It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

13 Common Misconceptions About Global Warming

page: 11
26
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Voyaging
a reply to: amazing
Yeah because the topic of the OP is definitely on whether many people can surf the web on smart phones or not... let's try to stay on track here people.



Agreed. I was only showing that some, like myself do not follow links or view webpages on phones. I can't even see what I'm reading or looking at. LOL This brings up a good point, we get too caught up in the details, like this. Who cares and why wouldn't you believe someone if they said this?

Secondly, we get caught up in the details of the debate. Yes the details are important, but as someone who isn't a scientist, I rely on scientists to give me good information on both sides of this debate. I'm looking at the Metadata.

If thousands of scientists tell me that man is causing global warming in addition to any natural cycle we're in and you tell me that they are lying, mistaken and scamming me. Where does that leave me? What then? Yet the debate devolves into "Ice age in the 1970s", "Carbon Tax" "Al Gore" and then details from this report and this research and that person did this and that other group of people did this.

What about the MetaData? If thousands of Scientists tell me something...an overwhelming majority of them, shouldn't I believe them? That's what you guys are telling me. Ignore them, because you are right. You guys saw through the scam and found information that they missed. They forgot about solar cycles and Ice ages and everything else.
edit on 29-9-2014 by amazing because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Voyaging
a reply to: amazing
Yeah because the topic of the OP is definitely on whether many people can surf the web on smart phones or not... let's try to stay on track here people.



Agreed. I was only showing that some, like myself do not follow links or view webpages on phones. I can't even see what I'm reading or looking at. LOL This brings up a good point, we get too caught up in the details, like this. Who cares and why wouldn't you believe someone if they said this?

Secondly, we get caught up in the details of the debate. Yes the details are important, but as someone who isn't a scientist, I rely on scientists to give me good information on both sides of this debate. I'm looking at the Metadata.

If thousands of scientists tell me that man is causing global warming in addition to any natural cycle we're in and you tell me that they are lying, mistaken and scamming me. Where does that leave me? What then? Yet the debate devolves into "Ice age in the 1970s", "Carbon Tax" "Al Gore" and then details from this report and this research and that person did this and that other group of people did this.

What about the MetaData? If thousands of Scientists tell me something...an overwhelming majority of them, shouldn't I believe them? That's what you guys are telling me. Ignore them, because you are right. You guys saw through the scam and found information that they missed. They forgot about solar cycles and Ice ages and everything else.


You raise an excellent point, star for you on that one.

The metadata is close to the root of the problem. It's what the media propagates, it's what politicians regurgitate and it's what most of the arguments are centered around.

I am not at all saying that you should ignore scientists.

I'm saying that you should not ignore one group of scientists in favor of another, or one group of papers over another, simply because it doesn't support your world view. That is in complete opposition to the scientific method.

Science is about the search for truth, not consensus, which is a political term. It isn't supposed to support your world view, and you should never try to align scientific views with an ideology or you end up completely missing or ignoring the truths that you are pursuing. (when I say you, I'm referring to the masses, not you specifically) This is what the scientific method was designed to fix.

Therein lies a huge problem.

Not everyone is a scientist.

Not everyone can look for an answer that doesn't agree with their suppositions or ideas of how the world works. There are times where you must abandon ALL preconceived notions of the world in order to arrive at an explanation, a truth about something. It can take years of discipline to get to a point where you can objectively look at facts and data and draw conclusions that aren't based on your own beliefs, or to recognize when your own ideology is clouding your ability to arrive at those conclusions, or where you are not following the scientific method because it doesn't allow you to introduce bias or personal experience.

The typical internet user or armchair expert does not possess that discipline. Most do not work in a field that ever requires it. It's perfectly acceptable to ask questions, I fully encourage that... but to straight up refute something that is clearly not supported by facts or data, and is only being driven by the "metadata" is grossly irresponsible. (again, not referring to you specifically, but more in general)

At the end of the day, we all want a better world to live in... how often do you see an argument about THAT?

Rarely, if ever.

Most of the time, it's personal bias, blind faith, belief, ideologies and sometimes, sheer ignorance and arrogance that the arguing and debating stems from.

Any real scientist knows how to say "I don't know" and admit when there is just not enough information to prove a hypothesis or come to a conclusion. No real scientist is saying the "science is settled". The real ones are saying "we don't know enough yet" - and is exactly why models can't get it right, because they don't know either.

If the argument could shift from focusing on a cause that is too big for us to understand yet with too many unknowns and unaccounted variables, we could make progress on how to deal with the changes... but instead, we want to argue our differences in bias, viewpoints and experiences. (otherwise called perception)

The entire purpose of the scientific method is designed to put aside all of those things, but it has failed before, it will fail again, and AGW is a perfect example of that failure.

~Namaste
edit on 29-9-2014 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-9-2014 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

This is ridiculous. One, I don't conceal information... even if I did, it would be accidental not intentional and dishonesty is intentional . Two, Nothing I said was straw man. Three, generally I'm on my PC but if I'm on the bus or train to commute to work and back, I do surf but a lot of sites load too slow or are a bitch to navigate let alone copy paste links and quotes... ATS happens to load fast enough. Now you're attacking someone else over it? Marg defended it too and she clearly doesn't agree with me on AGW. That's one massive ego you got going to be assuming so much about people you don't know, you sure you know what Namaste means? I get frustrated and snarky too but I don't understand why you jump to dishonesty.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TheRedneck

The ice cores cover the past 800K years. At no time in the past 800K years were CO2 levels higher than they are now.


At no time in the past 800,000 years + has the Earth's magnetic field been so weak... At no time in the last 800,000 years has Earth's core undergone the changes occurring now. The last 80-100 years the Sun's activity had been at the highest in 1,000 years. Yet you, alongside the AGW crowd want to blame a gas that is essential for life to exist and a gas which cannot be proven to cause the warming claimed by the AGW crowd... Go figure...



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Get your context straight. I was answering a question.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

This is ridiculous. One, I don't conceal information... even if I did, it would be accidental not intentional and dishonesty is intentional .


Really? How come when you threw me under the bus just a couple of posts ago when you "made me look like a fool" way back, you concealed the fact that I apologized to you in a later post that same day on the same thread? That information is pertinent to others when you are attempting to discredit me based on a prior post. I absolutely think others would have a different perception having that additional bit of information Kali.


Two, Nothing I said was straw man.


Bringing up a post I made to you months ago for nothing more than to try to discredit the valid arguments I've made in this thread, is a straw man. It is not related to the discussion at hand and is only meant to shift the discussion away from the points I presented and the questions I posed to you.

Also, bringing up whether or not I refute the greenhouse effect was never mentioned, brought up in the thread or part of any the exchanges between myself and you, or anyone else in this thread.

So yes, those are strawman arguments. Your statement over CO2 coming before temperature was regarding the Milankovich cycles, not the greenhouse effect and not about any of my prior posts to you. You tried to relate them to this thread and discussion when they are a weak argument to confuse and detract from the real topic.


Three, generally I'm on my PC but if I'm on the bus or train to commute to work and back, I do surf but a lot of sites load too slow or are a bitch to navigate let alone copy paste links and quotes... ATS happens to load fast enough. Now you're attacking someone else over it? Marg defended it too and she clearly doesn't agree with me on AGW. That's one massive ego you got going to be assuming so much about people you don't know, you sure you know what Namaste means? I get frustrated and snarky too but I don't understand why you jump to dishonesty.


You know, you are one to call the kettle black. LOL

The only thing I assumed is that since you are posting on ATS and using a smart phone to do so, that the same smartphone would provide you the capability to read something else online, not just an ATS post. That has nothing to do with my ego, it has to do with reading what you wrote.

You can read posts on ATS, therefore you can read other text on other sites. Your choice to do so is not a reflection of my ego.

As I said before, you can be dishonest without it being intentional, and just because you believe something with all of your heart and soul, doesn't make it true or mean it's honest, no matter how bad you want it to be the case.

If you are going to make claims about something being "true", or say that you didn't make it up or pull it out of thin air, but can't provide support for that claim, it might be an honest mistake... but you are not admitting that to be the case either... and THAT is dishonest.

I might disagree with you and everything you say or think, but I still respect you as a person with your own thoughts, views, ideas and perceptions of the world.

I'm fully prepared to argue just the facts with you or anyone else and will always do my best to put aside my own perceptions in search of the truth by way of the scientific method.

You are entitled to believe what you want, as am I, but we can and should let the facts argue for us.

So with that....

~Namaste


edit on 29-9-2014 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I asked if you were still mad because your animosity toward me or maybe just toward anyone that trusts there's warranted, scientific consensus on AGW, is very obvious. If there was an apology, I missed it... sorry. It's not the arguments you brought up, it's how you presented them directly to me that I take issue with, disrespect I do have an issue with. I may not be the smartest person on this site on this topic or any other for that matter but I am far from the idiot you try to paint me as. I have no problem slinging mud right back at anyone that slings first, sometimes I even enjoy it.

Why can't I ask if you refute the greenhouse effect? This is a subject with many components... perhaps upon entering a thread you should state which components you won't discuss? /dumbfounded



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I see what you're saying. It appears that there is a Majority of actual scientists who thing there is Man Made Global Warming.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I asked if you were still mad because your animosity toward me or maybe just toward anyone that trusts there's warranted, scientific consensus on AGW, is very obvious.


I feel differently, but I can't challenge the way you feel, so we will just have to agree to disagree on this. I don't have animosity toward you, or anyone else, it goes against everything I believe in.

But I don't have anything positive to say to anyone who can't admit when they are wrong, or say simply "I don't know."


If there was an apology, I missed it... sorry. It's not the arguments you brought up, it's how you presented them directly to me that I take issue with, disrespect I do have an issue with.


Again, I can't challenge your feelings, that is the way you feel which I can't possibly validate.

I think I presented clear data, direct sources with links, external quotes and posed direct questions to you with examples to support both my questions and my position. It sucks that you take this as a form of disrespect. However, I've seen in many debates where illogical and emotional individuals use disagreement to equal disrespect. This is not the case here, but if that's the way you feel, so be it.


I may not be the smartest person on this site on this topic or any other for that matter but I am far from the idiot you try to paint me as. I have no problem slinging mud right back at anyone that slings first, sometimes I even enjoy it.


I actually find you to be a rather smart person, I just disagree with you on things you state factually without supporting evidence.

I don't think I try to paint you as an idiot, but I do try to come at you with tough questions, as I would do the same with other members, and that isn't slinging mud or disrespecting you or anyone else.

But it's nice to see you admit to the enjoyment of slinging mud. I'll keep that in mind.



Why can't I ask if you refute the greenhouse effect? This is a subject with many components... perhaps upon entering a thread you should state which components you won't discuss? /dumbfounded


Perhaps you should stay on topic and if you want to know my personal views on the greenhouse effect, start a thread or U2U me.

It was off-topic, because it's painfully obvious that you could care less what I think about anything in this subject, including whether or not I refute the greenhouse effect... but I answered anyway and digressed by doing so.

Like I mentioned previously... it can be very hard, even for professional scientists, to put aside bias and personal views in the pursuit of truth. It is why the scientific method forces you to put those things aside.

I accept that the bias on these threads is always going to be present as much as I accept that there are too many unknowns in climate theory (it is still in the stages of theory since predictions have failed).

I can also say that you and I will just have to agree to disagree at times and move on.

~Namaste



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 04:47 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I will hopefully be able to get to your links today and get some for the points I was trying to make.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


At no time in the past 800,000 years + has the Earth's magnetic field been so weak... At no time in the last 800,000 years has Earth's core undergone the changes occurring now.

False.
www.windows2universe.org...



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




You do like to make large claims which never seem to be true. Do tell us, is this why on several occasions NASA scientists have been trying to tell the public the truth about AGW/Climate Change?...

Such as...

That's from NASA buddy. Want to see it again?

Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.


So it isn't from the heat Island effect great I have already stated as much. Is this another case of you missunderstanding your own links and articles.

Also from your link from NASA.



"The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last eight years," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS. They stack up as follows: the warmest was 2005, then 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.


You do realize the post you were responding to was saying that heat island effect from cities is not responsible for the temp rise reported across the globe. You just confirmed my point thanks.

Though, I am sure you didn't mean to.
edit on 30-9-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




But how can he say that right?... HOw is it possible that a NASA scientist would say that it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of "pollution" from urban areas?... Remember that CO2 has been "labeled as a pollutant?...

Maybe it has something to do with this other fact...



Former Astronauts & NASA Employees Letter on Global Warming

Wynne Parry, LiveScience Senior Writer | April 12, 2012 10:02am ET

Editor's Note: This is the text of the letter sent by 49 former NASA employees to the agency asking it to stay out of what they see as a politicized and unsubstantiated field — human-caused global warming. It was originally posted on the blog Watts Up With That?

A NASA spokesman confirmed that the agency received the letter on Tuesday (April 11). [Read the full story about the letter]

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years






It is worth noting that none of the people signing this letter has any actual relevant background on the subject. They are engineers and space flight controllers and other tasks that has nothing to do with climate science. An IT-manager at the Fed can say nothing about the economic analysis of the financial breakdown just because he happens to work at the Fed. This is the same. Irrelevant.

My next door neighbor works at NASA in fact there are several employees of NASA in my neighborhood none of which have anything to do with climate science. Their views would also be irrelevant.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




Heck, I could spend all night on the website posting what the "real scientists" have to say, and the reasons why so many of them have left the AGW camp, such as.


You know you almost got me there because at first I thought you were just throwing out red herrings going of topic listing names from Breitbart News of scientists that agree with you and I thought man how two faced is that criticising "realclimate.org" then you go on a tirade with articles from Breitbart of all places.

Then I realized you knew those were horrible sources but you were simply answering my direct question to you that I had to ask twice. You know this one.




I have asked this before and never got a good answer.

How are these minority of "experts" (I use that term loosely) such as watts selected for their information on this subject over the equally qualified (usually more qualified) colleagues?

Are they chosen based on agreeable conclusions rather than scientific rigour?


So now I see how you choose your sources. Breitbart says they are good so you go with them.

Thank you for answering my question even though it was in an indirect way.

And as for.



heck, let's continue the list of some of the formerly AGW people who have recently changed sides.

www.breitbart.com...

Humm, I wonder who will be next?



There is no need to list all your sources from Breitbart. I know there are scientists that disagree with AGW in fact it should go without saying that if 97 to 98% agree with AGW then there will be 2 to 3% that disagree so logically for every 2 to 3 scientists you list that disagree with AGW there will be 97 to 98 that agree with it.

Sorry but I can't list all of them here it would fill to many pages.

Again thank you for showing us how you choose your sources and not simply trying to create thread drift away from the topic of "13 Common Misconceptions about Global Warming".
edit on 30-9-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne


Okay so from the Fischer et al paper (I can only read the abstract), some articles that cite it talk about the CO2 rise lagging temperatures by 200-800 years BUT then warming continues after the rise and some talk about how the lag isn't as long as the paper suggested.

I don't think that site honestly represents academia, and the Idso Father and sons team aren't exactly unbiased are they? Do you know anything about them?

I would suggest going back and reading the full papers or at least the abstracts (mostly I can only read abstracts) and then going to look at the articles that cite the paper, there's a list under the abstracts in case you weren't aware (I'm sure you are).

I really can't take that site seriously. If you know offhand full texts of those papers that aren't pay walled, can you post them? Otherwise I'll search later along with some info of my own. Life is busy.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Grimpachi

I know it is hard but I asked you a couple of direct questions.



Hummm, an average of 139,096 active volcanos... I wonder what the percentage would be for a portion of those underwater volcanos to be part of one of the mid-ocean ridges... Maybe grimpachi would love to volunteer himself and swim all the way down there to find out exactly for himself... I definitely vote for that.


Hey, you should check it out once you get to Miami.



OK there are active volcanos you still didn't answer the questions at all.



how many underwater Kīlauea volcanoes volcanoes are there. You see that s called a qualifier furthermore it also went on to say.



would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor



So tell us just how many more of those are there?

Again it also goes back to traces of carbon 13 are decreasing while co2 levels are rising. How do you account for that?


OK let me explain why "Kīlauea volcanoes" would be a qualifier as stated in the article we have both referenced. Kīlauea is extremely active one of the most active in the world. Just saying there are more volcanos doesn't mean anything many may be dormant emitting zero co2. That is why the article stated there would need to be so many more volcanos such as Kīlauea as well as another 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the seafloor to compete with man made co2.

If you insist on trying to goad me with comments like swim for it then I will have no reason to converse with you further. Your Obama tirade was enough if you want to sling mud I have already suggested you take it to the appropriate forum.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Thank you, but I believe my question relates directly to the OP. It goes to the heart of the veracity of the data. If the data is not scrutinized, it means the data is not valid.

That's how science works... not via videos, not via papers presenting an opinion, but by actually taking the data, scrutinizing it, considering the ramifications,


OK the reason I didn't give you much attention is because from your own admission you were not going to look at the links so I didn't feel the need to go researching every little question you made especially when I felt it didn't have anything to do with the OP.

The topic is "13 Common Misconceptions about Global Warming" it is not "Global Warming Ask Me Anything" even though it seems many here think the title is the second one and I have humored them by finding the information they obviously could not find.

Now that I have covered the majority of your post about asking questions I will address your original question but first let me say the information you requested is not hard to find. I actually found it quite easily it literally was the first link that popped up in the search.




I really don't have time for that tonight. Sorry.

I'm still waiting for a simple answer to my question... how did high CO2 concentrations form in ice if CO2 melts the ice?

TheRedneck


I said air bubbles which I was close but wrong.




You won't even answer a question:




if I were to hazard a guess it would be air bubbles.






Ok actually there are air cathodes formed when snowpacks are compressed to for the layers on ice which is what the ice cores are comprised of. All that ice was once snow that has been compressed.



Methods

Air from polar ice-core samples of about 40 g (Bern) or 50 g (Grenoble) is extracted with a melt-refreezing method under vacuum, and the extracted gas is then analyzed for CH4 by gas chromatography followed by flame ionization detection. Two standard gases (408 ppb CH4 and 1050 ppb CH4) at Bern and one (499 ppb CH4) at the Laboratory of Glaciology, Geophysics and Environment, Grenoble, were used to calibrate the gas chromatographs.

Temporal Uncertainty

Temporal uncertainty in the EPICA 800,000-year series increases with core depth, but estimates indicate that it is usually less than 5% of the true age and is frequently much less than that. Snow accumulation and mechanical flow models form the basis for estimating ages of the ice at a given place and depth. The most recent "EDC3" chronology is based on a snow accumulation and mechanical flow model combined with a set of independent age markers along the core, indicating either well-dated paleoclimatic records or insolation variations. See Parrenin et al. (2007) for more detail. The Vostok time scale is based on the "GT4" chronology, derived in a similar fashion to "EDC3" with age constraints at 110 thousand and at 390 thousand years ago which are assumed to match known events in marine sediments. See Petit et al. (1999) for more detail.

Trends

Cyclic changes in Earth’s orbital parameters are evident through 8 glacial cycles. EPICA and Vostok data are in close agreement over the period of the Vostok record (see Graphics). The earliest 4 glacial cycles appear to exhibit less influence of the precessional (22,000-year) component, which involves the time of year when the earth is closest to the sun. Pre-industrial methane fluctuations are between 300 and 800 ppb. Recent Southern Hemisphere concentrations of atmospheric methane are over 1700 ppb, and Northern Hemisphere methane concentrations are over 1800 ppb.
cdiac.ornl.gov...




Structure of ice sheets and cores[edit]





Sampling the surface of Taku Glacier in Alaska. There is increasingly denser firn between surface snow and blue glacier ice.
Ice sheets are formed from snow. Because an ice sheet survives summer, the temperature in that location usually does not warm much above freezing. In many locations in Antarctica the air temperature is always well below the freezing point of water. If the summer temperatures do get above freezing, any ice core record will be severely degraded or completely useless, since meltwater will percolate into the snow.

The surface layer is snow in various forms, with air gaps between snowflakes. As snow continues to accumulate, the buried snow is compressed and forms firn, a grainy material with a texture similar to granulated sugar. Air gaps remain, and some circulation of air continues. As snow accumulates above, the firn continues to densify, and at some point the pores close off and the air is trapped.en.wikipedia.org...


I hope that answers your question however you did say this.



Really? Air bubbles is how air bubbles managed to form in ice that they should have melted? Did you read my question?



This is a bit confusing because it seems you are under the impression the ice is melting to form those ice core samples.

Any snow that had melted to form ice was useless it is the compressed snow that formed core samples that hold the air to be tested. Luckily it stays pretty cold there.

So I don't know if you had ever tried to look into this before posting the question to me. I can only hope you had at least tried at some point and simply were not able to find an answer on your own in which case I am glad to have been of help to you.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Grimpachi

I commend your passion about Global warming, you do not give up easily, but remember while your passion is commendable, the real intentions behind the pushing of Global warming do no, always see both side of the issue or the debate will go on for ever.



Thank you for that post even though we may disagree on some things. I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize for my attitude towards you before. I took a few cheap shots that were uncalled for. I was starting to get in a bad mood over some of the responses from people that couldn't even be bothered to watch the video before trying to shoot it down. I realized that and decided to take a break from the thread and hopefully only my normal amount of sarcasm shows through now.


As far as me being passionate about this I wouldn't be so bold as to proclaim that myself. I do believe it is real based on what I have seen and read, though I do read the other side as well I just haven't seen evidence yet that sways my opinion. If I was truly passionate about it I doubt I would be on here posting about it because I am sure that me simply looking up the information and posting it will not sway anyone. That is all I am really doing here is looking at the questions then using a search engine to find them answers.

As far as giving up...err...well.....its my thread so it would be bad of me to abandon it and like I said most of the stuff being brought up is easy to find if one were only to look. It is the posts that go off topic that can be frustrating as I said before it seems some think this is an "ask me anything" thread on global warming. I am not a climate scientist nor am I a scientist I am certainly not qualified to interpret raw data though I can usually read studies and get the gist of them.

When I participate in threads like this looking up info like I have been I generally learn quite a bit in the process that has certainly been the case here.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Well, first of all we would have to go over again about the claim that "there are thousands and thousands of scientists experts in climate change who agree with AGW". I am sorry but that is not true. This has been shown on several occasions. The majority of the people who were labeled as "experts in climate Change" have been in fact "policymakers" most of which have no real knowledge on any field of science dealing with climate change.

In all of the IPCC reports there have been from a couple dozen real scientists experts in climate change to about 56 or so at most who were real scientists who deal with climate change. The rest were picked by their respective governments as "experts" but they are no real experts. They were picked so that they would push for political agendas in favor for their countries.

We even had many of the real scientists from the IPCC who are experts in their field of study related to climate change who have been warning people that "it's just a political game for the IPCC"... The IPCC is a global political tool. They are not interested in science.

Not to mention that even if it was true, which it isn't. But even if it was true "concensus doesn't make anyone right"...



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


It is worth noting that none of the people signing this letter has any actual relevant background on the subject. They are engineers and space flight controllers and other tasks that has nothing to do with climate science. An IT-manager at the Fed can say nothing about the economic analysis of the financial breakdown just because he happens to work at the Fed. This is the same. Irrelevant.

My next door neighbor works at NASA in fact there are several employees of NASA in my neighborhood none of which have anything to do with climate science. Their views would also be irrelevant.



These people that you want to dismiss so easily are scientists, scientists who earned degrees in different fields of the sciences and it is probable that at least some have analyzed climate data. These people, whether they had been involved or not on missions investigating climate change, they surely have the skills and knowledge to understand this topic 1,000 times better than you ever will.

But of course you have to try to put them down. How nice of you.


edit on 30-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join