Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: http://www.hirhome.com/index_12.gif
www.hirhome.com

Notify me of new HIR pieces!

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: HIR mailing list

GLOBAL WARMING

—an hir series—

 

0    1    2    3    4    5    6

 

3

Nature (magazine), Antarctic ice cores, and the CO2 lag

Historical and Investigative Research; 7 Dec 2009; by Francisco Gil-WhiteDescription: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: C:\Users\Francisco\Desktop\Transfer\web\hir\iraniraq\button1E.jpg
http://www.hirhome.com/climate_change/global_warming03.htm

If climate science exhibits system-wide pathologies when the topic is global warming, there is no better place to look for them than the world’s most prestigious science journal: Nature. We will show here that something has gone terribly wrong with the peer review process at Nature.


  Introduction

  Geology, Antarctica, and Ice Cores

  What happened to the peer-review process at Nature?

Models

Fischer et al. (1999)

The aftermath

Petit unrepentant

 

Introduction

In terms of human health effects CO2 (carbon dioxide) is basically harmless. It is safe, for example, to consume in considerable quantities in sodas. In terms of environmental effects CO2 is highly beneficial, for all plant life feeds on CO2, and plant life supports the entire food chain. CO2 is essential to all life on Earth. For some years now, however, an argument has been put forth that CO2—the fountain of life—is a pollutant.

The scientists at the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), a United Nations body, have defended the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) hypothesis, according to which human production of ‘greenhouse gases’—and mainly CO2—contributes dramatically to raise the planet’s mean temperature. Since the IPCC considers higher temperatures catastrophic for presumably fragile planetary systems and hence for humans, the IPCC recommends a dramatic curbing of industrial activities responsible for CO2 production.

All of this hangs on one—utterly fundamental—assumption: the claim that changes in CO2 concentrations do in fact significantly affect planetary temperatures. If this is false, then human production of CO2 cannot be responsible for current temperatures, and IPCC efforts to alter energy policy become groundless.

The study of Antarctic ice cores bears critically on this fundamental assumption. This evidence, however, has been improperly presented to the public. Though journalists have done a poor job, in truth they cannot be expected to do better than the scientific journals, whose treatment of this issue has been riddled with problems. Below I will explain why the Antarctic ice core evidence is so important, and how this evidence has been handled in the scientific journal Nature.

I have chosen to examine Nature because it is the most prestigious scientific journal in the world. And I have chosen to examine not just any paper published in Nature but one that has been cited so many times to ‘support’ the AGW hypothesis that “it is currently ranked at #3 among Geosciences papers published in the past decade.” If there is trouble here, therefore, there will be trouble elsewhere. In other words, what we find here is symptomatic, and highly diagnostic, of certain pathologies in the climate science academic system that mar the defense of the AGW hypothesis.

As we shall see, the effect of these rather striking pathologies has been to endow IPCC policy prescriptions with underserved prestige.

_____________________________________________________________

Geology, Antarctica, and Ice Cores
_____________________________________________________________

Geologists are historians: they hunt and dig for clues about the past in special ‘document archives’—sedimentary deposits in the Earth’s crust—and against this backdrop elaborate competing biographies for Mother Earth. Those who would reconstruct the story of Earth’s atmosphere look to Antarctica, the supreme air archivist due to its punishing cold.

Each time it snows in Antarctica air bubbles are trapped, but since nothing melts, snow forever falls on snow creating a vertical record of trapped bubbles with the oldest at the bottom. Geologists drill into the Antarctic ice cap, pull out long ice cores, and then analyze the bubbles in the successive layers to reconstruct the evolution of the atmosphere. We can now tell the story of changing gas concentrations and temperature (the latter inferred from certain gas isotopes) going back 650,000 years. This is an impressive scientific feat.[1]

At first the layers examined were relatively thick but they have become ever finer, yielding a gain in resolution akin to how a mountain range changes in appearance as you approach in your car—all sorts of things that were invisible, or blended into each other, gradually acquire sharpness and contrast. Naturally, your initial guesses may be shown to be false once you arrive for a more intimate inspection.

When geologists first studied the famous Vostok ice cores from Antarctica their vision was a bit blurry. Ian Plimer, Australia’s most famous geologist, explains:

“The initial analyses of the Vostok ice core used samples at intervals of hundreds of years. The initial conclusions were that high CO2 in the atmosphere led to high air temperatures.”

Geologists began looking from ‘far away’—with “samples at intervals of hundreds of years”—so the movements of CO2 and temperature relative to each other were difficult to distinguish. They certainly appeared to rise and fall close together, but the picture was so blurry that one could not say with precision what was rising first, whether CO2 or temperature.

Those who already were betting on the ‘anthropogenic’ global warming (AGW) hypothesis—which claims that our production of CO2 is raising global atmospheric temperatures—guessed that CO2 was rising first, as this would confirm the hypothesis’ most fundamental assumption: that higher concentrations of CO2 act powerfully to warm the planet. This is what the public was told in a million news stories.

But later, explains Plimer,

“with far more detailed measurements on the scale of decades... it was shown that high air temperatures are followed some 400 to 1000 years later by a high atmospheric CO2 content.1411, 1412 More recent work, using argon isotopes in Antarctic ice cores of just one temperature rise, shows that CO2 increased 200 to 800 years after that particular temperature rise.1413 During the last 420,000 years there have been massive temperature changes, and a rise in CO2 concentration follows air temperature increase by about 800 years and it is only after a cooling event that CO2 decreases. This is no surprise, as CO2 is more soluble in cold water than warm water.” [2] [my emphases]

Plimer, a prominent skeptic of the AGW hypothesis, is talking about a result known as the “CO2 lag” : going back 650,000 years, we now find that, at the end of every ice age, temperature invariably rises first, and then, hundreds of years later rise the levels of CO2. Also, when the planet cools, CO2 levels follow much later, sometimes more than a thousand years later. Another way of saying it is that changes in CO2 concentrations lag changes in the temperatures.

Plimer says this is “no surprise” because “CO2 is more soluble in cold water than warm water,” and this is just basic chemistry. Ergo, heated water releases CO2. When—for whatever reason—the planet gets warmer, after some time the oceans will release significant quantities of CO2, and this is what we see in the ice-core record.


What are global warming skeptics
really saying?

Because of repeated attacks against skeptics in the media, many believe that skeptics are making a number of statements when in fact they are not. Please consult our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About Global Warming Skeptics:

·         Are skeptics defending the oil companies? No!

·         Do skeptics deny the existence of serious environmental problems that demand our attention? No!

·         Are skeptics saying that the world’s top climate scientists are wrong? No!

·         Do skeptics deny global warming as such? No!

·         Do skeptics deny the “greenhouse effect”? No!

·         Do skeptics deny that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”? No!

·         Do skeptics deny that atmospheric temperature and CO2 are causally linked? No!

But the AGW hypothesis requires higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations to be the cause—not the consequence—of rising planetary temperatures. Therefore, defenders of this hypothesis may not honestly present the Antarctic ice-core record, as evidence in support of AGW. Curiously, however, this is precisely what Al Gore—and the IPCC scientists who advise him—have done (Part 1).

Ian Plimer’s prose overflows with scientific references, which is why, halfway through his book (this is only page 276 of 504) we are already on footnotes 1411, 1412, and 1413. These refer us to the following studies:

1411 Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D., & Deck, B. (1999). Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations. Science, 283, 1712 – 1714.

1412 Mudelsee, M. (2001). The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews, 20, 583-589.

1413 Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J., Jouzel, P., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J., & Lipenkov, V. Y. (2003). Timing of atmospheric C02 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science, 299, 1728-1731.

The Fischer et al. (1999), published in Science, was the first scientific study with sufficient resolution to show which of the two variables of interest—temperature or CO2—was rising first at the end of glacial periods, and it shows that temperature rises first and CO2 follows. The other two studies count as ‘replications’ of the Fischer et al., for they independently reached the same conclusion. Thus, we have here a confirmed result that is about as fundamental a challenge to the anthropogenic hypothesis as can be had.

Why isn’t the public aware of this?

One reason concerns geoscientist Jeff Severinghaus. You will notice he is the second author in the last of the three papers listed above, so he is one of the scientists responsible for documenting the CO2 lag. Despite this, Severinghaus has written an opinion defending the view that the CO2 lag does not matter (see Part 2); according to him, the IPCC is still right: CO2 causes global warming.

To the average journalist, Severinghaus’s views on this point carry all the authority of a scientist responsible for documenting the CO2 lag. If these journalists were inclined (or were told) to defend the anthropogenic hypothesis, they will be satisfied with Severinghaus’s statements, because he is the expert. Severinghaus published his piece not in a scientific peer-reviewed publication but, conveniently, in a high-profile blog called RealClimate, which is controlled by IPCC scientists for the express purpose of educating journalists (see Part 2).

RealClimate achieves its educational mission surpassingly well: such influential publications as Newsweek and The Economist give RealClimate all sorts of free publicity and defend it as a trustworthy source of information (see Part 4 and Part 5). And so what the public learns is that Al Gore and the IPCC are right, never mind the CO2 lag (assuming you were even aware of it). And yet Severinghaus’s RealClimate contribution defies the most elementary logic (see Part 2). Even a non-specialist journalist should be able to see through it.

It is not merely through influential IPCC blogs set up to ‘educate’ journalists that the CO2 lag has been swept under the rug. Let us take a look at the scientific journal Nature, more prestigious than any other. If there is trouble here, there will be trouble elsewhere.

_____________________________________________________________

What happened to the peer-review process at Nature?
_____________________________________________________________

As mentioned above, the March 1999 Fischer et al. paper in Science demolished the AGW hypothesis’ most fundamental assumption when it reported that CO2 levels always lag the great temperature changes.

Just two months later—that is to say, with the publishing speed of lightningthe journal Nature showcased a paper by Petit et al. with the following for final, concluding paragraph:

“…As judged from the Vostok record, the long, stable Holocene is a unique feature of climate during the past 420 kyr [420,000 years], with possibly profound implications for evolution and the development of civilizations. Finally, CO2 and CH4 [methane] concentrations are strongly correlated with Antarctic temperatures; this is because, overall, our results support the idea that greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to the glacial–interglacial change. This correlation, together with the uniquely elevated concentrations of these gases today, is of relevance with respect to the continuing debate on the future of Earth’s climate.”[3]

The paper itself is perfectly illegible to non-specialists. But the above conclusion, and especially the portion I highlighted, is by comparison quite easy to follow. Was this conclusion written so that others may quote it in support of AGW? Let us call that my hypothesis. And let us take a closer look at this prose (you may compare my analysis to that of CO2Science.)

I begin with the first part of Petit et. al.’s conclusion. They say:

“…As judged from the Vostok record, the long, stable Holocene is a unique feature of climate during the past 420 kyr [420,000 years], with possibly profound implications for evolution and the development of civilizations.”

The Holocene (the geologic era that we are still inhabiting) has indeed been climatically quite stable, and sure enough—not “possibly” but definitely (and also quite obviously)—this has “profound implications for evolution and the development of civilizations.” Why are the authors making such a big fuss about a hardly novel point: that civilization developed because the Holocene has been stable? Well, because this is of “relevance with respect to the continuing debate on the future of Earth’s climate.” The two none-to-subtle implications are:

1)     climate change is the enemy of civilization; and

2)     to preserve civilization we must protect the current climatic stability.

But is climate change really a bad thing for civilization?

Not necessarily. If you start out with a very cold planet, then warmer temperatures will make things better for complex civilization (it’s hard to jump-start complex civilization in an ice age).

What about the other way around? What is the worst thing that could happen if you start out with a warm planet? An even warmer planet? No. Again, the worst thing would be an ice age.

So we find that curiously omitted from the Petit et al. conclusion is the point that our Holocene stability has been warm. In a world awash with alarms about a planetary “fever,” omitting this point will lead readers to conclude that preserving Holocene stability means avoiding heat.

Then Petit et al. write:

“Finally, [in the Vostok ice-core record,] CO2... concentrations are strongly correlated with Antarctic temperatures; this is because, overall, our results support the idea that greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to the glacial-interglacial change.”

This sentence ought to be displayed in a museum someday. The problems with it are so serious, and so basic, that they bear a close examination. I shall take it apart slowly and methodically, carefully highlighting each portion to assist attention and concentration.

First, consider the claim that nobody disputes:

“Finally, [in the Vostok ice-core record,] CO2... concentrations are strongly correlated with Antarctic temperatures; this is because, overall, our results support the idea that greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to the glacial-interglacial change.”

It is certainly true, as the authors write, that for the past 650,000 years CO2 and temperature are strongly correlated on the scale of hundreds of years. However, when we examine with a resolution on the scale of decades, what do we find rising first, CO2 or temperature? The temperature.

But Petit et al. do not mention this.

Neither do they mention it elsewhere in their (eminently quotable) concluding paragraph. This is interesting, because any mention of the CO2 lag would render quite obviously false that “greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to the glacial–interglacial change [i.e. planetary warmings].” Is this why they left it out?

Now look again:

“Finally, [in the Vostok ice-core record,] CO2... concentrations are strongly correlated with Antarctic temperatures; this is because, overall, our results support the idea that greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to the glacial-interglacial change.”

Which “results” are Petit et al. talking about?

Petit at al. found a correlation in the movements between CO2 and temperature. This was not new. The question is: Does this correlation really “support the idea that greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to the glacial-interglacial change” [i.e. to planetary warmings]”? Not by itself, no.

The same correlation is equally consistent with the idea that so-called greenhouse gases are a consequence of temperature rises, and not their cause. It depends on what rises first. And temperature (did I mention this?) rises first. So what Petit et al. write is false. Their (redundant) results do not support the CO2-drives-temperature hypothesis.

Now, since

“our results”

=

the finding that CO2 and temperature are correlated

and since

“the idea that greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to the glacial-interglacial change”  

=

the IPCC’s most fundamental assumption

let us make the relevant substitutions to understand this wondrous sentence better:

“Finally, [in the Vostok ice-core record,] CO2... concentrations are strongly correlated with Antarctic temperatures; this is because, overall, [the finding that CO2 and temperature are correlated] support[s] [the IPCC’s most fundamental assumption].”

So what are the authors actually saying? Amazingly, this: That if government (IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) makes a claim, then Nature will behave in such a way as to confirm the government.

This sort of thing can make me wonder if I haven’t suddenly been transported to North Korea, or else it sends me rushing to my calendar (just to make sure the year is not 1984).

Now consider the sentence that follows, which is the final and concluding sentence:

“This correlation [between CO2 and temperature], together with the uniquely elevated concentrations of these gases today, is of relevance with respect to the continuing debate on the future of Earth’s climate.”

Translation: Since the IPCC is right about the dangers of the “uniquely elevated concentrations of these gases today we are best advised to follow IPCC recommendations.

The most elementary peer review, let alone the famously savage peer-review supposedly practiced at Nature, should have eliminated—long before press time—a concluding paragraph so riddled with incoherence, illogic, bias, and Orwellian subterfuge as we have examined above.

Models
________

Let us ask a pertinent question: On what basis do Petit et al. assert that CO2 has anything to do with raising the planetary temperatures? Buried in their paper is the following passage:

Results from various climate simulations make it reasonable to assume that greenhouse gases have, at a global scale, contributed significantly (possibly about half, that is, 2–3ºC) to the globally averaged glacial–interglacial temperature change.”

So it is not the Vostok evidence—take good note—that in any way supports their view that CO2 drives temperature. It is the “various climate simulations”—in other words, the IPCC computer models.

IPCC scientists have produced computer models where simulated rises in CO2 make the simulated temperature, in the simulated Earth, rise in the computer. On the strength of those simulations Petit et al. state that it is “reasonable to assume” that rises in real CO2 make the real temperature rise in the real Earth. This was also Jeff Severinghaus’s argument when he defended the anthropogenic hypothesis from the ice core embarrassment (Part 2).

Once again, the problem with this form of reasoning is serious, and also quite basic. As pointed out in Part 2, in the computer models, simulated rises in CO2 make the simulated temperature rise because of the assumptions the programmers make. The models are built to do that. So what Petit et al. are saying is basically this:

It is reasonable to assume that CO2 drives temperature because we have assumed that CO2 drives temperature.

That’s called tautology or ‘circular reasoning.’ And it may be given the following political translation: Al Gore and the IPCC are right because they are right.

(We might as well go ahead and call them our ‘Dear Leaders’).

Building models is not in principle useless, but it is important to understand that a model is the same thing as a hypothesis—it is just a very complex representation of one. One needs to gather evidence from the world (e.g. Antarctic ice cores) in order to see how well the hypothesis does. A hypothesis naturally cannot confirm itself!

Why can’t the peer-review process at Nature catch such famously elementary errors of logic?


Fischer et al. (1999)
____________________

Now let us consider an obvious question: Did Petit et al. have anything to say about the Fischer et al., which only two months earlier had shown in Science that CO2 always lags temperature? Yes. Buried in a paragraph elsewhere in the paper, they (hurriedly) commented as follows:

“In a recent paper, Fischer et al. present a CO2 record, from Vostok core, spanning the past three glacial terminations. They conclude that CO2 concentration increases lagged Antarctic warmings by 600 ± 400 years. However, considering the large gas-age/ice-age uncertainty (1,000 years, or even more if we consider the accumulation-rate uncertainty), we feel that it is premature to infer the sign of the phase relationship between CO2 and temperature at the start of terminations.”

A translation of the main message would be as follows: Fischer et al. conclude that CO2 lags temperature every single time, but there is “uncertainty,” and so they might be wrong.

Of course, anybody could be wrong. Petit et al. could also be wrong. So could Al Gore. So could the IPCC. Scientists always start from here: the presumption of everybody’s potential fallibility and the corollary obligation of universal skepticism.

The point remains, however, that when Petit et al. published their paper the only study with sufficient resolution to determine whether CO2 or temperature rose first concluded that at glacial terminations temperature always rises first. And this contradicts the CO2-drives-temperature hypothesis. Since this was the state of the art when Petit et al. published their paper, it was dishonest for them to conclude as though Al Gore and the IPCC were necessarily right because Fischer et al. might be wrong!

The laziest peer-review process should have caught this on first inspection.

Now, but what specific arguments are Petit et al. putting forth to say that Fischer et al. might be wrong? They point to

“the large gas-age/ice-age uncertainty (1,000 years, or even more if we consider the accumulation-rate uncertainty).”

Since this uncertainty is so large, they say, it is “premature” to conclude that CO2 lags temperature.

What is the “gas-age/ice-age uncertainty,” also known as the gas-age/ice-age difference?

Imagine snow falling on the surface of the Antarctic on 8 August 2010. As it falls, it traps air, right? Not quite. Or not yet. Air will not be trapped until a lot more snow falls on top, because the snowflakes are not initially sufficiently compressed to prevent air circulation. Once there is enough weight above, then this particular spot closes. So ice that fell in the form of snowflakes on 8 August 2010 will end up trapping air from a later date, because air circulation continues for a while.

In general, then, air in a particular segment of Antarctic ice cores will be found in ice that is older than the air. How much older depends on a number of things (it may be hundreds of years older).[4] This raises problems for our efforts to date precisely such events as the onset and termination of glaciations.

But is this a problem for deciding whether temperature rises before or after CO2 in the Vostok ice-core record?

I cannot see how. For both the temperatures and the concentrations of CO2 are estimated from the air bubbles, not from the ice. As far as I can tell, it makes no difference to the CO2-lag result if someone eliminates the gas-age/ice-age uncertainty. This is just an obfuscation.

Fischer et al. made a reference in their Science paper to this very point:

“The dating uncertainty (on the order of 10,000 years for termination III) is considerable; however, the absolute time scale is not so important as long as we consistently compare Vostok CO2 with the Vostok isotope temperature record.”  

In other words, our inability to determine how many years ago, exactly, a given ice age ended does not affect our ability to determine whether, at this termination, the CO2 or the temperature rises first. For this problem, the “absolute time scale” is irrelevant, and we need merely to “compare Vostok CO2 with the Vostok isotope temperature record,” both of them inferred from the air bubbles, not the ice. Shouldn’t this be obvious?

What has happened to the peer-review process at Nature?

Why can’t the world’s premier science journal identify and reject so many elementary problems of reasoning when the topic is evidence relevant to the IPCC’s CO2-drives-temperature hypothesis? And why do Petit et al. commit such errors of reasoning in the first place?

Here is one hypothesis: as we saw in Part 2, scientists may be tempted to toe the line of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC), because then they receive 2,632 times more money from the governments organized in the IPCC than do the skeptics.

And climate science is expensive.


The aftermath
_______________

In the year 2003, J.-M. Barnola, D. Raynaud, C. Lorius, and N.I. Barkov, all of them co-authors of the Petit et al. (1999) in Nature, authored a report where they state the following:

“at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.”[7]

Translation: In periods of global warming, CO2 either travels together with temperature or else lags behind temperature, and in periods of global cooling, CO2 always lags behind temperature.

These co-authors of Petit are no longer comfortable saying that Fischer et al. might be wrong: in 2003 they now agreed that CO2 never rises before the temperature. Apparently they tried to soften the lag by stating that in periods of global warming sometimes CO2 and temperature are “in phase” (i.e. they rise together). Even should we grant this—that sometimes CO2 and temperature rise at the same time—this still means that CO2 never causes temperature increases (because that would require that CO2 rise first). So Jean-Robert Petit’s co-authors are now agreeing that the Antarctic ice core record contradicts the CO2-drives-temperature hypothesis (the Al Gore/IPCC hypothesis).

Why haven’t you seen this on the front page of the New York Times?

_____________________________________________________________

Petit unrepentant
_____________________________________________________________

In February 2007, Science Watch interviewed Dr. Jean-Robert Petit, first author of the 1999 paper in Nature, about that very paper.

The magazine begins by explaining that “According to Essential Science Indicators, this paper has been cited 967 times to date,” which is truly astronomical, “and is currently ranked at #3 among Geosciences papers published in the past decade.”

The Petit et al. has obviously done well, and in so doing has benefited the Al Gore/IPCC juggernaut, despite the quiet about-face (examined above) of some of its authors.

Here follows an excerpt of the interview with Petit:

[Quote from the Science Watch interview begins here]

SCIENCE WATCH: What was the significance of this [Nature 1999] paper for your field?

PETIT: ...the greenhouse gases, by capturing the infrared waves emitted by earth, prevent cooling and will play the role of amplifier in the climate system. ...CO2 is an important actor in the climate system.

SCIENCE WATCH: In this paper, one of your concluding remarks is that "Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases [carbon dioxide and methane] seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years." Would you please elaborate on the implications of this statement?

PETIT: With industrial development and anthropologic activity, massive burning of fossil carbon as well as intensification of agriculture released exponential amounts of CO2 and CH4 over the last 150 years. Present atmospheric composition well surpasses all maximum concentrations from the ice records over the last 420 kyrs (30% more CO2, 300% more CH4).

This makes a permanent atmospheric cover over the globe which prevents the natural cooling of the earth’s surface and making it so the heat is always "on." A new climate equilibrium is expected but we have no analog from the past climate (except maybe at the time of the dinosaurs!). This raises questions for the future climate and the consequences.[8]

[Quote from the Science Watch interview ends here]

What Jean-Robert Petit says in this interview is simply amazing. His research has in no way, shape, or form—least of all the Petit et al. (1999) paper in Nature—supported the view that “greenhouse gases” are an important “amplifier in the climate system” and “prevents the natural cooling of the earth’s surface and making it so the heat is always ‘on.’ ” If any such claim had a chance of being true, then we should see in the Vostok data that temperature levels go down after the CO2 levels decrease. What in fact happens is that CO2 levels fall centuries after the temperatures.

 

Is this article useful? Help us do more with a donation .
Would you like to be notified of new articles? Sign up (it’s free) .

 

It is precisely because Jean-Robert Petit’s research has not contributed one iota of evidence to support the CO2-drives-temperature hypothesis that in his 1999 paper, the one cited 967 times, his reason for claiming that CO2 acts as an amplifier was not the Vostok evidence he was reporting but the IPCC computer models, as shown earlier. So if we accept Petit’s judgment as first author that the “significance” of his paper rests on that particular claim, then he has been cited 967 times simply for saying that he has religious faith in the IPPC computer simulations.

This is evidence of a pathology in the academic system that is climate science.

Simulations are tools that help us represent and explore hypotheses, so they can only be correct if data about our real world support them. The Vostok cores are evidence from the real world. They refute the simulations.

Why is the climate-science system pretending otherwise?

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: http://www.hirhome.com/logo-HiR.gif 

NEXT: Part 4 | The Antarctic ice cores and the media

_____________________________________________________________

Footnotes and Further Reading
_____________________________________________________________

[1] Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J. P., Barnola, J.-M., Chapellaz, J. J., & Parrenin, F. (2001). Estimation of temparature change and of gas age-ice age difference, 108 kyr B.P., at Vostok, Antartica. Journal of Geophysical Research, 106, 31,893-31,901.
http://parrenin.frederic.free.fr/PRO/publications/download/articles/caillon-JGR2001.pdf

[2] Plimer, I. (2009). Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science. New York: Taylor Trade Publishing. (p. ¿?)

[3] Petit, J. R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N. I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J., Davisk, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V. M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V. Y., Lorius, C., Pépin, L., Ritz, C., Saltzmank, E., & Stievenard, M. (1999). Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature, 399, 429-436.
http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf

[4] Ice core | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [ Consulted 8 August 2010]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

“The surface layer is snow in various forms, with air gaps between snowflakes. As snow continues to accumulate, the buried snow is compressed and forms firn, a grainy material with a texture similar to granulated sugar. Air gaps remain, and some circulation of air continues. As snow accumulates above, the firn continues to densify, and at some point the pores close off and the air is trapped. Because the air continues to circulate until then, the ice age and the age of the gas enclosed are not the same, and may differ by hundreds of years.”

[7] Barnola, J.-M., Raynaud, D., Lorius, C., & Barkov, N. I. (2003). Historical CO2 record from the Vostok ice core. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html

[8] http://in-cites.com/papers/Jean-RobertPetit.html


www.hirhome.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notify me of new HIR pieces!

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: HIR mailing list