Are Ice core samples trustworthy?

Are Ice core samples trustworthy? I am far from a scientist, but using common sense, it seems a fantastic way to see at least one tiny area over a very, very long period of time.

If we look at the data, it all seems to look like a pattern. So much so, that I feel as if I could very accurately predict the next cold spell. And it seems we have indeed been warming. Just like we did in the past. Over, and over, and over again.

So please, explain how it's different this time?

And if this time, it's Man's fault, then if we caused it, we can fix it very quickly. (Quickly in the broad sense of time) But it sure seems like no matter what we do, we will still see peaks and valleys in both C02 and Temperature.



Is this a safe site to trust data from?

In the debate over GW/climate change I have seen all sorts of arguments usually claiming the data is wrong. I have seen first hand how you can take data and show anything you want, by manipulating the time frames.

If you look at the BIG PICTURE, I cannot see how anyone could come up with any other answer than it's cyclic. Unless there is more to it than what we see here.

I think the samples are solid evidence, the interpretations is what is questionable

reply to post by Indigent


If you look at the link, the graph I posted, it show Temp and C02. They seem to follow a pattern. Is that how you interpret it?

In almost every site that showed Ice core data, you see the same anomaly.

I saw a documentary a few years ago. I forget the name of the show but they were investigating the effects of a volcano and used ice core samples,tree rings and soil samples as a way to cross confirm their hypothesis.
So I guess ice cores are part of the big picture when they are seeking historical data.

network dude
reply to post by Indigent

 

If you look at the link, the graph I posted, it show Temp and C02. They seem to follow a pattern. Is that how you interpret it?

In almost every site that showed Ice core data, you see the same anomaly.

Well there is a direct link in CO2/Temperature know as greenhouse effect. CO2 levels varies for many things like volcanoes or huge wildfires and who knows what else. if you think there is a pattern in increases of CO2 across time you should check the period of the increases and decreases to see if there is a trend.

The question is not really if there is a change right now, its if it is man made or not, for me it not clear how this is working as most models are pretty much incomplete and conclusions should not be drawn from them.

reply to post by network dude

If you look at the BIG PICTURE, I cannot see how anyone could come up with any other answer than it's cyclic. Unless there is more to it than what we see here.

For 1:

Take a look at those cycles. They are occurring over 50,000 year periods. And the temperature is only moving a few degrees. If we can do that in a hundred years or even 500 years, or even 1000 years, we have a problem.

Indigent
I think the samples are solid evidence, the interpretations is what is questionable

I think that's the most accurate way anyone can say it.

Op, I've used BAS as a research source for data before ..among others. The Data sets are peer reviewed by sitting openly for all to see or work with in most cases ..so skewed raw data would get hit like a sore thumb at a hammer convention. Just can't miss it.

Interpretations are definitely the 'devil in the details'.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


What is BAS? Is it a site? A database we can access? I'm really looking for raw data.

reply to post by swanne


BAS

reply to post by Indigent


Thanks mate! This saved me hours of searching!

reply to post by network dude

And if this time, it's Man's fault, then if we caused it, we can fix it very quickly. (Quickly in the broad sense of time) But it sure seems like no matter what we do, we will still see peaks and valleys in both C02 and Temperature.

A vivid picture of our climate's future can be found in our past. Currently, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have reached 390 parts per million (ppm). The last time CO2 was that high was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Consequently, the Pliocene gives us vital clues of the long-term effects of raised CO2 levels. New research has just been published that examines this period and confirms previous findings that the Pliocene was dramatically warmer than current temperatures.

The research, published in Csank et al 2011, uses two independent methods to measure Arctic temperature during the Pliocene, on Ellesmere Island. They find that Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). This is consistent with other independent estimates of Arctic temperature at the time. Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008).

This tells us our climate is sensitive to changes in CO2. If we were to stabilise CO2 levels at around 400 ppm, we'd expect over the long-term a further warming of 2 to 3°C, which is significantly greater than the warming predicted by climate models. This is because climate models only include short-term feedbacks, such as increased water vapor and melting of sea ice. They are yet to take into account the long-term feedbacks from the melting of ice sheets and vegetation changes.

www.skepticalscience.com...


A "Fix" may be too late.

'Too late for what' is the real question. One could argue, "Hey, plants are going to grow better this way." and some will, and some won't from the other consequences. The oceans are particularly sensitive to rising temperatures. Tack that on with nuclear pollution, (illegal dumping) and plastics pollution, and over fishing, and standard pollution… And you have to wonder what will be left in the oceans in 100-1000 years time.



I think the most important thing to remember is that no matter how hard we try to destroy this planet, thousands of creatures will survive, many will die off, but some resilient and some newly adapted ones will get by. But, just because the rats were really big during the plague-times, doesn't mean they should have become the most popular species. (not implying they caused it just that there were a lot around at the time) And they aren't house pets now.

I see the direction we are headed very similar to pre-plauge times.

www.unc.edu...

Indigent
I think the samples are solid evidence, the interpretations is what is questionable

1. Are the inspectors of the ice cores honest and can the numbers be verified by independent, surprise inspectors.

2. Does the extracted ice core data has an infallible chain-of-custody so it cannot be altered?

Not that anyone would ever change a number or two for political or research funding continuation purposes or anything. Trust but verify? I don't go there when the theory of AGW has quantum lept from theory to religion.

Well the data is. There are major earth cycles, not necessarily negative ones.

Currently I've been looking for a thread, to put our temperature on. Its been warm the last few days, though incredibly windy.
But its plus 10 degrees C right now here in Southern BC.

And the long term forcast is for above zero for most of January.

Chinooks and plus 3-5 occasionally happen, but I don't recall plus 10 range!

We must be fitting into the cycle somehow....

reply to post by tkwasny


The thing is a scientist puts his name on this, and its not something like CERN you need millions to verify, anyone can go, take a sample and analyze it. If you cannot trust ice data because there is no cop around it 24/7 you cannot trust any scientific report.

Sure there is falsification in any field, but there is also consequences to adding a 0 or two, especially in things anyone can verify, or there are not interest from the other side to say the opposite? what would you say if someone brings contradicting evidence, that no one manipulated that time?

boncho
reply to post by network dude

 

If you look at the BIG PICTURE, I cannot see how anyone could come up with any other answer than it's cyclic. Unless there is more to it than what we see here.

For 1:

Take a look at those cycles. They are occurring over 50,000 year periods. And the temperature is only moving a few degrees. If we can do that in a hundred years or even 500 years, or even 1000 years, we have a problem.

From the link in the OP:

The temperature increased by more than 10°C within 40 years. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. At this time, there was a huge ice sheet (the Laurentide) over northern North America. Freshwater delivered from the ice sheet to the North Atlantic was able periodically to disrupt the overturning of the ocean, causing the transport of tropical heat to the north to reduce and then suddenly increase again

This happened 38,000 years ago, a bit before the Industrial Revolution occurred.
So there have been abrupt temperature changes in temperature in the past that were not caused by man.

reply to post by boncho


I have had people try to explain how it's "different" this time and I must be an idiot, because I just don't get it. When we measure how much our temperature has increased it's measured in tenths. So it's minute. Just as those graphs show. Has the temperature ever been static?

Keep in mind Boncho, I would be condescending to someone I didn't know about this, but I trust your opinion to be honest, so I am asking this with learning and truth in mind.


In the same graph, I highlighted the last little bit. Sure it's over a very long period of time (relative to our existence) but it's a fraction in the big picture. If we show this data, it fits perfectly that what we are experiencing is perfectly normal and based on this, if it didn't happen, we should have been worried.

I've never had Ice lye to me yet. Come to think of it, it has never actually said anything to me. The layers in an ice core...can be like rings in a tree and this can give some indication of what was happening in the past. Trouble is that interpretations can be wrong.

I'll believe the researchers on this subject, they do work with it all the time. I will keep in mind that people sometimes misinterpret evidence or misapply it occasionally. Mistakes can be made. I find more often that these mistakes tend to be more apt if there is some financial gain related to the interpretation. Kind of like motive drives things askew sometimes.

I think it's a bit hard to date ICE rings like you might tree rings ...If you get a thaw in the winter months or a snow fall in the summer months you get a ring that may suggest a year . I think another thing that doesn't quite compute is that co2 molecule .There is something known as a saturation point where no matter how much more you add to the soup it wont rise the temperature ..Besides co2 is such a small part of the big picture I doubt it's affects matter much ...My guess is that that big red/orange/white ball in the sky has the biggest effects ...As well as the earths other mechanisms that control/regulate out planets ecosystem .It's a big big subject and the science is not even close to being settled ....peace

Like Ricky and the2ofusr1 said, for me, ice is a bit hard to date. How far down is 10 years? 10,000 years?

This is an article from a few years ago in which WWII fighter planes were found buried under 260 feet of ice:

NY Times

How do we get an exact number to these dates? Going off of a freeze/melt cycle doesn't seem all that effective to me because if the temps varied so much, how are we to know that a melt followed by a freeze wasn't just a warm week, mid-winter, 20,000 years ago.

reply to post by butcherguy

This happened 38,000 years ago, a bit before the Industrial Revolution occurred.
So there have been abrupt temperature changes in temperature in the past that were not caused by man.

Um. Except they were talking specifically about Greenland. And when we talk about current effects rising a few degrees we are speaking about global mean temps.

The climate changes described above were huge, but relatively gradual. However, ice cores have provided us with evidence that abrupt changes are also possible. During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings (see Fig. 5).

The temperature increased by more than 10°C within 40 years. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean.

www.antarctica.ac.uk...

Really besides the point though. The changes over the 50,000 year period were gases, which I was specifically referring to. Which I didn't really make clear. The effect of those gases are the (?) of what effect we may have on the planet.