Guest Post by Caleb Shaw
My last layman’s paper generated a wonderful and polite peer-review from WUWT readers, teaching me a great deal, not the least of which was that I should avoid using the word “pneumatic” when I mean “hydraulic.” It is in the hopes of receiving a similar polite response that I will venture to ask some questions about a Climate Gospel, even though it is a Climate Gospel that earns most questioners a severe pummeling.
I will attempt to be cheerfully naïve, however in some situations that is not enough. A Texan can be cheerful and naïve all he wants, but, when he is making cheeseburgers out of a Holy Cow in a Hindu village, he is liable to find he has a riot on his hands. There are some things Thou Shall Not Do. Sometimes Thou Shall Not Even Question.
My questions involve those little bubbles in ice cores. It may seem a harmless subject, but those little bubbles are a basement upon which a great many papers have been written, and upon which a great many grants depend. Dare you question the little bubbles, and all sorts of hell breaks lose.
In fact if you poke around the subject of those little bubbles your don’t-go-there alarm will start to go off, along with your I-don’t-have-time-for-this alarm, (if you have one.) However sometimes a man’s got to do what he least wants to do.
As anyone who has raised teenaged daughters understands, there are times when you have “to go there,” despite the fact your don’t-go-there alarm is blaring, and times you have to make time, even though your I-don’t-have-time-for-this alarm is howling.
Daughters teach a man that, despite all efforts to ban bullying and legislate spirituality, ostracism remains mysteriously crucial to schoolgirl adolescence, and the same daughter who was sobbing about being ostracized on Monday may be gleaming with glee over a nemesis being ostracized on Tuesday. Fathers often have to make sense of this emotional and blatant hypocrisy, even if it means turning off the TV just before the big game.
You may be wondering what this has to do with little bubbles in ice caps. I don’t blame you, but bear with me.
Please notice that, in the above example, it is the daughters doing the teaching. They are teaching their fathers about wild swings of emotion involved with having a non-scientific and supposedly irrational thing called “a heart.”
Scientists don’t like being compared with schoolgirls, because, in humanity’s constant battle to balance the heart and head, Science represents the purified essence of the head. However just because Science focuses on the head does not mean Scientists have no hearts. “If you prick them, do they not bleed?”
The only thing a scientist is suppose to be passionate about is being dispassionate, however in their quieter moments most will confess there have been times they’ve failed to be totally objective, and have slapped themselves on the forehead because they were blind to some obvious truth staring them in the face. However even this humbleness underscores an egotism they have about being more objective than most people. Also, if anyone is going to slap their forehead, they prefer it to be themselves. They don’t like it one bit when you compare them with schoolgirls. They get all emotional if you accuse them of being emotional.
Nothing makes people angry faster than accusing them of being angry when they’re not. A calm, peaceful soul can be reduced to frothing and to spitting snakes, because no one likes being falsely accused. You can get them even madder if , after you have angered them by accusing them of being angry when they weren’t, you look smug and say, “See? I told you that you were angry.”
Scientists are no different, and if you tweak them in the right way, then they, who are so focused on the head, will lose their heads and demonstrate they have tremendous hearts. Sometimes the revealed heart is tremendously good, but sometimes it is tremendously otherwise.
Scientists do not like being tweaked in this manner, because that is not what science is all about. Raving is beneath the dignity of science. However, when politics enters the hallowed halls of science, scientists get tweaked plenty, for study is no longer funded for its intrinsic value. A scientist may abruptly be defunded due to an election. Men are jarred awake in their Ivory Towers, as they are confronted by a mentality befitting thirteen-year-old schoolgirls: It matters who is “in” and who is “out.”
Therefore, despite all my shortcoming concerning Physics classes I never took, (or preferred to spend dreaming out the window during,) I do have an understanding others lack, as I approach the delicate subject of little bubbles in an icecap’s ice, because I have been the father of schoolgirls, and know the politics of ostracization and marginalization, and what such things do to the human heart and to human tempers.
One can study both the little bubbles, and also the path to marginalization, by taking a hard look at the travails of Zbigniew Jaworowski.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6&p=3
And also looking at a paper he wrote:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/Jaworowski%20CO2%20EIR%202007.pdf
A quick perusal of Jaworoski’s paper taught me that all sorts of complex chemistry may (or may not) being going on in those innocent little bubbles, but most of the chemistry was over my head. Not that I couldn’t understand, if I put my mind to it, but I actually had some simple questions, and, until I got those simple questions answered, it seemed I’d be getting ahead of myself if I tackled the complex chemistry.
Therefore I headed to Wikipedia. Not that I trust it as a source, but it often has links to truer sources, and one hopes Wikipedia gets the most basic facts right.
However even in terms of the most basic facts I seemed to be getting a wide variety of answers. For example, how long does it take fluffy snow to be compacted to ice with little bubbles in it? The answers I got ranged from sixty to five-thousand years.
Likely this variance occurred due to the fact Antarctica includes some areas of very dry desert, where snow accumulates very slowly, whereas Greenland is subject to Atlantic gales, and snow can accumulate very quickly. However it was unclear which data-set was being referred to, and that made things rough for a layman like myself. I had to keep switching back and forth from source to source, and then, when I went back to find an important link at the Wikipedia source, “Greenland ice cores,” just a week ago, I found it had vanished, and instead there was this message:
06, 12 September 2011 Timothy’s Cannes (talk | contrib.) deleted “Greenland ice cores” (Mass deletion of pages created by Marshallsumter: questionable creation by now-indeffed editor: see
As a scientific researcher, my conclusion at this point was, “Oh, Drat.”
Unless you are the sort who rushes in where angels fear to tread, do not, I repeat, DO NOT go to that Wikipedia message board. I only went because I wanted to see what ice core data “Mashallsumter” got wrong. As far as I could tell from the morass I waded out into, the reason “Greenland ice cores” was deleted had nothing to do with the data on that page, but rather had to do with some strange beliefs “Mashallsumter” was expressing, and strange research he was involved with, elsewhere in the Wiki-world.
I didn’t much want to know about the fellow’s beliefs and activities, as it seemed to have very little to do with little bubbles in ice, but I couldn’t help notice the marvelous effort that was made to throw “Mashallsumter” from the hallowed halls of Wiki. He was found guilty of both the crime of being original, and the crime of copying. (What is the third alternative?) In any case, “Greenland ice cores” was history, and was history in a hurry, and was deleted history, which hardly counts as history because you can’t find it.
At this point I almost gave up my research, because it occurred to me that something about the study of little bubbles in ice cores makes people weird. I did not want to become weird. However my wife reassured me I had nothing to fear, because I already am weird, and that gave me the courage to forge onwards.
part two tomorrow…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One morning I was thirty six years old.
That afternoon, my 12 year old daughter gave me a great big hug, looked up at me with her great big eyes, and said, with a great big smile:
“I need a bra!”
I went to bed that night at the age of forty six.
Daughters not ony teach you things, they have the ability to warp time and accelerate aging.
The fairy tale of objective science is why I left Anthropology and eventually ended up in Computer Science. I came up with all sorts of hieratical conclusions when examining the same data as the established priesthood – and I was ostricized for it. Nevermind many of my hieratical tenants eventually came to be main science – The priesthood protects their canon.
And so it is with Climate Science. And in 20 years sutdents will look back and wonder how stupid we all were – refusing to recognize that which was staring us in the face.
Emotions trumph logic. Ask the father of any teenager – girl or boy. And many of us never manage to grow up.
Good posting. It touched me… 🙂
If I remember correctly, Jaworowski goes into detail regarding the microfractures that occur during decompression as the core is extracted and brought to the surface. He hypothesized a 30–50% loss of CO2. Then there are losses due to pressure forcing the CO2 into the ice phase and even chemistry which might remove it altogether..
If you back calculate the CO2 data with an average of 40% loses, you end up with values the same or a bit higher than today. Using 30–50% you end up with the same CO2 range that Ernst Beck gathered from the direct CO2 chemical bottle data for the 1800s–1900s.
There is another different treatment of the ice core data that also ends up with values similar to today, but I will have to dig back a few years to find it in my rather disorganized archives.
I spent a lot of time looking into this and found all of the ‘science” is based on some very questionable assumptions.
1. Can you really obtain ice cores in the manner they did (with no effort to keep the cores under pressure) without losing the CO2 that was consolidated in hydrates? I say “No”.
This would be easily amenable to experimentation but I have never seen any evidence of such an experiment.
2. The way they shifted the axis in this work to cause the CO2 measured in the cores and modern atmospheric CO2 is very questionable. They based it on an assumption that the firn closes in about 70 yrs, merely an assumption.
3. They justify this on the basis of isotopic ratios (of O if I remember right) but the gases they used for isotopic analysis do not form hydrates (clathrates actually) as easily as CO2.
Until I see an experiment showing that CO2 in air consolidated in bubbles in compacted snow has the same ratio as CO2 in the air, their measurement is meaningless.
I enjoyed reading this and the comments, I don’t understand the point. Sorry, I don’t. Some of us who understand logic try and put a lot of time into understanding conceptual logic, and most of it is pure crap, there are reasons that you have a right to call me harshly critical, being harshly critical is not one of them…
These days to study Bubbles in our icy polar caps would mean more to me if there was honesty, in fact, I have been informed otherwise, any fact is hereby been made null and void, even the most tiny amount of truth, falsified by overwhelming lies.
Caleb,
You write as well as Willis, but differently. I am very much looking forward to the next instalment.
This explains that the wikipedia page was deleted for multiple copyright violations. Supposedly, large parts were simply copied from the excellent FROZEN ANNALS – Greenland Ice Cap Research.
It was Denzel Washington’s lawyer character in “Philadelphia” who repeatedly said “Explain it to me like I was six years old”. That’s always been my reaction to the notion that thousand-year-old gas bubbles contain thousand-year-old air that fully represents the contemoporaneous atmosphere. Or thousand-and-seventy-year-old air. Whatever.
Jeez, just how does that happen? How do the air bubbles survive all the ice-phase changes during burial, compaction, drilling, recovery, and transportation to the laboratory?
Beck has shown real variation (250 to over 400 ppm) in atmospheric CO2 from traditional chemical analysis between early 1800s and today. Jawarowski has show all the potential mischief that can influence ice-core gas data.
What empirical tests have been conducted to warrant high reliance on the validity of ice-core data?
“If you prick them, do they not bleed?”
The rate of blood flow is in direct proportion to the hysteria level of scientist prick
Nick Stokes says:
October 31, 2011 at 8:51 pm
He isn’t a climate scientist. His regular job was/is
“Zbigniew Jaworowski is chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and former chair of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (1981–82)”
In case of ice cores, and that’s the actual subject, he’s in the field of climate science.
I know Zbig and we’ve swapped our ideas. From his essentials, I’m working on another hypothesis, that CO2 values have had been on a steady 340 +/-40 ppmv since history of ice core records.
For me, there were no 180 ppmv at the last glacial and no 280 ppmv at pre-industrial era, and I think, I can evidence it. Those numbers originated misinterpreted ice core readings.
That’s also why SIPLE ice core was shifted 83 years for no reason.
But the post could be right – bubbles may do strange things. Here is Zbig explaining why radiation is good for you.
Should I be worried about that link? References are given in the footnote and as far I can see, they’re all published papers.
I had a similar experience with wikipedia a couple of years ago.
On some board somewhere a couple of people were debating the possibility of modelling the climate given that it is a chaotic system.
The debate went something like this:
Person A : Climate is chaotic and cannot be modelled.
Person B : Climate may be complex bit that doesn’t mean we can’t make predictions. We don’t know whether climate is chaotic or just complex. I suggest you look at Chaos on wikipedia, here’s the link …(link).
Person A : Well if you look at the link you just gave me it states
“Everyday examples of chaotic systems include weather and climate”
So I looked at the link;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_system
and found the line;
“Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as the weather.[5]”
SO sometime between when this debate took place and when I looked at the reference someone had come in and edited out the words “and climate”.
OK, I thought, maybe the reference given does not cover climate and someone has overstepped the mark a bit.
Let’s have a look at the reference.
^ a b Sneyers Raymond (1997). “Climate Chaotic Instability: Statistical Determination and Theoretical Background”. Environmetrics 8 (5): 517532.
Despite the fact that the reference was about climate rather than weather (as if there is any real difference) someone had chosen to edit out the word ‘climate’ and leave in the word ‘weather’.
To me this is just another example of the micro meddling efforts people will go to to hide inconvenient facts.
@Lew Skannen
Simple answer:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-14.PDF
(Page 774)
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate
research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing
with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the
long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
I want to see an alarmist disagree with the IPCC 😉
Even if you are not in agreement with Joworowski on his conclusions he does a fine job of describing the methods and flaws of ice core data retrieval and exposing some of the flaws in the IPCC narrative.
I am enjoying your writing style Mr Shaw !
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer
Hello David,
I was never blessed with a girl (3 boys, 25,22 and 15)
One morning I woke up I was 40.
That day one of my teenage boys shuffled up to me with a wicked grin and said:
“Dad, how do you undo a bra?”
I went to bed that night at 50.
Boys not only teach you things…………..etc.
🙂
Creative, enjoyable writing. Looking forward to part 2.
If the “bubble” scientists didn’t try to take into account the chemistry going on, they their results are all wrong. Changes in pressure, chemical reactions, UV light, will cause “chemistry” to happen in those bubbles. If the bubble-scientists just melted the ice and measured the gases, then their results are totally wrong. I always assumed these people had a semblance of competence and had chemists interpret their result to cater for the chemistry that went on over in the bubbles.
Little Bubbles, part 1
Posted on October 31, 2011 by Anthony Watts
Guest Post by Caleb Shaw
“Person A : Climate is chaotic and cannot be modelled.
Person B : Climate may be complex bit that doesn’t mean we can’t make predictions. We don’t know whether climate is chaotic or just complex. I suggest you look at Chaos on wikipedia, here’s the link …”
It is meaningless to speak on that what NOT is, because it has no existence. Science is a method to understand what IS. That what IS is order. No one can show what not IS.
Nature is order, and it is ONE order. Not two or many.
Chaos is a phantom out of a busy mind which does not understand order.
Climate is order and is solved.
It is science.
V.
The only way you can be sure that bubbles are a proxy for atmospheric levels is to measure carbon dioxide at the time it is being “bubbled” and then come back 500 to 1000 years later to sample ice cores. Anything else is just speculation that some one-shot [snip . . cmon , you know the rules] has built a career upon (and perhaps I being a little unkind here since there are so many “scientists” forced into a one-shot, one-dimensional career by the politics of their situation – but then again it’s their choice to either call it as they see it or prostitute themselves to the job).
Bubbles in ice showing historical levels of carbon dioxide – c’mon, get real. Would you bet your retirement savings on stock in a company pitching that idea as a sure thing?
You would? Gee, I’ve got some carbon credit certificates for you – not too expensive. It’s my own company – we sequester carbon dioxide down at the local brew pub. Its a local. Its organic. It uses local suppliers. What more could you ask for?
Caleb,
The little bubbles make me sceptical too. I find this article to be very informative:
http://robertkernodle.hubpages.com/hub/ICE-Core-CO2-Records-Ancient-Atmospheres-Or-Geophysical-Artifacts
My take is that temperature (and other climatic factors) drive the bus, CO2 sits in the back. CO2 is quasi-condensable.
Would somebody be interested in a very simple experiment or is it already documented somewhere. Winter is coming soon so fine snow will be easily available. The idea is as follows: Collect snow and mix it well in a known CO2 atmosphere and compact it hydraulically, at the same time collect air from the same site in a reference bottle. Let some of the ice core groups analyze the artificial ice cores without knowing the origin.
It would be fairly simple to:
– Get hard information on how accurate the ice bubble analysis is (real error limits).
– Storing the samples for a few years possibly doing a number of temperature cycles to simulate the surface temperature variations during the first few years should give an indication on how CO2 content changes with time. Temperature cycles close to zero deg. C in combination with high pressure should fairly fast produce clear ice with bubbles.
– Does known carbon/sulphur contaminants influence the CO2 content in the bubbles?
Does anybody have any pointers to some article where this simple and obvious test has been done?
ggm says:
October 31, 2011 at 11:57 pm
If the “bubble” scientists didn’t try to take into account the chemistry going on, they their results are all wrong. Changes in pressure, chemical reactions, UV light, will cause “chemistry” to happen in those bubbles. If the bubble-scientists just melted the ice and measured the gases, then their results are totally wrong.
Don’t worry we will get BEST to check out the bubble process, grow a whole new set of bubbles and then declare it’s worse than we thought, the ice warms!!
@T.C.
The only point of an ice core showing real CO2 values is in the top layer.
If this layer gets covered over the time, the pressure increases and physical effects take place, like outwashing, degassing or diffusion.
If the former top layer reaches the depth of firn layer, the ice is almost exhausted from CO2, and clathrate formation begins.
The hockey stick only shows a momentum image of actual conditions.
So if you would have drilled the ice core let’s say 5000 years ago, there would be also a hockey at the stick.
That’s why I’m convinced, there hasn’t been any huge difference for top layers than 340 +/-crumbs.
See the SIPLE core and it’s “adjustment” to MLO data by fraudulent shifting of 83 years.
If you would follow the original curve to the top, there would have also been a ~350 ppm value before 1900 (still ~330 ppm at 5 bar pressure in 1890!)
Y’know, I’ve wondered about those little bubbles. Pull a core out from where its bubbles are surrounded by their peers in age and composition, then keep them in contact (approx =) equilibrium with modern air, then declare that they’re grade A evidence for whatever. Hmmm. Can’t wait for part two!
>>
In any case, “Greenland ice cores” was history, and was history in a hurry, and was deleted history, which hardly counts as history because you can’t find it.
>>
Everything on Wikipedia (or any other content created with the software called Wiki, no it’s not the same thing) has an audit trail.
If you have lost the link to something important just look back through the edit history, find out who was doing the mass removals and compare old and new versions. You should find whatever you are missing.
I have not even looked at your link there yet but I can smell foetid odour AGW zealots already.
Indeed that this is clearly labelled as content removed solely on the basis of the author rather than any criticism of the content shows that WP is still in the hands of the zealots. Even after the exposure and temporary ban of William H
ChristConnelly, WP has still not addressed the fundamental problem.BTW, like the style but where’s the beef? 😉 I hope part two gets more meaty.