Climategate: "Hide the Decline"

[HarveyH42]

That was my point. You claimed that the polar icecaps totally melted in the "last few hundred years", thus erasing any ice core samples, with the statement:

Which was almost as ridiculous as ferrying sea water to the moon with space tankers.

Maybe, I worded it badly. What I meant is that we didn't show much interest in the polar region a few hundred years ago, so we don't know with much certainty that there was no large scale melting, ever.

Does anybody happen to know the date of the first expedition to either polar region, any country. Just the first group, to go wandering the ice continents, intentional, or otherwise.

Perhaps, you assign a set number to "last few hundred years", where I was thinking we probably didn't pay much attention to ice continents, when we had all of the Americas to explore 400 years ago. Anytime before our arrival, is in the realm of a few hundred, or maybe I should have said, 'several hundred'. The cores are claimed to be over 40,000 years, some claim over 100,000 years. Could have used 'last few thousand years' just the same.

But, yes, I do get the point of your arguments, you can't refute, so you must to reduce. No big deal, not here to argue or debate, just sharing some alternate thinking on the topic. A lot of it doesn't add up to me, and seems to omit quite a few things. Like there is a lot of crap floating around in the air, most of it's natural and normal, some entirely man made. Just seem so incredibly odd to me, that CO2 is the sole focus of this climate issue. Every living thing produces CO2, even plants, it's so basic, even necessary, and yet it's going to kill us all.

Maybe it's not that we are emitting too much CO2, but interfering with the process that removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Perhaps there are other gases the negate or reduce the greenhouse effect of CO2, and we've been taking that ought of the atmosphere. We aren't going to know, until we experiment. I don't think the data is strong enough to take the gamble today. It's still just in the hypothesis stage, and a global experiment to test it might not be a good idea, but definitely we are not in such a crisis to need to take the chance.

The crisis of the heat, flooding, rising seas, are hundreds of years away. These thing have been going on for centuries, and people have died. It's going on right now, and likely continue on. But, we are also going to see addition deaths due to starvation, because the governments are spending a lot of time and money on a CO2 experiment. People will freeze in the winter, because the can't afford the gas or electricity to heat their homes, die because it gets too hot in the summer. The countries who can't or won't comply with whatever global regulations are applied, will suffer sanctions, and reduced subsidies, more people get to die. Global Warming might kill some people, but we most definitely will in our present course.

 

[ke5frf]

I don't think so.

What Harvey42 doesn't seem to "get" is that if the ice caps did any appreciable melting in the past 1000 years, then it would be recorded in Greek, Italian, English, & American, history that extensive flooding of coastal cities occurred. It is not.

I don't know. You seem to have made your mind up anyway.

Yes I pretty much have made up my mind at this point, not that AGW isn't occurring to some degree, but that the science and politics of it have become rather inbred and are losing credibility.

However, you are incorrect that the icecaps haven't undergone any appreciable melting in the past 1000 years. Greenland isn't called Greenland for nothing. Perhaps Scandinavian and Viking accounts do not amount to anything because they weren't Greek, Italian, English, or American? Poor Vikings they get cheated out of everything. Started when Columbus sailed the ocean blue I suppose. Wait, he was Genoan. Close enough to Italy?

 

[tcmtech]

So how many sunken ancient city ruins or constructions are there to dive at in the world now that are under 2000 years old that are located in 50 feet or less of water along ocean coastal lines firmly attached to continental plates that would not have allowed for geological subsidence to account for their submersion?
I think every populated continent has a few.

Just asking from an amateur scuba divers perspective of fun places to visit.

 

[kchriste]

However, you are incorrect that the icecaps haven't undergone any appreciable melting in the past 1000 years. Greenland isn't called Greenland for nothing.

Are we talking about the polar icecap or Grønland's ice sheet here? Core samples from Greenland go back an estimated 100,000 years (isotope dating) so it never was entirely ice free especially the glaciers in the mountains. Anyone who has lived in the North knows that it can get very green very quickly when the temperature rises in the Arctic spring.

 

[ke5frf]

Are we talking about the polar icecap or Grønland's ice sheet here? Core samples from Greenland go back an estimated 100,000 years (isotope dating) so it never was entirely ice free especially the glaciers in the mountains. Anyone who has lived in the North knows that it can get very green very quickly when the temperature rises in the Arctic spring.

Again, is there a requisite that the ice completely melt for the integrity of the ice strata to remain uncompromised?

Nobody ever claimed Greenland was ice free. However, during the MWP Vikings inhabited and established agriculture in areas that are not at all ideal for it today. And then, suddenly, their settlements were abandoned and have since frozen over. They are still frozen to this day, too cold for agriculture.

If the Arctic is 5 years away from being completely melted as Al Gore suggest, surely Greenland would be a beach resort by now.

 

[kchriste]

Does anybody happen to know the date of the first expedition to either polar region, any country. Just the first group, to go wandering the ice continents, intentional, or otherwise

You've got to remember that the early explorers didn't come here to discover America. They came this way to find a new trade route to China and the Far east so a lot of effort was expended trying to find a way around North America by ship.
The search started with Cabot in 1497, Martin Frobisher in 1576, John Davis in 1585, etc. The Inuit, or Eskimos, it is believed to have been there since around 900AD.

It's still just in the hypothesis stage, and a global experiment to test it might not be a good idea, but definitely we are not in such a crisis to need to take the chance.

Isn't burning 85 million of barrels of oil a day a bit of an experiment too? That is a very recent event.

The crisis of the heat, flooding, rising seas, are hundreds of years away.

Some of the effects will be seen much sooner.

The countries who can't or won't comply with whatever global regulations are applied, will suffer sanctions, and reduced subsidies, more people get to die. Global Warming might kill some people, but we most definitely will in our present course.

Yes people have died and will continue to die no matter which route is taken. Such is the history of the human race. But parking the SUV and taking the train isn't going to kill anyone either!
The thing is, we will run out of oil eventually anyway. Why not save the oil we have for making plastics and other useful items instead of burning it? Use the oil wisely now to buy us time for the inevitable time when it runs out. Why can't people see that the Earth is a finite place and perpetual growth is a myth and attempting to ignore that fact is the path to the destruction of modern civilization as we know it.

 

[BrownOut]

The vikings carved out a very meager life in the southern most part of Greenland. They gave up trying to farm the hardscrabble land. Today, much of the Greenland coast is emerging from the ice sheet, and can be seen for the first time in recorded history. I've even read there is some tourism where there was only a frozen waste land before.

 

[kchriste]

Again, is there a requisite that the ice completely melt for the integrity of the ice strata to remain uncompromised?

You can verify the integrity of the core samples by comparing them to others drawn around the world. This is scientific method: verification by different scientists and multiple samples yielding similar results.

 

[ke5frf]

The vikings carved out a very meager life in the southern most part of Greenland. They gave up trying to farm the hardscrabble land. Today, much of the Greenland coast is emerging from the ice sheet, and can be seen for the first time in recorded history. I've even read there is some tourism where there was only a frozen waste land before.

Ah, so they do have a beach resort there! At least somebody is prospering from the vehicle of our demise.

 

[bryan1]

Well this whole thread has turned out to be thread a good laugh and the way it's going next week it will be on the top 4 hottest threads at the bottom of the forum page. All of this talk of global warming is one of the biggest scams in the modern age. What came out of that meeting of world leaders eh NOTHING. But just watch ya govt as soon you'll be paying an extra tax for carbon.

I did read an article in the SCI magazine awhile ago about the power of sun flares which in one foul swoop will wipe out all electronics, power just about anything the ticks. One hit earth in the late 1900's and people didnt know what hit them. I suppose the earth does need something like that to wake everyone up that we are just a small fish in the big pond as the world goes.

Cheers Bryan

 

[Mikebits]

Maybe, I worded it badly. What I meant is that we didn't show much interest in the polar region a few hundred years ago, so we don't know with much certainty that there was no large scale melting

As previously mentioned, there are many regions in the Antarctic that have remained at temps below freezing for thousands of years. I think ice core scientist have focused more on the South pole than northern caps as the melting has been removed from the equation.

You may argue that how can one tell if there was a melt period and valid question it is. The way that the ice freezes gives scientist clues. In the Antarctic the scientist have found no evidence of melting based on the core sample compositions.

From what I understand, and I don't purport to understand it all, ice cores in the Antarctic leave a distinguishable pattern which has been validated by lab test. In this pattern annual climate changes leave a pattern in the ice whereby scientist can distinguish one year from another. I think Firn is a key layer. In the layers using advanced scientific equipment, the trapped gasses can be studied and inferences of the atmospheric condition at that time can be made.

One more thing, neither you or I will probably be alive to suffer the consequences of the choices that we make today, so we are all good. The issue is our children and what we leave behind for them. Are you so certain in your convictions that you are ready to hand over a planet of uncertainty? If anything, this should make one ponder and wonder. At the very least, we owe the next generation a slight preponderance on our part.

 

[HarveyH42]

As previously mentioned, there are many regions in the Antarctic that have remained at temps below freezing for thousands of years. I think ice core scientist have focused more on the South pole than northern caps as the melting has been removed from the equation.

You may argue that how can one tell if there was a melt period and valid question it is. The way that the ice freezes gives scientist clues. In the Antarctic the scientist have found no evidence of melting based on the core sample compositions.

From what I understand, and I don't purport to understand it all, ice cores in the Antarctic leave a distinguishable pattern which has been validated by lab test. In this pattern annual climate changes leave a pattern in the ice whereby scientist can distinguish one year from another. I think Firn is a key layer. In the layers using advanced scientific equipment, the trapped gasses can be studied and inferences of the atmospheric condition at that time can be made.

One more thing, neither you or I will probably be alive to suffer the consequences of the choices that we make today, so we are all good. The issue is our children and what we leave behind for them. Are you so certain in your convictions that you are ready to hand over a planet of uncertainty? If anything, this should make one ponder and wonder. At the very least, we owe the next generation a slight preponderance on our part.

I still haven't seen anything to indicate that mankind is entirely to blame for the impending 'crisis', or that it won't turn itself around. We have a lot of other problems to focus on 'today', that will leave a big mess for our children to straighten out. The CO2 issue is a maybe, a control tool to get the masses to change their ways. Ridding ourselves of all things that burn oil, over a short period, is going to dump a much large quantity of CO2, and other crap into the environment. Man has been burning stuff since the caveman days, not something we are going to change in a single generation.

The better way would be to stop building the wasteful crap now, and gradually reduce, remove, and replace the less 'green' stuff that currently exists. If you want to take gas cars off the road, make the alternatives more affordable. I wouldn't mind driving an electric car, but I don't earn that much in a year. Never even owned a car that wasn't already 15 years old. Maybe Al Gore is committed enough, he might buy me one, so I can junk my SUV (which was given to me, but did have to spend $1100 to get the transmission fixed). Sure, change is good, but we can't just put everything else on hold, until we see if the CO2 experiment works out.

I've been working on get some solar power set up, just to make sure I do have some electricity available, but doubt I'll go completely off the grid, unless price come down, or huge subsidy from the government. I would like to see a cleaner planet, and sick of the single-use, disposables littering the roadsides.

I grew up in the northwest, on the side of Mt. Hood, which is snow capped, year-round skiing. There were a few times in the 70's where the snow melt to the point where you couldn't hardly see any white on top, and no skiing for months. We had winter snow so high, we had to climb out a second story window to shovel our way out. Some years, it only snowed a few times. The conditions have to be just right, not too hot, not too cold. We had freezing rain, that tore down high tension power lines. We a had one summer that was hot enough to melt the asphalt roads. All this in only 19 years. So, I'm a little skeptical that the ice cores consistently record 40,000 years or many more of climate history. Written history doesn't go back that far, to say something never happened.

I'm not a research scientist, but I have this strong feeling the numbers don't add up, that I'm being pushed, controlled, manipulated. I can't always explain it, but I'm not often completely wrong when I feel this way about something. My instincts are just more convincing than the evidence presented.

 

[BrownOut]

As previously mentioned, there are many regions in the Antarctic that have remained at temps below freezing for thousands of years. I think ice core scientist have focused more on the South pole than northern caps as the melting has been removed from the equation.

You may argue that how can one tell if there was a melt period and valid question it is. The way that the ice freezes gives scientist clues. In the Antarctic the scientist have found no evidence of melting based on the core sample compositions.

From what I understand, and I don't purport to understand it all, ice cores in the Antarctic leave a distinguishable pattern which has been validated by lab test. In this pattern annual climate changes leave a pattern in the ice whereby scientist can distinguish one year from another. I think Firn is a key layer. In the layers using advanced scientific equipment, the trapped gasses can be studied and inferences of the atmospheric condition at that time can be made.

One thing we want to understand about the ice cores is how they are formed. Yearly show accumulates on top of the ice sheets, and over time becomes buried under subsequent yearly snow. And the ice sheet grows, the snow becomes compacted under the weight of the snow on top, and eventually becomes an ice layer, which traps samples of the atmosphere. Another point is that the measurement of CO2 is very consistent all over the world. When the core is obtained, spectrometry is used to accurately measure the proportions of the various gases. Indeed, the cores are taken from areas which have not experienced melting over the period being studied. If such melting would have occured, then the evidence would show up as being devoid of trapped atmospheric gases. And as Kcristy has mentioned, the data from cores has been correlated with samples taken from sediment and other data.

One more thing, neither you or I will probably be alive to suffer the consequences of the choices that we make today, so we are all good. The issue is our children and what we leave behind for them. Are you so certain in your convictions that you are ready to hand over a planet of uncertainty? If anything, this should make one ponder and wonder. At the very least, we owe the next generation a slight preponderance on our part.

We are already suffering the consequences of the choices we've made. There exists evidence that rising ocean levels, storm intensity and other problems are linked to GW. In Alabama, we've beginning to see frequent Winter tornados. The would have been very rare a decade or so ago.

 

[HarveyH42]

So, CO2 measurements are pretty much the same at sea level, as up near the peak of Mt. Hood, downtown Los Angeles? Or do they pick similar locations, and omit areas that aren't consistent with the cause?

When I first moved to Florida, we had afternoon thunder showers almost daily during the summer. Didn't last long, maybe an hour, haven't seen that in a while. We'd get a hurricane every year or two in my part of the state, 2004 was bad, had 4 go over St. Cloud, only one since. Haven't had much tornado activity in years, guess they moved up north of here. No extreme heat or cold, heavy rains, kind of nice really.

Global Warming and CO2 is mostly faith based, it's what scientist believe, but can't actually test through repeatable experiments. When the climate scientist acknowledge other factors, causes, and effects, beyond CO2 and greenhouse effects, I'll be a little more interested. One cause, one course, leaves out way too much, I just don't believe it could be just that simple, yet everything else is so complex. We've been searching for the cause/cure for cancer how long? And are we really any closer to an answer, we have treatments, but we still don't know why some people exposed to the same condition get tumors, others don't. Some people respond to treatment, others die from it (chemo is bad ****). Smoking is a bad habit, but only a small percentage get lung cancer, which may or may not have been the cause. It's just a filthy habit, and would hurt to stop it. We just don't know absolutely that CO2 is the cause or effect, and that it will make a huge difference, yet it's being shoved on us as a complete certainty. I'm not buying, until I see a much bigger picture of the product. Discarding everything that doesn't sell the product, isn't going to work for me, probably not for a lot of folks either.

 

[BrownOut]

Samples have been analyzed from all parts of the world, and to the surprise of many scientists, have been remarkably consistent. Concentrations tail off above a few thousand meters. It is reasonable to conclude that the samples very well represent the varying levels of CO2 in the general atmospheric gas mix. Further evidence from sediment samples help to confirm this.

Other effects have been acknowledged by the science. CO2 isn't the only effect being discussed, and analysis considers other factors, as well as feedback mechanisms. Active research has been ongoing for decades, and the pictures had become clearer over time. Yes it is complex, many fields of science are. But the research, methods and conclusions are consistent with the best scientific methods available, and I believe the results are sound.

 

[kchriste]

So how many sunken ancient city ruins or constructions are there to dive at in the world now that are under 2000 years old that are located in 50 feet or less of water along ocean coastal lines firmly attached to continental plates that would not have allowed for geological subsidence to account for their submersion?
I think every populated continent has a few.
Just asking from an amateur scuba divers perspective of fun places to visit.

Name one that was caused by "natural global warming" in the last 2000 years. No wait, I'll be generous, make it 4,000 years.

Smoking is a bad habit, but only a small percentage get lung cancer, which may or may not have been the cause. It's just a filthy habit, and would hurt to stop it.

Are you saying that you think that smoking has little to do with people getting lung cancer? What about heart disease? Are you going to quote a study done by the "scientist" who works for the tobacco companies? Please go on.....

 

[tcmtech]

Name one that was caused by "natural global warming" in the last 1000 years. No wait, I'll be generous, make it 2,000 years.

Thats my whole point! The sea levels changed considerably within a measurable human history time frame and with strong supportive evidence that we had nothing to do with it!

If the ruins dated back to around 3000 years ago or less are under 50 feet of water or less and the ruins dated back to 1500 years ago or less are under 25 feet of water or less doesn't the supporting math work out to an average sea level change that is about right in the estimated yearly averages for whats being claimed now?
If so then in around 1500 more years our present coastal cities should also be under about 25 feet of water then right?

 

[kchriste]

Thats my whole point! The sea levels changed considerably within a measurable human history time frame and with strong supportive evidence that we had nothing to do with it!

OK, so name one.

 

[tcmtech]

Here you go. Its taken right from the USGS website.
Do the math on the math on the estimated time frames VS the estimated level changes and then compare that number to the estimated average annual changes we have been recording of the last 100 plus years.

Glacial-Interglacial Cycles
Climate-related sea-level changes of the last century are very minor compared with the large changes in sea level that occur as climate oscillates between the cold and warm intervals that are part of the Earth's natural cycle of long-term climate change.

During cold-climate intervals, known as glacial epochs or ice ages, sea level falls because of a shift in the global hydrologic cycle: water is evaporated from the oceans and stored on the continents as large ice sheets and expanded ice caps, ice fields, and mountain glaciers. Global sea level was about 125 meters below today's sea level at the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago (Fairbanks, 1989). As the climate warmed, sea level rose because the melting North American, Eurasian, South American, Greenland, and Antarctic ice sheets returned their stored water to the world's oceans. During the warmest intervals, called interglacial epochs, sea level is at its highest. Today we are living in the most recent interglacial, an interval that started about 10,000 years ago and is called the Holocene Epoch by geologists. Sea levels during several previous interglacials were about 3 to as much as 20 meters higher than current sea level. The evidence comes from two different but complementary types of studies. One line of evidence is provided by old shoreline features (fig. 2). Wave-cut terraces and beach deposits from regions as separate as the Caribbean and the North Slope of Alaska suggest higher sea levels during past interglacial times. A second line of evidence comes from sediments cored from below the existing Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. The fossils and chemical signals in the sediment cores indicate that both major ice sheets were greatly reduced from their current size or even completely melted one or more times in the recent geologic past. The precise timing and details of past sea-level history are still being debated, but there is clear evidence for past sea levels significantly higher than current sea level.

Just ask around the scuba diving forums for suggested ruins anywhere in the world or do a general Google search. You will find countless references to places dating back from 500 to more that 5000 years. Then cross reference their locations and aproximate depths and see what you find.
I suspect the numbers tend to follow the similar time frames and sea level changes that are supported by the geological data related to the last ice age and warming period since.

 

[killivolt]

C02 emissions

What is in a state of flux is the world. For better or for worse.

My Job life has been in a state of flux for the last fifteen yrs.

C02 Emissions were a part of it. I worked in the refrigeration industry.

But I have always been an advocate for saving and working smarter and creating jobs that benefit humanity at large.

Most people used to spending their money then worry about were that can get another buck to blow on something ridiculously expensive.

My old man worked in sewer treatment for 30yrs. Waste water reclamation trying his best to keep people healthy. My Uncle was 30+ yrs as waste disposal. These were the jobs no one wanted. But they retired very well.

Watching them collect other people garbage and taking there sh...... for yrs.
Our families, seemed to view life differently knowing mankind could not continue this way of life. Spend some time at the dump and see what we are doing. When I was growing up I saw the mountains of sh...... and piles upon piles of Garbage.

I say there is enough decaying rotting garbage world wide both in the ocean and under ground to accumulate to be a great contributor of C02 not excluding what we drive off or add to it through manufacturing or naturally occurring Volcanic etc.

The Ocean has been a dumping ground for a very long time and is responsible for weather and climate. It is our regulator and our life source. In the ground we put our garbage in like a junkies and a needle pumping billions of tons of garbage under ground. To be released as decomposing gases later into the atmosphere and reclaimed in water then forced into water supply.

It doesn't take rocket science to figure this one out

The problem is balancing industry and lifestyle.

Maybe we can somehow make a profit out of what we've been throwing away. In turn create jobs.


kv