Source: From the eMail Bag: A Deep Dive Into Polar Ice Cores Through the last eight ice age cycles atmospheric CO2 levels ranged from lows of ~175-200 ppm during the depths of each ice age, to highs of ~250-280 ppm during the warm interglacials. The magnitude of each of these variations was roughly a 90 ppm change in CO2 levels. These changes occurred over thousands, even tens of thousands, of years. The modern Keeling Curve shows a CO2 rise from ~315 ppm to ~405 ppm, or a 90 ppmincrease (equal to the ice-ages variation), in only ~50 years. And if we consider the full length of our current spike, which began ~150 years ago from ~280 ppm, then we have a 125 ppm increase in CO2. In just a few more decades, if we continue to emit CO2 at current rates, we should reach the ~460 ppm mark which would bring us to a 180 ppm increase over pre-industrial levels—twice the natural range of variability seen in the ice age cycle. Such a sudden spike has never been recorded in ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica. Human emissions of CO2 are clearly unprecedented. A good summary of what the data shows. Bob Wilson
This is a useful intro to part of the subject. Firn thing, I suppose, is why the top of Greenland summit ice core is dated at 1850 - newer is not sufficiently tamped down. But do they throw away firm (typically) or save it for some possible future use? Other ice core signals like sulfuric acid from volcanoes also ought to vertically disperse in firn. Probably to a lesser extent than CO2, but ??? seems to me like it could be testable, but not necessarily high priority. Any solid-phase material ought to disperse more narrowly. Temperature proxy (oxygen isotope ratio) is a bit troublesome and most often glossed over. It is not a virtual thermometer poised a meter or few above the deposition surface. It is some sort of spatial average sea surface temperature from where the water went to atmosphere. There may be a further isotopic fractionation in atmosphere over the deposition site, at height where water vapor freezes. With all that, and with seasonal and longer-scale variation in sea-surface ice, it seems hard to know how much is paleo T signal and how much is noise. This has been examined a few times, but not broadly across polar ice-core localities, and apparently not subject of a review article. +++ Didja all read that some cores stored in Edmonton Alberta recently melted when the freezer went offline? That was pretty sad. Cores really ought to be stored under most reliable possible conditions. Not only are they proof of previous analyses, but additional techniques will probably be developed in the future. Recoring is awfully expensive. In the case of near-equatorial ice (which is melting out), recoring is simply impossible.
I do not agree. Edmonton had an equipment failure. Burning books is 'by choice'. That said, million-dollar ice cores need suitable homes, lest more millions need be spent for redo. Let us turn our attention to where other cores are stored and if they are below par, why assume that crowd funding cannot get 'er done? Canada was moving cores in response to some storage funding problem. I do not wish to skewer them. But cores are now globally wherever they are - what facilities appear most in need of 'sensible money improvement'?
Sorry, I wasn't thinking motivation as much as the loss of information . . . the degree ice cores hold a history. We have tornadoes in this area and they have been known to hit schools with libraries. Fortunately these can be replaced. Ice cores are not impossible to replace but the costs are significant. The harder problem is motivation, the curiosity. Bob Wilson
Except that some of them are becoming impossible to replace, because their sources have melted out. In this sense, the freezers are more comparable to the library of Alexandria, than to a common school library.
Removing funding from ongoing and planned scientific research seems a bit like burning books not yet written.
I cant describe the shame and disgust that needs to be expressed for this despicable agenda. Happy Earth Day to Science March protesters who burn science books which they cant dispute the facts which are presented. This is a teachable moment. Global Warming advocates cannot dispute scientific facts presented in a book so they resort to burning it. YOU ARE F,ING BRAINWASHED.Seriously .You cant debate a book so you need to burn it. Im literally saying YOU are brainwashed .By a handful of liar scientists who have an agenda and the Mass media who parrots their message. Do your own research and reach your own conclusions. Climate scientists are liars.(their motive is prompted by $80,000,000,000 $80 BILLION in funding over the past 20 years,funding only provided if they support anthropogenic global warming) A good start would be to read the book that climate scientists want to burn.Then try to dispute it.
It is my practice to periodically turn off my 'ignore user' list in the hope the irritation will go away or get a clue: Well if you think that book is so wonderful, I'll do a book report if you'll send or loan me one: Robert J. Wilson 9011 Randall Road SW Huntsville, AL 35802 At age 67, I'm old school so it will have to be paper, not a URL. I won't pay for a copy or shipping because people I trust have called it rubbish. Perhaps some of my fellow PriusChatters would make the same offer, a book report for a hardcopy sent to their home. Bob Wilson
NIPCC report is available online and free to read. Anyone who has 'kept up' with cherry picking, deceptive quotations, spin, and pure unadulterated misstatements will find the contents unsurprising. Falls short of requiring burning. Somebody musta said sumpin' though - our resident snowflake is steamed up and wants everyone to notice.
Speculation on my part but the newest GOES includes some climate sensors. There may be some fear that the bridge between climate and weather may be hiding there. Bob Wilson
I have not heard that GOES-R (the 2016 Nov launch or later in series) is under direct financial threat. This is an unsettled field though. It is a darn nice earth-looker. Anyone who thinks climate science is unsettled ought to favor spending money in such ways. Anyone who prefers not knowing - well...
