I admittedly am quite ignorant to some of the more technical side of the disciplines necessary to be a GW expert. But I do have a healthy skepticism for much of the man made global warming "facts" that seem to be tossed continually about by media, acemdemics, and scientists the last several years. In my opinion, most of them seem to have more interest in being in the spotlight concerning a sensational topic than really laying out a logical case.

Concerning the business about the historical CO2 percentages from long ago (+ 500 years)...

It seems rather straight forward to count the seasonal layers in the ice to "go back in time" to collect a gas sample. I also trust the accuracy of the gas analysis methods used.

But, Are CO2 concentrations measured from bubbles trapped in ice going to be representative of the atmosphere the year/decade/century from when the ice was formed???

Is the ice so impermeable to gases that they would not diffuse between layers and "average out" any evidence of highs and lows???

What about CO2's reactivness with water to form carbonic acid, would that lower the gasseous concentration of CO2 in the bubbles? Does pressure exerted on the gasses due to the increasing depth of the older samples have any effect on this?

First off I must apologize for coming to this thread so late but it slipped past me and I only just noticed it today.

Analysis of post industrial atmospheric CO2 samples that are taken prior to 1900 need to be taken in context when compared to the samples of the atmosphere taken from the Antarctic ice cores. The problem is that all the tests prior to the mid 1800s were all taken in the northern hemisphere and this is where the most of the CO2 was being produced.

The problem you have when comparing these to the Antarctic ice core samples it the mixing of the northern and southern hemispheric atmospheres. Because the earth rotates around an axis weather patterns in the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere rotate in opposite directions. This rotation is caused by the coriolis effect and it makes it impossible for large weather systems to cross from one hemisphere to the other. The result is that there is relatively little mixing of the two atmospheres and localized high concentrations in the northern hemisphere take a considerable time before they cause a rise in the southern hemisphere.

The end result is that you will have short tem isolated peaks in CO₂ due to the increased industrialization in the northern hemisphere that will ultimately be heavily diluted over a period of time by the slow mixing with the atmosphere in the southern hemisphere.

Put simply the charts in the paper 180_years_accurate_CO₂_Chemical_Methods.pdf shows exactly what you would expect to see where the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere shows large rapid rises around events like the beginning of the industrial revolution, WWI and WWII, etcetera, while the Antarctic ice cores show greatly smoothed and delayed rises.

I do not wish to degrade the work of the author but he only received a diploma around 8 months ago and the is disputing the work of numerous scientists that have decades of experience and PhD and Professorial status.

But, Are CO₂ concentrations measured from bubbles trapped in ice going to be representative of the atmosphere the year/decade/century from when the ice was formed???

This has been discussed at length in other threads but the simple answer is that the effects of the bubbles being trapped into the ice for hundreds of thousands of years has been taken into account in the analysis of the samples. Without going into the complex details they can tell how much the sample has been contaminated and how representative it is of the atmosphere when it was trapped, by looking at the ratio of certain isotopes of carbon and other trapped compounds.

You can learn more about the analysis of the Antarctic ice cores at the following links:

• New Antarctic Ice Core Data
• Deep Ice Tells Long Climate Story: BBC
• Historical CO₂ records from the Law Dome & DSS ice cores
• Antarctic Ice Cores & Environmental Change
• Carbon Dioxide Concentration & Temperature

Masu,

No, the co2 data of the 1800 proves your position is incorrect. Co2 concentrations go up and down from 280-550 ppm. The ice core data and the monopoly method used are incorrect. The ice core averages out the highs, and the large pressures the deeper you go LOWERS the co2 concentration in the samples by leaching out the co2 into compounds. The upward spike is just showing the average level and the low rate of leaching as the pressure (depth) decreases. By using the ice core data, "scientist" lie. The method is fatally flawed and at best very misleading and misinterpreted.

Using ice data that has 30% of the co2 leached out on average naturally makes a dramatic case, but is is very bad science. Reality is that the concentrations go up and down, likely in relation to solar, cosmic rays and magnetic field interactions (we very much do not know).

The "problem" with the data is that it does not fit your Agenda and belief system. You failed to see the massive changes of over 100 ppm in just three months, which tells a very different story than the PC false doctrine of a stable and constant co2 level. You fail to see what is really going on by the averaging and disregarding of data that does not meet your case. Such is religion, not science.

Human co2 is estimated at 6 GT, with an error of 70 GT (10%) on a total of 700 GT. Reason says humans have no effect. Moreover, co2 is in saturation and a doubling of concentration would yield nearly no result. Only a religion would conclude human co2 has an effect at these levels.

In your Law Dome link it stated: "The Law Dome ice core CO₂ records show major growth in atmospheric CO₂ levels over the industrial period, except during 1935-1945 A.D. when levels stabilized or decreased slightly. " If you recall WWII was a maximum of co2 production, not a drop. Hmmm. When you look closely into this you will see the smoke and mirrors and the man behind the curtain. Very poor method (monopoly, no doubt) indeed.

Your conclusion that the 180 year data "shows exactly what you would expect to see where the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere shows large rapid rises around events like the beginning of the industrial revolution, WWI and WWII, etcetera, while the Antarctic ice cores show greatly smoothed and delayed rises" is in conflict with the Dome reference you cite. Which is it during WWI and WWII?

These kind of details are characteristic of you analysis operandi, and you fail to see the truth, that co2 is a good thing for the planet. Earth itself produces MORE co2 the warmer it gets. There is a point where co2 has a NEGATIVE feedback loop to temperature, which is never mentioned in your religion.

The co2 global warming theory is wrong. Any person that can claim to be a scientist, or engineer for that matter, will look at all the data and not come to your Agenda driven PC religion. Next thing you will be saying Gia did it…

You don't wish to degrade, but that is what you do. That is like saying "I'll be honest with you…" which implies that you were not honest before. I expect honestly all times, not just some times. Your intention was to degrade the author's credibility and you are not fooling anybody. You damage your credibility with each word you state.

No, the trapped co2 bubbles are NOT representative. They are a way to lie in very sophisticated ways (smoke and mirrors). The ice core "data" and Mann hockey stick are both fatally flawed and constitute rank deception. I believe it rises to the level of a felony at this point.

The "complex details" of the method is proprietary to one man, which is forbidden in science. All must be able to reproduce the same results with the same method and question all aspects of the method before it can begin to be called "science." The ice core data does not meet grade school science levels and should be rejected from "peer reviewed" journal for not being scientific.

Did you actually read your own links? Did you happen to see the Figure 2? It shows clearly that the earth was much warmer than today and the trend is DOWN to another ice age, not a burn out (hence the global cooling hipe in the 70's). The dust concentration also tells you that as the planet warms weather becomes more STABLE, just the opposite of what Gore is saying. Hurricanes are fewer and less intense today than years past. This is a fact. If you read the "data" (spin) found in "incontinent truth" that Gore puts up you can easily get an opposite conclusion from Gore's PC propaganda film.

The bottom line Masu is that you are calling "fire" in a theater. When you advocate government action or the use of force (carbon trade, carbon tax, etc) you have crossed the line into felony territory with all the triple damages, pain a suffering (Africans killed by not having energy), and loss of income. You, my friend, are doing a stunt that your "body can't cash" in 1000 life times.

What needs to happen is all the people in the debate need to sign a legally binding contract, that if they are wrong they pay those who are right. If, in ten years, the oceans are only 0.7-2 inches higher, and not the 20 feet Gore claims, Gore should be bankrupt, along with all the "scientists" such as Jim Hansen from NASA who claim "fire" in our global theater. In short, put your money where your free speech mouth is, and do so in contract. I will be by in ten years to make you my slave for life, which is what the agenda is for all the developing countries who cannot get energy.

By the way, I think I figured out how to get to near zero co2 emmisions (0-10% of current levels). It will take 5-10 years to design and perfect the technology, and it costs less than current methods, unlike PV's. No need for any trading or tax, and no government funding. Hmmm. The co2 con game will soon end. Remember, Thatcher started this whole global warming game to promote Nuclear power and stop the coal unions power in parliment. Global warming is truly a "political hoax."

"The dust concentration also tells you that as the planet warms weather becomes more STABLE, just the opposite of what Gore is saying."

You can't simply tie dust levels with stability of the atmosphere, dust levels can be affected by numerous things that have nothing to do with the instability of the atmosphere. Volcanic eruptions are one thing that is associated with short term warming and high dust levels that have absolutely nothing to do with instability in the atmosphere.

To say that the planet's atmosphere stabilizes as you add energy to it is in your words

"you have crossed the line into felony territory"!

I thought you were a pilot, don't they teach you meteorology when you sit for your pilots license? Can you please explain how increasing the temperature and velocity of molecules in the atmosphere cause more stability? Last time I looked it was heat and in particular the latent heat of vaporization, that was the prime driving force behind things like tropical revolving storms. How dose pumping more energy into systems like this stabilize the atmosphere?

"When you advocate government action or the use of force (carbon trade, carbon tax, etc)"

I have never and will never condone the use of force and do not support the carbon trading scheme, all it dose it carry on with the same system we currently have and suppress those that wish to improve the situation in underdeveloped nations.

I thought you were a pilot, don't they teach you meteorology when you sit for your pilots license?

"No, the trapped co2 bubbles are NOT representative. They are a way to lie in very sophisticated ways (smoke and mirrors). The ice core "data" and Mann hockey stick are both fatally flawed and constitute rank deception."

You obviously did not read the links that I posted in threads prior to this that discussed exactly this and showed that the trapped gas is representative to the atmosphere at the time it was trapped and that there is extremely little if any transfer between the ice and trapped gas. Personally

"I believe it rises to the level of a felony at this point."

Why do you continually degrade yourself by resorting to defamatory statements like this rather than giving hard evidence to support your argument. It dose nothing for the argument and only degrades peoples opinion on you.

Masu,

I took the time to answer your comment, and your comment is what you give me? Pilot training? Energy=bad weather? Do you realize that scientists just recently (Oct 2006) "understood" how rain is formed, and dust is not the main driver? One would think that a true and correct model of how rain is formed would be required to make a global climate model worth more than a good laugh. Think about it...all the models BEFORE oct 2006 are wrong...hmmm.

Again, you do not adress my comments. Yes, you have crossed the felony line, and so has Gore, Hansen (NASA), Mann, and others.

The person who did not read the links is YOU, not me. I read them all. You "interpret" them and spin the data, and never address the facts. The fact is co2 has been higher than 550 ppm many times over the last 180 and goes up and down. The picture Gore presents is totally wrong and does not go to the truth of what the historical record is or, more importantly, how climate functions.

Degrade myself? When you loose the science debate, you libel me. Great! At least you are consitantly unscientific.

We can be off oil for transit, heating, and electrical power withing 10 years, but not if we waste resources and time on political hoaxes like "global warming" that was invented by the nuclear lobby (Thatcher). Good engineers can see through the smoke and mirrors of the GW hoax. Turn you brain on, and drop the hoax.

Well, I don't if swindled is really the right word, but I do agree that this has been a political football for a long time for all parties. The end result is a lot like a contested divorce. There are two winners and two losers. The two losers are not the attorneys. The remaining math is left to the reader as an exercise.

The article correlates well with the message in a television programme entitled, "The Great Global Warming Swindle", broadcast last week on the UK's Channel 4.