Ice Core Data

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by PeakProphet, Jul 4, 2013.

  1. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Can anyone please provide an explanation for why this shows a cooling world, even today, and for some reason people don't even want to talk about WHY the planet is showing this cooling trend? I understand why all the current fear mongering is going the opposite way, but if this trend continues, it seems to me we are going to need all the warming help we can get? Has the ice core data been discredited in some way I am not familiar with? Because people, this does not look good!

    11k-GISP2.png
     
  2. Angedras

    Angedras New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    8,178
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Interesting topic.

    Providing source links would be appreciated.
     
  3. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Lots of cool stuff to poke around in, in here. Once I realized there was temperature data showing the overall cooling trend, I just started poking around in everything ice core.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/greenland.html

    This is a fantastic video I found demonstrating exactly why you have to watch the current all warming all the time crowd, puts our current worlds temperatures into a completely different perspective.

    [video=youtube;DFbUVBYIPlI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI[/video]
     
  4. Angedras

    Angedras New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    8,178
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you PeakP, I appreciate the link and video.


    :thumbsup:


    *I'm sure others will, as well*
     
  5. flogger

    flogger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Theres an obvious and very good reason why people dont want to talk about this. It really puts the cat among the pigeons for AGW theory and there are now a whole load of vested interests riding on it. The ice cores from both poles show that there really isnt anything remarkable about todays conditions in either level nor rate of change. I hope you find this ice core data of some interest too as it shows the South pole variations also

    http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm




    .
     
  6. Angedras

    Angedras New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    8,178
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Welcome to the forum Flogger. :thumbsup:


    If you have any questions about Rules/Guidelines or forum functionality, just ask.


    Ange
     
  7. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Holy crap, did you see the difference in temperature swings in that data? It absolutely dwarfs some of what is being claimed for even like worst case IPCC stuff?! Everyone wants to do this little local comparisons but as soon as you see the REAL changes in temperature, no darn wonder people can't get temperature models dependent heavily on tiny changes in CO2 to work!
     
  8. flogger

    flogger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This agenda is an entirely political one. I became a skeptic about this some years ago when I started to check the claims being made for AGW and the alleged 'science' that supported it. It really doesnt matter what claim you look at there isnt a single one stands any sort of critical analysis. The only thing we do know is we have warmed over the last two centuries but there is nothing whatsoever unusual about that warming as its well within natural variation in both its level and rate of change. You might find this interactive map of Peer reviewed study graphs interesting too as it shows what a worldwide phenomenon the Medieval Warming Period was 800 - 1000 years ago really was and how much warmer than today many places were

    http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

    They try hard to make todays conditions look unprecedented by the simple expedient of ignoring the precents it seems, as these graphs show
     
  9. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I remember when the Al Gores's movie came out, that would have been my first intro to the wonderful world of warming. I poked around just enough to find out that the Mann graph was contradicted by all sorts of evidence related to MWP, that the MWP had been dropped by the IPCC not because it didn't exist but because they went all in on the hockey stick graph (it making a better point for their cause than the real explanation of temperature) and then I just walked away with that "science is settled' nonsense. Anyone who says that obviously doesn't know dick about how science works.

    But recently I started poking around again out of a case of mild curiosity, and the ice core stuff contradicting all the tree ring fanatics is just amazing. Never thought I would see scientists cherry picking their datasets, acting as advocates for a position rather than actually doing SCIENCE, I would have been fired for doing that back in my scientist days. Completely unacceptable.
     
  10. flogger

    flogger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It is ironic that one flawed study (the hockey stick) from one young climatologists was seized upon so fervently by the IPCC as gospel and every other paleoclimatic study from a very large body of work was dismissed out of hand. I think as far as the IPCC were concerned there may have been alterior motivavions at work here. You might find this report rather illustrative of what those motivations might have been.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/

    Always follow the money with this issue

    jo-nova-cartoon.jpg

    I actually think its gone well beyond just mere cherry picking. I believe outright fraud is at work here because of the multibillions there are riding on this issue . I dont believe that AGW evangelists like Michael Mann, James Hansen or Phil Jones were unaware that the vast bulk of paleoclimatic research done to date contradicted thier beloved hypothesis yet they continued to push it nonetheless. As the climategate emails dramatically illustrated there is deception at work here and the whitewash investigations afterwards as the vested interests closed ranks to protect themselves is hardly encouraging. I believe there are grounds for criminal proceedings such is the sheer scale of this but its now gotten too big and too lucrative to ever be allowed to fail sadly :(
     
  11. BillyGee

    BillyGee New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2013
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Didn't either of you spot that the graph in the video ends in 1900? The current year is 2013. What about all the warming that happened in the past 100 years?
     
  12. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Care to share any of this "paleoclimatic research done to date" that "contradicted thier (sic) beloved hypothesis"?
     
  13. flogger

    flogger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I already did

    You will find paleoclimatic ice core studies I've linked on post #5 . You will also find graphs for other worldwide paleoclimatic studies using other proxies linked on post #8 too. The interactive map links each graph to its relevant study. If you are really interested to find out even more you can find links to a mass of other worldwide studies here too

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    Please note that not a single one of these agree with Manns hockey stick assertions based on a handful of tree ring proxies subjectively selected (it would appear) to bolster a pet hypothesis.
     
  14. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Seems to me that a single graph showing how cool it is right now, and how warm it has been in the recent past, is contradiction enough. All the whining is all warming, all the time! And then they fail to mention that, well, yes it might be warming now but DAMN is it cold compared to the recent past.

    Ice core data works for me....DAMN are we cold!

    histo3.jpg
     
  15. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Oh, the original statistical beef looks alot more nefarious than just trying to bolster a pet hypothesis.

    http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick

    If anyone had ever been able to do that to any of my models...ever...I would have been fired on the spot. Why is it climate guys can get away with this and regular working stiff scientists can't? I am familiar with research when even the HINT of a stunt like this happened, it was pulled from the organizations official publications and explanations were offered as to why. Admittedly, I worked for a world class science outfit, but this kind of biased nonsense should get a researcher dismissed, at the least.
     
  16. flogger

    flogger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The hockey stick is but one facet of this whole shady business. One has to remember that the IPCCs sole remit is to find human only causes for the current warming phase at the exclusion of any natural agents so of course it was going to make it its flagship 'science' and dismiss the rest. Not finding such causes would negate its whole reason for existence. The IPCC is a political body set up by governments for governments. Off the back of IPCC diktats here in the UK green taxes to fight climate change (?) have already increased my energy bills by 40% in 4 years and they are set to double by 2020 so the payoff for governments in terms of politically saleable tax increases is already happening both here and all over Europe :(
     
  17. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    So I am staring at this ice core data very, very hard.

    histo4.jpg

    Past spikes in temperature appear to be very similar to what is currently happened, particularly with respect to how fast the temperature is currently rising versus how fast it has risen before.

    What I want to know is the mechanism by which it is discounted by those who focus only on "warming" data since the end of the LIA? Not the obvious reasons of who paid who what, or gets there money from where, I want a TRUE BELIEVER answer. A true believer isn't going to buy into money and academics looking for someone to fund their interesting but hardly otherwise earth shattering research ventures, they have what they consider to be a valid reason for why historical temperatures shouldn't be looked at, aren't right, the data is corrupt, tree rings are obviously much better, so on and so forth. Any references or links to specifically why they discount any of this would be appreciated, but from THEIR point of view, not of the objective amateur.
     
  18. flogger

    flogger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Check out the latest paleoclimatic research on ice cores here PP. This Kobashi 2011 study focuses even more sharply on just the last 4000 years of Arctic ice cores and can give you an even better insight into just how unremarkable todays conditions are in terms of both thier level and rate of change. I hope you will find this even more illuminating. As you can plainly see the LIA was perhaps the deepest cooling phase of the entire period so it is unsurprising that mother Earths next move would have been upward .... and thank god it was ! :shock:

    4000yearsgreenland_nov2011_gprl.jpg

    I link the whole study here too

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf
     
  19. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No you didn't. You posted a graph on a blog with no link to the source data or the research in post #5
    The link in post # 8 I've already discredited; twice
    Their limits of the MWP changes with every research paper that is shown on that page,
    And even if I accept that the papers discredit Mann (Ido not accept it), how does any of those discredit Hansen or Jones?
     
  20. flogger

    flogger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I didnt see where you have discredited anything here. You have been presented with a large body of scientific literature which you have chosen to dismiss in favour of a deeply flawed 1998 study that even the IPCC was sheepishly forced to banish to the footnotes in IPCC 2007AR4. Hansen and Jones have pegged thier careers to this hypothesis one being its creator and the other the disciple. They have clearly invested so much in the promotion of this agenda that thier scientific objectivity must seriously be in question. I'd say Hansen in particular has become more political activist than scientist in recent decades frankly. Believe me if they were both sitting in front of me now I'd be wanting the answers to the questions I've posed on this thread, but as experience has shown preachers dont take questions do they ? :roll:
     
  21. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Uh huh! I'm skeptical of another pretty graph without any link to the data or research.
     
  22. flogger

    flogger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    63
    See post #17 for just such details
     
  23. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    If an amateur like me can even recognize the greenland greenland ice core data profile by now, certainly I begin to assume others can as well. Forgive me for assuming those who have examined this topic much longer than I have actually learned some of the particulars along the way.
     
  24. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Post #17

    Nope, no answer.
    Because I'm not "TRUE BELIEVER", you'll not get an answer from me.
    I ignore graphs with no link to the data or the research. So either link to the data and research or find a different graph.
     
  25. flogger

    flogger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Thats correct post #17 ?

    The graph there has the linked Peer reviewed research you seek
     

Share This Page