Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For some time now we have been aware that ice core sample data could not possibly give any kind of decadal average for CO2 levels or the temp record in general, but that's exactly how the AGW crowd has been using this data, as if averages from a millennium ago could be precisely captured in ice core samples could give us a snapshot of atmospheric content and temperature over the past 15,000 years.
Well, a new method has been developed using plant fossils, which is MUCH more accurate and it turns out, all of what the AGW crowd thought we previously "knew" about the atmosphere is wrong, and if this research is more accurate, which it certainly seems to be, then all of the assumptions of CO2 climate sensitivity built on the previous assumptions, and programed into their computer models, are WRONG. This is just another huge nail in the AGW coffin.
ICE-CORE SAMPLES:
Accumulating ice layers can take a century or more to become buried deep enough to be isolated from the atmosphere, which at the South Pole occurs at a depth of approximately 120 m. The resulting heat and pressure causes gas exchange between ice layers, which modifies the chemistry of ice air bubbles. At burial depths of between 900 and 1200 meters the pressure is so great that air bubbles in ice disappear and the gases recombine with liquids and ice crystals. Such processes tend to smooth away variability in the ice record and may also make CO2 levels appear lower than they really were, obscuring much of the resolution pertaining to CO2 variability
STOMATAL INDEX: A standardized way of counting stomata-- called the stomatal index ( SI [%] )-- has been found to be a good way to estimate the CO2 content of the atmosphere when the plant was alive...
Because plant stomata numbers do not change after the leaves or needles fall from the tree they make a good indicator or proxy of atmospheric CO2 in Earth's past. What they show is that the popular belief that CO2 levels prior to the Industrial Revolution were a steady 280 ppm (parts per million) may be incorrect.
As illustrated below, studies of stomata for recent and fossilized plants show that atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 15,000 years have been higher and much more variable than previously supposed. Much of what we think we know about CO2 levels of the past 800,000 years is based on the ice core record
Illustrated here are results from recent stomata studies which show that CO2 was more variable and the average CO2 concentrations have been significantly higher during our Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) than are indicated by the ice core record. A precipitous drop in CO2 during the "Younger Dryas" was captured nicely by the stomata record, but missed by the CO2 record in ice cores. (larger image).
Data from various stomata studies show CO2 concentrations over the last 11,000 years varied between 260 and 340 ppm (average: 305 ppm). In contrast, the Dome C ice core record shows no significant variability and considerably lower overall CO2 levels (average: 270 ppm).
A sharp CO2 decline is indicated between 11,500 to 12,800 B.P., coinciding with an abrupt cooling phase, known as the "Younger Dryas". While this event is obscured in the Antarctic Dome C ice core CO2 record, it shows up clearly in the stomata CO2 record.
Based on these stomata data, the conventional Pre-Industrial baseline of 280 ppm may be understated by about 25 ppm. In other words, 24% of the presumed 105 ppm Industrial Era CO2 increase may in fact be a result of bias and poor resolution of CO2 variability in the ice cores.
While the stomata data show higher values of CO2 than do pre-1900 ice data, they generally agree with the very youngest part of the Law Dome ice data (1900-1957 AD) and also with the contemporary S. Pole Air Flask CO2 record (actual air samples) begun in 1957 and continuing today. In other words, stomata results agree with the data that are least susceptible to distortion and diffusion errors.
The stomata record offers important evidence to challenge the notion that variations in CO2 levels of 20-50 ppm over timespans of less than 1000-years are "unprecedented" or that Pre-Industrial CO2 concentrations never went above 300 ppm-- both may, in fact, have been normal.
I did not discuss either ham or string, so you will need to elaborate.
My point is that even if global warming is real (it may be a natural, cyclical thing), I have yet to see how cutting emissions and the self-inflicted harm on our economy will reverse it. I'm not convinced that it is man-made, or that it will be reversed easily by human effort. I think the harm that we will incur will hurt us more than GW.
Anthropogenic Global Warming, and the theory that man-induced CO2 is responsible for forming the entire planet, much less catastrophic global warming as portrayed by the al Gore types.
My point is that even if global warming is real (it may be a natural, cyclical thing), I have yet to see how cutting emissions and the self-inflicted harm on our economy will reverse it. I'm not convinced that it is man-made, or that it will be reversed easily by human effort. I think the harm that we will incur will hurt us more than GW.
I agree 100% with you. this new way of measuring the content of CO2 proves that the alarmists who claim mankind has increased CO2 in any meaningful way, are just wrong.
The OP post is a joke. First of all, the website looks like it was created by a 6 yr old. Second: The author of the site: Monte Hieb is the author of several popular web pages skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming, serving as a evangelist for the viewpoint (he does not state his qualification in climatology or a related science). He is an employee at the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Health, Safety, and Training. Very laughable
A rather lame attempt at debunking, going after the layout and appearance of the web site? The studies supporting the story are from 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2009, the latest published Feb, 2009 on the Younger Dryas. Now, maybe you can tell me why the SI index isn't valid, instead of doing a Google search that finds nothing relevant.
Ahhhh, so you found Zbigniew Jaworowski, though your OP did NOT reference his work. Why not? Could it be that you took this from a biased website? Here's some additional information from the Plant Fossils West Virginia site that you used in the OP.
<B>
Quote:
Caution:This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good grade in political correctness.
"Global warming" is a real phenomenon: Earth's temperature is increasing.
</B>
Well, let's sort this out, shall we? Here's a little information on Jaworowski, who is in fact the man who has used the stomata research to attempt to counter the real science that backs ACC.
Quote:
"(2)” … about 20 [papers] on climate research.” Jaworowski does not need to have credentials as an expert in gas measurement from ice cores in order to criticize those who do have them; if his arguments are valid, they can stand on their own. But being perceived as an expert elevates one’s credibility, at least at first. To pick up a little of that luster, he leads off with a recitation of his ice-related activities, including 40 years in glacier studies, 11 expeditions to measure “natural and man-made pollutants” in glaciers, and extensive studies of dust and lead in the environment. But when we look for Jaworowski in the literature, he seems never to have done any primary research on the extraction and measurement of gases in ice. Later on, Jaworowski says that climate researchers’ motives are suspect. But when it suits his purposes, he is happy to claim to be a climate researcher. All this is not to say that Jaworowski’s name has been unknown to print in recent years. He has had an article in 21st Century Science & Technology, published by Lyndon Larouche. Need I say more?"
(15)“A study of stomatal frequency …” This is one of the few new arguments — that is, not just warmed over from the 1992 paper — made in this statement. Unfortunately for Jaworowski, it is bogus. In fact, studies of stomatal response to CO2 concentration across several species have shown “Without evolutionary changes, SI and SD may not respond to atmospheric [CO2] in the field and are unlikely to decrease in a future high CO2 world.” In other words, stomatal frequency does not change quickly enough to reveal the rapid changes Jaworowski claims occurred. (Thanks are due to Yelling for the citation, and to Dano for pointing out its significance.) (16)” … pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming …” Jaworowski’s contempt for climatologists, and his true purpose in writing this paper, become clearer as he approaches its end. He offers zero evidence that there has been “mproper manipulation, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming … in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases.” In fact, the very papers that he cites afford powerful evidence to the contrary. Yet he feels comfortable in making this blanket condemnation of a discipline, because he has support from … (continued in next comment). (17)” … exposed this misuse of science …” Zbigniew Jaworowski, of course! In citing (yet again) his 1992 and 1994 papers, he displays a certain pride in having “exposed” all the bad behavior in the climate science community. But his pride may be misplaced, considering that the only comment ESPR published regarding his 1994 paper said that it “deserves little attention.”
(21)” … IPCC conclusions …” [i]Jaworowski seems to think that the IPCC consensus on the causes, effects and likely cures for global warming all rest on the assumption of low pre-industrial CO2 levels, and that if he can just kick out that prop, the whole shebang will come tumbling down. Not so. Even if it were impossible to gauge the level of CO2 in the atmosphere before people started changing it, we would still have direct atmospheric measurements showing the increase over the past 46 years, we would still know how much we are pumping out, and we would still know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Ultimately, Jaworowski’s campaign to discredit ice-core research is no more than a rear-guard action, but that is all it needs to be.
Face it. The deniers do NOT have the science to back them. And when oh when will people learn to go to the source rather than use second hand reports to try and prove what isn't fact.
Ya'll have a good day, now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Data from various stomata studies show CO2 concentrations over the last 11,000 years varied between 260 and 340 ppm (average: 305 ppm). In contrast, the Dome C ice core record shows no significant variability and considerably lower overall CO2 levels (average: 270 ppm).
