed in successive layers of snow.

"The are always more recent than the ice that surrounds them," France's National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) said in a statement.

Further work will be carried out on different ice samples taken from different eras to see whether this result holds.

The researchers said the study did not examine the reasons for the rise in temperature that ushered in today's deglaciation.

There are several natural factors for global warming, including volcanic eruption and rock weathering that releases heat-trapping greenhouse gases, as well as modifications in heat from the Sun and tiny changes in Earth's axis and orbit.

Explore further: Mexico's Volcano of Fire blows huge ash cloud

More information: "Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming," by F. Parrenin et al, Science, 2013.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Snowball Earth hypothesis challenged

Oct 12, 2011

The hypothesis that the Earth was completely covered in ice 635 million years ago has received a serious blow. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 during that period was much lower than previously thought, ...

Plunge in CO2 put the freeze on Antarctica

Dec 01, 2011

Plunge in CO2 put the freeze on AntarcticaAtmospheric carbon dioxide levels plunged by 40% before and during the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet 34 million years ago, according to a new study. The finding helps solv ...

Recommended for you

Erosion may trigger earthquakes

Nov 21, 2014

Researchers from laboratories at Géosciences Rennes (CNRS/Université de Rennes 1), Géosciences Montpellier (CNRS/Université de Montpellier 2) and Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris (CNRS/IPGP/Université Paris Diderot), ...

Strong undersea earthquake hits eastern Indonesia

Nov 21, 2014

A strong undersea earthquake hit off the coast of eastern Indonesia on Friday, but there were no immediate reports of injuries or serious damage and officials said it was unlikely to trigger a tsunami.

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FrankHerbertWhines
1.8 / 5 (40) Feb 28, 2013
BS
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (47) Feb 28, 2013
"There are several natural factors for global warming, including volcanic eruption and rock weathering that releases heat-trapping greenhouse gases, as well as modifications in heat from the Sun and tiny changes in Earth's axis and orbit."
There ya go...global warming is also caused by SEVERAL natural factors. And the deglaciation began long before humans began using fossil fuels, driving cars and heating their homes with anything but wood fires. And yet, somehow the CO2 levels in the ancient ice is proof that high CO2 levels came about naturally. The gas is sequestered and then released; sequestered and then released, in never ending cycles.

I am not saying that humans should continue polluting and releasing the CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere and the oceans, but the natural processes have been happening long before our existence and will continue happening long after we are extinct (if that ever happens).

I will now get rated 1 from rate-bots and pissed-off AGW activists.

Sean_W
2.5 / 5 (27) Feb 28, 2013
""The gas bubbles are always more recent than the ice that surrounds them," France's National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) said in a statement.

Further work will be carried out on different ice samples taken from different eras to see whether this result holds."

No explanation on how bubbles of present air can form in yesterday's ice. Explaining that might have been helpful. And they are going to see if the results hold after they declare they have answered the question.

Time; it comes in chronological order.
Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (37) Feb 28, 2013
BS


Why would ya say that? Seemed like a balanced piece of science to me,,,, just reporting numbers without any assumed "why"s or "how"s.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (30) Feb 28, 2013

I will now get rated 1 from rate-bots and pissed-off AGW activist


No, not in my case anyway. A 1 from someone who is a retired meteorologist and who simply wants to deny ignorance.
Caliban
4 / 5 (29) Feb 28, 2013
I will now get rated 1 from rate-bots and pissed-off AGW activists.


No, you'll get 1s because your comment is completely devoid of logic --in fact, it looks as if you didn't even read the article, which explicitly states that there are(and as is well-known) natural inputs to warming.

However, the current warming is due to human-produced CO2, and thus the "A" in AGW.

For warming by strictly natural causes, it is EXPECTED that increased CO2 will either lead or lag temperature increase, depending upon the main driving mechanism, eg, vulcanism or Milankovitch cycle.

What they are saying in the article is that the processes that form the bubbles in the ice have caused a possible misinterpretation of the timing of this relationship -at least in terms of natural warming since the last ice age.

Displaying your ignorance in your comments adds nothing to the discussion, except for yet another opportunity for well-deserved ridicule.
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (25) Feb 28, 2013
The denialist magically believes that ice bubbles filled with new air, magically inflate in ice hundreds of years after the ice is created.

"BS" - Denialist Whiner

Meanwhile here in Reality Land we understand that the bubbles contained in ice are bubbles of air that existed when the ice was created.

Watching Faux News has made the Conservative Whiner stupid.

VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (24) Feb 28, 2013
Poor Sox. He seems completely oblivious to the fact that the IPCC attributes the current warming to the very factors listed above in addition to the anthropogenic cause which has produced the bulk of the observed warming.

"There ya go...global warming is also caused by SEVERAL natural factors." - SoxTard

Clearly he is lashing out at IPCC reports that he has never read.

You can't get more Tard than that, which is why Sox continually gets rated a 1.

Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (32) Feb 28, 2013
Once again, no amount of evidence can have an effect on denialists, because it simply goes against their world view. While the findings of this report are clear, unbiased and well researched, the very first comment from a denier is that these processes have been "happening long before our existance". Never mind this is well known. Never mind this has been well researched and is taken into account in climate modeling. Never mind that it has never been suggested by any science that it wasn't happening.

The best way to show the ridiculousness of such is to simply not engage with them and continue to point to the science.
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (36) Feb 28, 2013
Maggus . A huge amount of excellent science has been done since it was first hypothesized that rising CO2 levels were the cause of the present warming and that hypothesis is now in tatters. The fact that you and physorg are apparently unaware of them is strange though I suspect you are merely in denial because it threatens you in some way.Science is only science when it's willing to be shown to be wrong. It's time to move on I'm afraid
http://hockeyscht...man.html
http://hockeyscht...ade.html
http://www.aitse....-or-not/
Parsec
3.2 / 5 (24) Feb 28, 2013
Maggus . A huge amount of excellent science has been done since it was first hypothesized that rising CO2 levels were the cause of the present warming and that hypothesis is now in tatters. The fact that you and physorg are apparently unaware of them is strange though I suspect you are merely in denial because it threatens you in some way.Science is only science when it's willing to be shown to be wrong. It's time to move on I'm afraid
http://hockeyscht...man.html

BBBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT wrong again!~--> but thanks for playing!
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (26) Feb 28, 2013
"It would thus imply that global warming today may come, at least in part, from natural means—not from carbon emissions from fossil fuels as the scientific consensus maintains."

This, of course,is heresy. Propagation of the faith requires an inquisition.
ScooterG
2.1 / 5 (37) Feb 28, 2013
"deals a blow to climate skeptics"

So now it's getting personal...as if we needed one more reason to not trust the climate change research whores.
djr
4.5 / 5 (24) Feb 28, 2013
Gregor: "Science is only science when it's willing to be shown to be wrong"

The irony of your logic. This article brings new information to the table - that challenges the currently held understanding of the relationship between Co2 and temperatures (C02 has lagged temperatures). So you attack it by saying it is not science - as it is not "willing to be wrong." Who is stubbornly wedded to their ideology?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (25) Feb 28, 2013
Lag time and Phase seem to be concepts far too complex for AGW denialists to conceive of or even manage without causing some sort of apoplexy and its fun watching how those issues are ignored due to lack of education or propaganda totally mishandled due to lack of intelligence :-)

*grin*
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (26) Mar 01, 2013
Dir my comment was a response to Maggus not the article though there is an assertion that CO2 is the major driver of warming. The links I posted appear to refute this. Mike though appears to like to vilify science though and resorts to name calling and abuse when it is presented.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (25) Mar 01, 2013
A huge amount of excellent science has been done since it was first hypothesized that rising CO2 levels were the cause of the present warming


Correct, almost all of which agrees man made global warming is occuring. 98% of real scientists agree.
and that hypothesis is now in tatters.

No, wrong, more and more real science across a broad range of disciplines agrees it is true.
The fact that you and physorg are apparently unaware of them is strange though I suspect you are merely in denial because it threatens you in some way.Science is only science when it's willing to be shown to be wrong. It's time to move on I'm afraid

Ya wish you would move on, or at least get up to date. Same old science article from 1999 touted as being somehow "new" and a link to a paid denier's blog that, first thing, askes for a donation. Laughable! You're a schill gregor, and a joke.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (21) Mar 01, 2013
gregor1 seems linguistically challenged
Mike though appears to like to vilify science though and resorts to name calling and abuse when it is presented.
Beg pardon ? As I am the only 'Mike' here it seems your attack is addressed at me ?

gregor1 needs education:-
Science="The disciplined acquisition of knowledge"

I've never vilified or defamed that process ever. I will add, which also can be directed to some dogmatic AGW proponents as well as deniers ie. Those that deny basic physics, chemistry and properties of materials in combinatorial complexity, that the issue must be supremely probabilistic and *not* to be misled it is deterministic.

ie. The probability that AGW is real is increasing in probability as more data comes in, as more CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) are emitted it's asymptotically approaching unity.

Currently, there is a small probability AGW is not the case, all good scientists *must* accept this paradigm maturely as science is built upon mathematics !
The Alchemist
1.6 / 5 (23) Mar 01, 2013
This article seems to say that CO2 rose from some natural cause in step with temperature, but it also says it was out of step. Seems we need numbers.
It also smacks of the "it runs in cycles" arguments, that is, the Earth heats and cools in natural cycles. This one has always annoyed me... I've never really seen a "cycle." Some factor is always causal in a cycle-the rise of blue-green algae, meteor strikes, massive volcanism, etc..
By the way, I did warn you AGW-ers this was coming. There is alot of "research" going on "proving" CO2 is not causing GW, and there is therefore NO GW... you'll see more.
Of course Alchy fans know I never blamed GW on CO2, so my objections are less strenuous than I feel morally inclined. I've got my perfectly predictive model keeping me globally warm.
And thank you! by the way, to whomever pushed my page onto the GW site on Facebook, I would never imagine so many 'likes' considering the abuse I take otherwise. Thank you, thank you!
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (28) Mar 01, 2013
By the way, I did warn you AGW-ers this was coming. There is alot of "research" going on "proving" CO2 is not causing GW, and there is therefore NO GW... you'll see more.

Only in your fantasy world.

And thank you! by the way, to whomever pushed my page onto the GW site on Facebook, I would never imagine so many 'likes' considering the abuse I take otherwise. Thank you, thank you!

Your vanity is showing.
Egleton
2.7 / 5 (23) Mar 01, 2013

Queensland has had 4 once-in-a hundred-year events in the last 10 years. They are getting the message.
Only when the Lucky Strike cowboy is on oxygen will he understand that smoking causes cancer.
The Lucky Strike cowboy was a 1950's loser.
Bring on the carbon tax.
StarGazer2011
2.2 / 5 (24) Mar 01, 2013
The denialist magically believes that ice bubbles filled with new air, magically inflate in ice hundreds of years after the ice is created.

"BS" - Denialist Whiner

Meanwhile here in Reality Land we understand that the bubbles contained in ice are bubbles of air that existed when the ice was created.

Watching Faux News has made the Conservative Whiner stupid.



"The gas bubbles are always more recent than the ice that surrounds them," France's National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) said in a statement.

Maybe you should try again Vendicar, its the scientists who are saying that the air in the bubbles are magically from after they formed.

Hilarious!

Also interesting that the IPCC says a CO2 doubling from 200ppm to 400ppm will cause around 2-4C of warming, but according to the article interglacial temps rose 19C coincidentally with a 100ppm increase, so clearly there's a different phenomena at work.
StarGazer2011
2.3 / 5 (18) Mar 01, 2013
Heres link to a better article, explains the research somewhat:
http://simpleclim...in-sync/

And while previously EDC had shown that CO2 increases lagged temperature rises by about 800 years at the latest deglaciation, Frédéric's team found no lag using the nitrogen-15 method. "We're saying that CO2 and Antarctic temperature vary at the same time, within 150 years approximately, so it's completely possible that CO2 caused the Antarctic temperature warming," Frédéric said. "We haven't proved it, but at least the hypothesis can now be more carefully evaluated."
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (19) Mar 01, 2013
Gregor's comment not only denies reality, it denies the very article he is responding to.

You can't get more tard then GregorTard.

"A huge amount of excellent science has been done since it was first hypothesized that rising CO2 levels were the cause of the present warming and that hypothesis is now in tatters" - GregorTard

GregorTard's first link provides him with 6 data points from which he concludes that Clouds warm the earth. Last week he claimed it was the sun. In any case, 6 data points are insufficient to determine pretty much anything.

He is desperate.

VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (16) Mar 01, 2013
I see.

In gregor's view then, all science must be wrong.

"Science is only science when it's willing to be shown to be wrong" - GregorTard

Gregor's hope is that once all science is seen as wrong, then his non-science nonsense will sit on an equal footing with science.

It is pure idiocy of course, but that is what Global Warming Denialism is.
Anonym
2 / 5 (23) Mar 01, 2013
If a 100 ppm rise in CO2 caused a 19C (!) rise in temperature then, why hasn't the same rise since 1850 caused a 19C rise?

Aside to the article writer: with all due respect to Newton, the consensus of scientists has (so far at least) always been wrong. I'd stay away from that claim.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (27) Mar 01, 2013
"The gas bubbles are always more recent than the ice that surrounds them," France's National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) said in a statement.
LOL. So now air gets trapped in bubbles AFTER the bubbles form?

Levels of carbon dioxide rose hand-in-hand with warming at the end of the last Ice Age, according to a study Thursday that deals a blow to climate skeptics.
This only serves to prove the "science" of AGW has long since run off the rails of objectivity, and demonstrates they're actively trying to "prove" their biased conclusions, irrespective of the laws of physics and causality.

Paulw789
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 01, 2013

The Law Dome ice core showed that gas bubbles are only 30 years behind the ice formation / trapping of the atmospheric gas.

In Law Dome, 1939 ice (snow from 1939) has CO2 at 323 ppm which is 1969 levels.

So this study does not use the known timelines but proposes new made-up ones.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (19) Mar 01, 2013
LOL. So now air gets trapped in bubbles AFTER the bubbles form?
Did you know that the CO2 bubbles in soda pop form AFTER the soda is made?

You need to assume that scientists ALWAYS know more than you do about the subject they are addressing, so you can do a little research and learn something new.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 01, 2013
Also interesting that the IPCC says a CO2 doubling from 200ppm to 400ppm will cause around 2-4C of warming, but according to the article interglacial temps rose 19C coincidentally with a 100ppm increase, so clearly there's a different phenomena at work.


A different phenomena indeed. Try thinking about it. You cannot equate what is going on now with a deglaciation event. The Earth in that event was moving to a point of greater insolation in the NH and the ice melting ( reducing albedo ) then the feedback from CO2 reinforced. Today we have slow, steady incremental increases in atmospheric CO2 caused by man plus a little albedo now coming in in the Arctic in late summer/autumn.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (19) Mar 01, 2013
This only serves to prove the "science" of AGW has long since run off the rails of objectivity, and demonstrates they're actively trying to "prove" their biased conclusions, irrespective of the laws of physics and causality.

Yet another conspiracy claim. Right on par there uba.
djr
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 01, 2013
gregor: "Dir my comment was a response to Maggus not the article"

Regardless of who you were addressing - you were arguing that good science is willing to consider new information. First - I do not see how you could argue that Magnus was in some way resistant to considering new information. Second: this article introduces new information - and it seems that becuase it conflicts with your pre-established position - you are the one resisting incorporating the new information. The instant flood of anti science posts on this thread seems to me to be good support for your thesis.
Anonym
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 01, 2013
You cannot equate what is going on now with a deglaciation event. The Earth in that event was moving to a point of greater insolation in the NH and the ice melting ( reducing albedo ) then the feedback from CO2 reinforced. Today we have slow, steady incremental increases in atmospheric CO2 caused by man plus a little albedo now coming in in the Arctic in late summer/autumn.


I'm guessing English is not your native language as this seems a little garbled. We ARE in a deglaciation/melting ice cap/falling albedo event, per the IPCC. However, IPCC maintains that solar activity is not a factor. By insolation do you mean long-wave solar radiation? Are you saying that in the past, deglaciation was caused by a warming sun (and augmented by CO2)? I'm not being snide. Just trying to understand. Do I understand correctly that you are saying CO2 forcing is variable, depending on temperature (i.e., in a colder age, less greenhouse effect)?
NikFromNYC
2.3 / 5 (21) Mar 01, 2013
This claim from an article above doesn't yet make sense to me, physically:

"As nitrogen-15 is heavier than normal nitrogen it settles, meaning that deeper in the snow there would be more of this isotope. Scientists can therefore use how much nitrogen-15 is in the bubbles to tell how far down in the ice column they got trapped, or 'locked-in'."

I've never heard of gasses settling out on their own or within porous or solid ice, and since CO2 is much heavier than N, doesn't it "settle out" too?
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (22) Mar 01, 2013
You need to assume that scientists ALWAYS know more than you do about the subject they are addressing, so you can do a little research and learn something new.


I wouldn't expect anything less from a blotto...

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." Albert Einstein
Ducklet
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 01, 2013
I'm not a climate skeptic, but the article doesn't help. As stated it does nothing to clarify that cooling is a result of a drop in CO2, or warming the result of an increase. As opposed to CO2 increasing as a result of warming due to CO2 trapped in ice being released, or dropping as a result of cooling due to CO2 being sequestered in ice. The article does nothing to elucidate the cause-and-effect relationship. Claiming the gas bubbles formed after the ice only adds to the confusion of skeptics without further explanation.
Tausch
1.8 / 5 (14) Mar 01, 2013
Or special bubbles sink. Analogous to 'froth' in ether theory.
The expert will be here shortly and distribute admonishment for the using the terms 'froth' and 'foam' interchangeably.
StarGazer2011
2.2 / 5 (17) Mar 01, 2013
Imagine an area on which snow is falling regularly, there is a period in which the snow is permeable to gasses to some depth before the weight of snow above it packs it into impermeable ice.
The researchers seem to be claiming that since N15 is more dense than N14 it will sink deeper into the pre-pack ice (seems logical enough); essentially the depth of permeability is higher for N15 than N14. Fine.
But what does that have to do with CO2 permeability and by extension deposition time?
The N15 in a given ice bubble may have been deposited in the bubble later than the other gases, but how does that alter the timeline for CO2 deposition? I don't see the connection between N15 deposition time and CO2 deposition time.
I fear that the 'scientists' are just using a sophistic equivocation on 'gasses' i.e. N15 was deposited later than thought; N15 is a gas. CO2 is also a gas therefore it was deposited later also. Which is clearly and obviously false. Anyone have any useful thoughts on this?
StarGazer2011
2.6 / 5 (17) Mar 01, 2013
As an aside it would be really nice if this paper wasn't behind a paywall so I could actually read the thing! Didn't taxpayers already pay for this research? Peer review is all very nice but its no substitute for the kind of cross disciplinary crowd review which gave us Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, Bohr, Einstein and Fermi (who all worked before the peer review journal system came into being).
Tausch
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 01, 2013
Snowbody knows a snowjob when they see one.
Rated you fives - you given it thought even though you haven't given it a lifelong time of thought.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (16) Mar 02, 2013
LOL. So now air gets trapped in bubbles AFTER the bubbles form?
Did you know that the CO2 bubbles in soda pop form AFTER the soda is made?
Liquid saturated under pressure, versus a natural solid under normal atmospheric pressure. Ghostbusterottto sees no difference. LOL.

You need to assume that scientists ALWAYS know more than you do about the subject they are addressing, so you can do a little research and learn something new.
You don't know what happens when we assume? LOL!

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (18) Mar 02, 2013
Also interesting that the IPCC says a CO2 doubling from 200ppm to 400ppm will cause around 2-4C of warming, but according to the article interglacial temps rose 19C coincidentally with a 100ppm increase, so clearly there's a different phenomena at work.
A different phenomena indeed. Try thinking about it. You cannot equate what is going on now with a deglaciation event. The Earth in that event was moving to a point of greater insolation in the NH and the ice melting ( reducing albedo ) then the feedback from CO2 reinforced. Today we have slow, steady incremental increases in atmospheric CO2 caused by man plus a little albedo now coming in in the Arctic in late summer/autumn.
And let's not forget about the increasing ice in the south.

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (18) Mar 02, 2013
Imagine an area on which snow is falling regularly, there is a period in which the snow is permeable to gasses to some depth before the weight of snow above it packs it into impermeable ice.
The researchers seem to be claiming that since N15 is more dense than N14 it will sink deeper into the pre-pack ice (seems logical enough); essentially the depth of permeability is higher for N15 than N14. Fine.
But what does that have to do with CO2 permeability and by extension deposition time?
The N15 in a given ice bubble may have been deposited in the bubble later than the other gases, but how does that alter the timeline for CO2 deposition? I don't see the connection between N15 deposition time and CO2 deposition time.
I fear that the 'scientists' are just using a sophistic equivocation on 'gasses' i.e. N15 was deposited later than thought; N15 is a gas. CO2 is also a gas therefore it was deposited later also. Which is clearly and obviously false.
Excellent observation.

marble89
3.8 / 5 (14) Mar 02, 2013
the anti-science crowd is a fascinating example of natural selection at work - just feed them rope - don't argue with them
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2013
Liquid saturated under pressure, versus a natural solid under normal atmospheric pressure. Ghostbusterottto sees no difference. LOL.
So in other words you didnt do any research to try to figure out how the scientists understand this, you just assumed they were full of crap because it didnt make sense to YOU?

I gave you only one mechanism of how bubbles can form in a material after it is made, which apparently didnt occur to you. Do you think that there may be others or are you only assuming that there are not?

Lots of pressure in thick ice. This is caused by gravity and also expansion. Water expands as it freezes did you know it?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Mar 02, 2013
you just assumed they were full of crap because it didnt make sense to YOU?
No, I assumed they were full of crap because they're full of crap.

If their hypothesis bears any weight at all, it would mean all ice core samples are suspiciously contaminated after the fact, and therefore useless. And that's just one hole in this hypothesis. There are enough holes here that thinking of it is making me hungry for a Swiss cheese sandwich!

I gave you only one mechanism of how bubbles can form in a material after it is made, which apparently didnt occur to you. Do you think that there may be others or are you only assuming that there are not?
There are all sorts of methods. Boiling is one. But for these bubbles to be considered to bear an accurate record, they must be impermeable and inpenetrable (aka, free of subsequent contamination).

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (19) Mar 02, 2013
Lots of pressure in thick ice. This is caused by gravity and also expansion. Water expands as it freezes did you know it?
Of course. But apparently you failed to understand this water was already frozen (as snow) before it subsequently became glacial ice.

Jo01
1.7 / 5 (21) Mar 02, 2013
Also interesting that the IPCC says a CO2 doubling from 200ppm to 400ppm will cause around 2-4C of warming, but according to the article interglacial temps rose 19C coincidentally with a 100ppm increase, so clearly there's a different phenomena at work.


A different phenomena indeed. Try thinking about it. You cannot equate what is going on now with a deglaciation event. The Earth in that event was moving to a point of greater insolation in the NH and the ice melting ( reducing albedo ) then the feedback from CO2 reinforced. Today we have slow, steady incremental increases in atmospheric CO2 caused by man plus a little albedo now coming in in the Arctic in late summer/autumn.

You forget that almost half of the current warming is attributed to black carbon (by the 'same' scientists).
Strange that CO2 gets all the blame.

J.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (18) Mar 02, 2013
You forget that almost half of the current warming is attributed to black carbon (by the 'same' scientists).
Strange that CO2 gets all the blame.

J.


Strange that you come to a science site to display your total lack of understanding about science. Strange too, that you can appear to read yet have no apparent understanding of what you've read.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2013
it would mean all ice core samples are suspiciously contaminated after the fact, and therefore useless
-And why would you think that this wouldnt occur to trained scientists who work with this all the time; vs you who sit and speculate for a minute or 2 until a notion pops into your head?

Isnt that a little myopic?
There are enough holes here that thinking of it is making me hungry for a Swiss cheese sandwich!
-And maybe if you idly speculate for a few minutes more with your conspicuous lack of education and experience you can come up with some which will also be nonsense.

Have at it.
Of course. But apparently you failed to understand this water was already frozen (as snow) before it subsequently became glacial ice.
Glacier formation involves a complex process of buildup, pressure, movement, subsequent thawing, and refreezing. Lots of liquid water in there. Look it up.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2013
Oh.. That is easy...

It didn't.

"If a 100 ppm rise in CO2 caused a 19C (!) rise in temperature then, why hasn't the same rise since 1850 caused a 19C rise?" - Anonym

The 100 ppm rise was the trigger that caused the exit of the glacial period. The trigger was primed by the gradual alteration of the earth's orbital and rotational parameters which are known as Milankovitch cycles.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.