Oh dear oh dear. CO2 Caused ice sheet formation?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/02/antarctic_ice_sheet_carbon_levels /
I mean it must have caused it. Nothing else changes climate like CO2, does it? Stands to reason dunnit?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Oddly, the link to the abstract in Science, seems to imply the opposite.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261
"Previously published records of alkenone-based CO2 from high- and low-latitude ocean localities suggested that CO2 increased during glaciation, in contradiction to theory. Here, we further investigate alkenone records and demonstrate that Antarctic and subantarctic data overestimate atmospheric CO2 levels, biasing long-term trends. Our results show that CO2 declined before and during Antarctic glaciation and support a substantial CO2 decrease as the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation, consistent with model-derived CO2 thresholds."
Tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Downie wrote:

Well that of course is the problem. Every single piece of actual climate data gets siezeded to
1/. Absolutely prove that global warming is all about CO2 and its much worse than the worsest thing there ever was or
2/. Shows zero or negative correlation between temperature and CO2.
Its very confusing really.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I read that abstract as saying that during the period of glaciation in Antarctica (ie when it was very cold), CO2 was very low. So, that's a positive correlation between temperature and CO2.
--
Register as an organ donor with the NHS online. It takes 1 minute and
saves you carrying an organ donor card with you.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/12/2011 11:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Interesting linked stories there too:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/29/iceberg_phytoplankton_boost / http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/21/autosub_in_pig_melt_clue /
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/12/2011 11:56, Nightjar wrote:

The Register does seen to have an agenda.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/04/peat_bogs_not_a_problem_in_global_warming /
But nothing on things like trapped methane that could be released with a very modest temperate rise.
On another note I came across this.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/bob-ward-why-the-house-journal-of-the-sceptics-is-full-of-hot-air-6270913.html
--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh dear, lets trash the source rather than listen to the science, again! Congratulations on being a true believer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/12/2011 13:05, dennis@home wrote:

So you would have it that the report cited at the head of this thread is a disinterested summary of a piece of scientific research.
As TNP would [not] say in such circumstances - pleeese!
--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger Chapman wrote:

You are free - if you have a Science login - to view the original article and decide for yourself.
I always try to do that if I can.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/12/2011 13:05, dennis@home wrote:

The Register is extremely unreliable on this topic.
They have practically inverted the interpretation of the data that the researchers have reported in Science by selective misquoting.
The so called Natural Philosopher fell for it hook line and sinker. Condemned by his own actions as an AGW denier and a dittohead.

You should always check your sources rather than relying on the garbled stories that appear in the press or worse in right whinger blogs.
Regards, Martin Brown
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/12/2011 13:22, Martin Brown wrote:

It is a pity that the scientific journals restrict the readership of anything more than an abstract to those with a subscription. Those of us on the outside are frequently denied the full story.
--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/12/2011 13:29, Roger Chapman wrote:

Trouble is that the publishers of scientific journals are mercenary b*stards and want to make insane profits for online access. ISTR Nature charges $32 per article which makes this one a snip for only $15.
This one also this weeks journal is about the permafrost thawing: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/full/480032a.html
But most large public libraries and any university library should have Science and Nature on the periodicals shelves so you can grab the date and issue number online and then go look it up there.
Regards, Martin Brown
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger Chapman wrote:

Oddly enough if you google the author, you will often find the same article in his own website..
I did that with an earlier article showing how CO2 levels and solar flux did not vary enough to account for the little ice age or the mediaeval warm period.
Flatly contradicting earlier studies which said it did..
Sigh.
Despite Martins personal insinuations, I am very much balanced on the fence. Although playing devils advocate is a good technique to expose warmist trolls.
In short the only thing I am sure of is that there is very little certainty in the predictions of ANYONE.
Failure to admit this, makes me suspicious at a human level, of those who want to close all controversy and announce that the science is settled.
That is deeply disturbing,: Irrespective of whether AGW is wrong, slightly right or a complete and accurate picture, the way its being handled is an utter disgrace and has put science back years in terms of public opinion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Not taking sides, but *Ding* .. ;)
--
Paul - xxx
"You know, all I wanna do is race .. and all I wanna do is win"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:58:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Remember, for years, it was scientific *fact* that the continents didn't move.
And that stones did not fall from the sky.
That the earth was the centre of the solar system.
That possession by the devil caused madness.
And while you ponder that, it's worth remembering the fate that befell some people who might have suggested otherwise.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Fallacious. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (*). Not everyone who rages against the machine is right. Or wrong.
(* I think. It's Friday afternoon, I'm tired and I've had too much caffeine and this is, after all, only Usenet.)
--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 44th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3177
Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TerryJones wrote:

It is perfectly reasonable that those challenging the orthodoxy do so with a compelling case, but it is equally true that those resisting new evidence beyond the limits of conservatism, are in the end the ones reviled by history.
You cannot deny there is something in AGW - but I worry a lot, that great shifts in climate - greater than those we are seeing today - have taken place with no apparent changes in it, and great changes have taken place in it with apparently little impact on climate.
That suggests to me we are not anywhere near the full picture.
BUT to say that immediately gets one painted as a 'denier'..that is NOT good...the very use of the word implies the person saying it is in some sense a 'Believer' and that is even worse. This is not science, this is rhetoric.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Its worse than that, believers can't think it through.
If they are wrong we are wasting resources on green projects that bring no benefits.
If they are right they need to get the entire world to cooperate to fix it. They wont be able to do this. So it will happen and we are wasting resources on green projects that will bring no benefits.
We need to spend the resources on stuff that will be of benefit whichever way it goes. Nuclear plants will work either way. Wind and solar assume the climate won't change and may be useless if it does.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 20:51:07 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

Pretty much why I am cynical about the whole affair - world reaction isn't following basic logic. A sure sign something smells in the garden ...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jethro wrote:

It is, but its not the logic that you are led to believe it is.

That's true.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.