Why argue with solid ice core data?

You freeze water and you get ice. During the freezing process some of the air that is around or dissolved in the water gets frozen too. However, when the ice melts, the frozen air goes too. See?

Back to my key credible source of information on global warming and climate change. Page 33 of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers in the Climate Change 2001 reports has a great chart which illustrates the CO2 levels found in core ice which they somehow worked out was formed as far back as the year 1000. This shows very even concentrations of CO2 right up until more recent times when the scientists used direct atmospheric measurements (ie they used some real air).
This is very impressive evidence that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were incredibly stable until the 20th century. When I read this graph I wondered what the ice core readings would show compared to the atmospheric readings for the past few decades. That would be really interesting! Hmmm. Maybe the ice core data isn’t available because the polar ice caps have been melting, not building up to provide evidence for us to study?
Ahhhh! That’s why the CO2 concentration levels in ice cores are so consistent for the past thousand years! When there was more CO2, the world was warmer, the ice melted a little, and didn’t build up. There is no evidence in the ice of higher CO2 concentrations because the evidence melted!

What interesting item will I find in these reports next?

3 Responses

  1. The ice cores show that the highest pre human CO2 was only 290ppm, but this produced a temperature of 3C above the 1900 base line. We now have a CO2 of 386ppm, yet global temperatures are only 0.7C above the 1900 base line. Why is the temperature not higher if temperature is controlled by CO2? The human part of this 386ppm, is only 19ppm or 4.9%, so 77ppm have come from natural sources. Natural CO2 is rising at a rate of 1.7ppm per year. The EU and USA indicate that they intend to cut their emissions by 30%, by 2020, but this would only save a futile 1.33ppm, which will be overtaken by natural sources in less than a year and cost us inhabitants dearly. CO2 is the result of climate change, not the cause of it

  2. This is interesting data thank you Robert. Could you please provide the source of the data so I ( and others) can look for more gems of wisdom?

  3. information on historical CO2 is from the Vostok ice cores. Current CO2 is from the latest readings from the UK scientists taking air readings. The % of human as opossed to natural CO2 is from the UK government, that human activities of 19ppm are just 4.9% although I wrote to the UK Government agency of DEFRA who wrote back stating that the Human Activity is only 3.5%, so who is correct I wouldn’t like to say, so I take the largest figure that the UK Government quoted. I have so many statistics, that I am writing a thesis to get at the truth and so far it is nine pages long and too much to send on these replies.
    I am a retired Data Analyst Planner that cannot stand lies, which give the wrong impression to the gullible public and cause the wrong actions to be taken.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: