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…
Icebubblegate?
Who will Ridley me of these meddled bubbles?
============
Richard Courtney, I agree with you. I find Nick Stokes lacks ethics and from posts I have read and lacks much understanding of the subjects he is commenting on.
It is sad to see Ferdinand Engelbeen continually deride the conscientious and ethical scientist (the late) Ernst-Georg Beck who was not paid by anyone. He analysed the work of many others including nobel prize winners, His analyses were peer reviewed. He was conscious of variations around the world. At his web site, still operated by his daughter, http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm look under papers at the peer reviewed article he jointly wrote with Prof Massen which takes into account wind. As one who has measured CO2 and fallout from plumes of industrial chimneys and read many of the articles cited and linked by Beck on his web site, I certainly respect his work in preference to others who have little ethics.
From the Wikipedia thoughts:
“Person B : Climate may be complex bit that doesn’t mean we can’t make predictions….”
Sorry but to me, that is a stupid statement. Of course one can make predictions about the future climate…they will be wrong every time, but you can make predictions 😉
Jeff
Ooooh the anticipation! It’s enough to make a lesser bloke come over all trembly and quivery with a bout of the vapours.
ggm says:
October 31, 2011 at 11:57 pm
I was told just the other day on this board that the chemistry of CO2 has nothing to do with ‘warming’ as it’s a ‘physical’ process. Of course, there was no explanation provided. It must have been covered by the ‘consensus’.
Great writing! I too have two teenage daughters so I can relate immensely. Can’t wait for part 2…
Writings like yours always get me thinking. Assuming that the methodology for reading bubbles in ice cores is correct, I have another question:
I found this sentence in NASA’s Earth Observatory, Paleoclimatology: The Ice record – http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/ and I quote:
“Like marine sediment cores, an ice core provides a vertical timeline of past climates stored in ice sheets and mountain glaciers.”
When I read that, the thought came to layman’s mind that the statement must be based on two assumptions:
That,
a) the ice field is permanently static – it never moves, or….
b) if it does move, as in a glacier, then the ice field is monolithic – meaning that even though it moves it does so at the same rate vertically from top to bottom.
Concluding, there is no mixing of the different layers of ice at any depth, ever. Can this be true????
Best,
J.
Anthony
If you want to consider the “political” reliability of encapsulating CO2, you can always compare it with the effort made to reliably sequester radioactive material in impermeable ceramic in Yucca mountain. Then contrast that with the consequent risk of forcing power companies to store dangerous radioactive materials near civilian populations. For a real dose of hard reality, consider the reliability of maintaining essential cooling of spent radioactive waste in “swimming” pools liable to crack in an earthquake, or of losing power due to a tsunami. Such is the rationality of NIMBY “green politics”.
Nick Stokes says:
November 1, 2011 at 3:29 am
Richard S Courtney says: November 1, 2011 at 2:00 am
I said Dr Jaworowski isn’t a climate scientist. That’s not maligning him>>>
Yes it is. It is a favourite tactic of the CAGW set to, when confronted with science contrary to their position, to try and discredit it by dismissing it out of hand as not coming from a climate scientist.
It maligns the scientist in a most eggregious way, and relies on the presumption of stupidity on the part of the reader to have any effect. Since you know full well that not being a “climate scientist” has nothing at all to do with the science in question, your drive by insulting insinuation amounts to nothing more than strategy on your part to discredit Jaworowski with those readers stupid enough to consider that relavent. Your agenda is clear, and it has nothing to do with honestly evaluating factual evidence.
@David Middleton
There is another method that results in the same values, 335 +/- 40 ppm.
http://www.umweltluege.de/sceptics/vostok/cvostokdiff.png
J. J. Drake tried to correct the age of the ice with the age of the gas.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Questioning_Climate/userfiles/Ice-core_corrections_report_1.pdf
Surprisingly these values also match historic chemical measurements of CO2.
http://www.pensee-unique.fr/001_mwr-083-10-0225.pdf
(see Fig. 2)
And they also match the unshifted SIPLE core hockey
OT.
I am amazed !
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
Nick Stokes says:
October 31, 2011 at 8:51 pm
It has long been suspected that low levels of radiation are good for you.
Volker Doormann says:
November 1, 2011 at 12:00 am
It is meaningless to speak on that what NOT is, because it has no existence. Science is a method to understand what IS.
Well, that all depends on what the definitioin of ‘is’ is.
“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.”
There is a group called “The Union of Concerned Scientists” that is always stoking doomsday fears, usually about nuclear war. The name always struck me as odd as I would be more likely to listen to a “Union of Unconcerned Scientists”.
This blog is becoming more and more fun to read every day.
” Please, Tomorrow, speed your coming, as I can’t wait for part 2 “
Knowing absolutely nothing about this I’ll throw in my 20 cents worth and then you can all use me as the “Dodo Reference Point” 🙂
I thought that as time went past, volcanic ash fell on top of the ice, and then as more snow fell and more ice was made, layers were formed ; knowing when the eruptions occurred thus gave a time reference for how much CO2, sulfur, methane, etc .. came to ground and was trapped between the ice layers.
Knowing that (roughly) 41% of CO2 falls to ground, 44% in the frozen areas and 14% on the ocean one can then work out the total CO2 for any age.
The timing of the eruptions being known through archeological research on land, I think they are called sedimental layers.
The “Dodo Reference Point” thus asks … Am I right or …. wrong?
Very interesting blog, nice read.
Oops. I got the Union of Concerned Scientists confused with the doomsday clock people. The Union of Concerned Scientists is concerned with all the usual green stuff, not nuclear war.
That’s it, just question everything.
First you ask, is it really warming? Then you ask how much did it really warm? Then you follow up with questions like has it ever warmed like this before? Is it truly unprecedented? Is the data any good? Are the models accurate? Are the stations well sited? Are greenhouse gases really driving climate change? Is the peer-review process corrupted? Did some researches conspire to keep dissenting work from being published? Is the urban heat island effect underestimated? Is the scientific method being followed? Are the AGW predictions accurate?
And now you want to know if the ice core data is reliable! The next questions surely are, are gases truly sealed in those ice cores, or does some leak out? Is the historical atmospheric CO2 record derived from the ice cores accurate, or does it underestimate the amount in CO2 because the ice does not permanently trap CO2 as assumed? Was the pre-industrial revolution level of CO2 really as low as the ice core data appears to indicate?
Sheesh, what is it with you guys? You just question everything! Can’t you let these climate scientists have a little attention? Must you spoil everything?
Sometimes I think you’re just resentful of people who get more press coverage than you do.
I’m waiting for part 2. I’ve always just assumed that the CO2 and temperature reconstructions weren’t accurate but that they were precise, so trends such as the 800-1,000 year CO2 lag behind temperature were true, but the actual values were in question.
Perhaps part 2 will show I’ve gone one assumption too far. I’ll wait and see.
And Einstein was a nobody working as a patent clerk when you wrote an amazing series of paper in 1905. No doubt many of Einstein’s detractors liked to bring that up rather than provide meaningful criticism of the science.
In science, and most especially medicine, I’ve noticed that the more sacred the cow, as evidenced by the sheer bile and nastiness exhibited by those who ferociously attack anyone who dares question that cow’s existence, the more likely there may indeed be something fundamentally wrong with that cow. Another indication is, of course, whose ox may be gored in questioning said sacred cow, and what they may stand to lose.
Nick Stoke’s comment below, for example, uses some of the standard methods of attack, such as his shameless attempt to use the poisoning the well and ad hominem attack arguments. To wit:
“But the post could be right – bubbles may do strange things. Here is Zbig explaining why radiation is good for you: http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/jaworowski.html”
Examining his attack argument further, one sees his use of a complete fabrication, that Zbig claimed that “radiation is good for you”. One only has to read the actual paper to see that this is a gross exaggeration, and an attempt to smear. But, I must thank Nick for providing that link, and for his blatant attempt to use it to attack Zbig’s reputation, and by extension, his work on C02 analysis. Indeed, because the idea that small amounts of ionizing radiation, far exceeding what today is considered “safe” may, in fact be not only not harmful, but indeed have beneficial effects is fascinating. I was immediately reminded of the hysteria surrounding emmissions of radiation from the Fukushima plant. The parallels between the hysteria over radiation, and C02 are strikingly similar.
I also thank Caleb for his post, and enjoy his writing style immensely. I’ve been struck by his writing before, in comments, and even saved one I particularly liked.
I look forward to part 2.
Bubbles… Co2… etc etc etc… I think the public are now viewing, with deep suspicion, anything ‘climate scientists’ tell us … and I mean all ‘climate scientists’, and climate institutions and agencies.
Since the creation of the IPCC, there has clearly been a political contamination of climate science, to the extent that people have lost faith in ‘climate scientists’? The field of climate science seems to be infected with ‘scientists’ prepared to let political bias and influence sway their judgement and encourage them to manipulate ‘the science’ to achieve a particular outcome.
Many of us long for the day when we can start seeing some of these climate change charlatans dragged into the Courts and held accountable for misrepresenting the climate science, and for engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct. Until that day comes, people should be excused for thinking that ‘climate scientists’ are simply a bunch of highly educated academics with reputations rated far below that of shonky ‘used-car salesmen’ standing in front of a big sign that reads “Get a twentieth opinion”.
I like Caleb’s writing style, but Ferdinand Engelbeen has thoroughly addressed this (even here @ur momisugly WUWT) for many years, and his logic is sound.
Caleb, please study Ferdinand’s website — I believe he addresses your concerns. The consistency of CO2 levels in the ice at least as far back or more than 600,000 yrs is powerful evidence that the CO2 is “sealed” in the ice whether by bubbles or dissolved.
Allan M says:
November 1, 2011 at 6:38 am
Volker Doormann says:
November 1, 2011 at 12:00 am
It is meaningless to speak on that what NOT is, because it has no existence. Science is a method to understand what IS.
Well, that all depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.
Sorry, No. It is a fallacy: That what IS, depends on nothing. If that what IS would depend on something, the order of nature would not be recognizable as one</ order.
Something – of that what IS – cannot be true and in the same time be untrue, and because of this it is impossible to define it, without to define a contradiction. Science does not believe in contradictions.
V.
All that learning.
All those years of study.
All that time learning that all atoms and molecules vibrate, and move around, and migrate.
Reading about the curious behavior of machinery in space: machinery which should move freezes due to molecular bonding.
Recalling the disaster when airplanes first flew where the air was thin, and the bearings in old-style generators froze solid, due to the loss of the air film in the bearings.
The wonderful experiment in high school Chemistry where dissimilar liquids, one incorporating a dye, were carefully decanted into a cylinder and then left alone. Over the year the liquids gradually diffused together.
How, I ask, can you model diffusion over a period of thousands or millions of years? Better answer that question first before you go hog-wild over gas bubble analyses. Is the diffusion constant over time? Or does it slow down? Or speed up?
UNVARYING RULE: extrapolation can get you wildly false conclusions.
We have two variables: amount of carbon dioxide sequestered, and amount of carbon dioxide escaping due to diffusion. How can you separate the two? Too many assumptions.