Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Global Warming and tell tale leafs

  1. Jun 17, 2005 #1
    According to other hockeysticks the carbon dioxide level has been rather constant thougout the last millennium before it started to skyrocket in the late 19th century. This information is based on the contents of ice cores of Polar ice sheets and glaciers.

    There seems to be some problems with that, the ice cores seem to be not very perfect storage containers for CO2. There are basically three problems, presence of liquid water under high pressure allows for air - water interaction with CO2. Life bacteria, (extremorphiles) interact with carbon dioxide and finally the ice starts as open snow with air passing freely in and out. Depending on accumulation rate it takes decennia to millennia before the ice closes with trapped air bubbles under the pressure of the overlaying snow (firn). So the trapped air is not only much younger than the ice but also a mixture of air from a prolongued period. This tends to dampen the spikes.

    There is a surprising alternative to CO2 measuring. Leafs react to the level of CO2 in the air with forming more or less http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookglossS.html [Broken]. Initial results of fossil leafs showed a distinct difference of CO2 levels wih those in the ice cores triggering an enormous dispute. As mainstream science is global warming and there was that beautiful hockeystick correlation, the leaf stomata counters simply could not be right, could they?

    Stomata counting is blooming and maturing now, simple because it is reproducable. Several proxies of different origine show more or less consistent results as can be seen here.

    to be continued...

    http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2004-1214-121238/ [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 17, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I've often wondered what made people so sure the chemistry of gas bubbles remained constant after formation. Thanks for posting this.
  4. Jun 22, 2005 #3
    Good work Andre.

    Re: "global warming", since it looks as though the amount of CO2 and CO etc... humans have generated is really only the equivalent of about 6 eruptions of large to medium sized volcanos, it looks like "Global Warming", if it actually exists, is caused by the warming of the sun. In this case it would be termed "Solar System Warming".

    Just . 0009 of a degree's increase of the sun's temp. would effect us in a warm way.

    What do ya think? Is that what's been happening during this last 100 years?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  5. Jun 23, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    By ANDRE
    There is a surprising alternative to CO2 measuring. Leafs react to the level of CO2 in the air with forming more or less stomata. Initial results of fossil leafs showed a distinct difference of CO2 levels wih those in the ice cores triggering an enormous dispute. As mainstream science is global warming and there was that beautiful hockeystick correlation, the leaf stomata counters simply could not be right, could they?

    I wonder if this new model is on the desks of the decision makers.
  6. Jun 23, 2005 #5
    Sorry for not having finished the thread but I wrote an article about this in Dutch with some scientific looking analysis for an assessment report to the government. And now an editor of the UK magazine Energy and Environment has asked me to translate it for publication.

    Then there are several more issues for that report to deal with like how the hype could occur.

    Anyway, the retreat seems to have started:


  7. Jun 23, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Andre, you deserve a double marmalade sandwich.
  8. Jun 24, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Is that paddington? :blushing: I thought it was pooh? :rofl:
  9. Jun 25, 2005 #8
    Yeah, I usually have a hunny pot for breakfest.
  10. Jun 26, 2005 #9
    Now i'm no expert but

    could it not just be possible that global warming is merely a natural cycle of the earth as a part of the solar system. One thing that would hint to this is ice ages, apperently there has been a few indicating that after an ice age the earth started to heat up again but then cooled down again as the next ice age approached. Now I don't fully know all the orbiting movements of everything in the galaxy we live in, but i'm assuming the sun relvolves around something, meaning the spring, summer, autumn and winter we experience on the earth from our orbit and planet tilt and such like might be affected by far greater goings on in the universe. It's funny how everythings a cycle
  11. Jun 30, 2005 #10
    Wow, is everyone here really poopooing (or pooh-pooh-ing) anthropogenic CO2 causing global climate change?

    I'd be curious for your qualifications, as there is broad consensus in the scientific community that our CO2 output is directly related to a warming planet.

    My initial assumption is that this forum has a good representation of scientists participating - and so the tone of this thread surprises me!

    (Tony, you have done some good things in your country wrt climate change; I am surprised to learn that you are a climate change skeptic and one that mis-spells, at that! ;) )
  12. Jul 1, 2005 #11

    Welcome here in the Earth section. I do hope that you don't mind that we try to keep studying and thinking here and avoid jumping on the bandwagon.

    Consensus is a very nice thing in politics but it tends to kill science. One should not confuse the opinion of the majority with the truth. How many Gallileis, for instance, were needed to show that Earth was not the centre of the universe?
  13. Jul 1, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The fact of the matter is that it is not a widely accepted fact. There is still an enormous amount of debate between people actually qualified on the subject (important because the most vocal people in the debate are seemingly economists, political scientists, social scientists, etc). And what a country or a government does and what science agrees upon isnt always in step. I mean a famous case of that is when some city tried to ban water. Plus lets look at the Kyoto treaty. Rather useless according to many scientists but governments drool over it because it LOOKS like they care. Far better steps could be taken but very few leaders are willing to get kicked out of office for suggesting them.
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2005
  14. Jul 1, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I believe it was 4.3
  15. Jul 1, 2005 #14
    Andre, could i get the Dutch version please o:) :biggrin: :rolleyes:
  16. Jul 1, 2005 #15
    Sure, no problem. It's http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/stomata%5b1%5d.doc [Broken].
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  17. Jul 1, 2005 #16
    I'm all for considering alternatives, but frankly the only people I meet who do *not* hold that global climate change is occuring, and in part because of Man's activities, are either (1) affiliated with the oil companies (Greening Earth, Scientific Alliance, etc) or (2) not in the field in any way shape or form and simply like to be contrary.

    Thus, my surprise to see such skepticism on the physics forum, and no one questioning the general tone of the thread.

    Rather than scolding me, how about some indication of your qualifications as I asked previously? I'll go first. I am a PhD geneticist, I know little about climatology, but a great deal about the scientific method, peer review, and so on, I follow enough of the climate change discussion to realize there is a tremendous body of coherent work from many disciplines that indicates that our CO2 output is responsible for part of the change in climate on the planet.

    For better or worse, that's what I bring to this very important discussion. How about you?
  18. Jul 1, 2005 #17
    Pattylou, with all due respect, perhaps you'd like to go over your post again and see how much is really scientifically sound. It's really not in the numbers nor in appeal to authority. How many people solved the question of the extinction of the Mammots, including an abundance of sustaining proof. Do you think a fighter pilot can do that? Well that's what happened. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=80137

    Only problem is that this solution debunkes the current scholar view on paleo climatology which has been the basis of the global warming idea.

    The problem of CO2 Greenhouse gas effect however is saturation. The effect is mostly in it's existance, and not in the numbers anymore. Paleo climatology invented a good deal of positive feedback to make up for that deficiency. But the mammoth proofs that it's a totally different story, clathrate decompostion. But even if we'd not discovered that, there is still the direct debunking of positive feedback (Kärner 2002, 2005) but nobody seems to care. Just read the 75% of my 949 posts here that covers that story.
  19. Jul 1, 2005 #18
    Thanks Andre,

    "perhaps you'd like to go over your post again and see how much is really scientifically sound. "

    I am not trying to bring science to this present discussion. (I can, but that would involve reviewing the links you have posted, and the language barrier is significant - ex: I didn't know if you meant marmots, mammoths, or some other animal and I am unfamiliar with how this applies to the climate discussion.)

    Rather, I am trying to understand the dynamics on the board as a whole. If you (and the others that are anti-warming on this thread) have decent credentials, then it is worth it to me to try to get past the language problems and dig into the leaf stomata research. (I'll probably dig into it anyway. ) If you are a couple of kids whose nature it is to buck the system for the sake of bucking the system (and I've been there, done that, and still do on some issues - there's "nothing wrong" with it) then I am less inclined to dig into the arguments you are making.

    I'm trying to be frank, not adversarial. Thank you in advance for understanding that. Can you give me the references for Karner 2002/2005? The journal issues, pages, article titles?
  20. Jul 1, 2005 #19
  21. Jul 1, 2005 #20
    Thanks Andre!
  22. Jul 1, 2005 #21


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/globalwarmingmakessealesssalty;_ylt=AuJCNCbsmzUqzd4E49heKoH737YB;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NmhocGZ1BHNlYwMxNzAw [Broken]

    is an example of "evidence" for global warming, its consequences due to ice melt, and so on, and on. Take a peek at the "units" used in the discussion: 19,000 km3/30a compared to annual river flows. Iffy? Add a browse of the IPCC site in "mechanisms behind sea level rise;" you will find 10 cm/century measured increases compared to "possible sources" estimated in mms/a preceeding conclusions that ground water "mining" can be ignored as a significant contributor to the observed increase.

    GMT (global mean temperature) calculated as an average of daily highs and lows recorded on max-min thermometers is accepted without any review of station logs for changes in instrument construction that have occurred over the past century, changes in the station environments vis a vis radiation, air flow, and vibration, and other particulars of fundamental interest and importance when attempting the determination of temperature of an air mass exposed to solar radiation, the night sky, black body radiation from the ground or buildings, vibrations from traffic and wind, and the heat transfer between instrument and air mass due to air movement and all the previously listed factors.

    Questions about the "ohmigod the earth is gonna do a runaway melt" conclusion? You betcha: "what's the point behind changing units in the middle of sea level rise and N. Atl. fresh water input comparisons;" "where are the references to critical reviews of the meteorological temperature records for changes in measurement methods that may, or may not, have introduced systematic errors;" plus others. These should get you started.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  23. Jul 1, 2005 #22


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Man, the more i read up on global warming discussions, the more i wanna run and hide and never be around a discussion again. Too complicated for penguins :D
  24. Jul 1, 2005 #23
    I would imagine, simplistically, that river flow and groundwater are negligible as they are part of the water cycle. In other words, the flow into the ocean from the rivers is not meaningful in the calculation - becuase the rivers are formed from evaporation and precipitation from the oceans.... It cancels itself out.

    The glaciers, on the other hand, were freshwater that had been (essentially) out of the equation until they began to melt rapidly. Now they have entered the water cycle.

    It should be easy to determine if glacier melt is really affecting salinity of the ocean. If the salinity is reducing due to glacier melt, we should see a correlated rise in sea level. This sea level change would not occur over time from river or groundwater sources.

    The rest of your post - I agree. I think recorded measurements of temperature are problematic as we don't use the same "thermometers" that were used 100 years ago. I am more concerned by changes in plant and animal behavior, which, coincidentally, is consistent with a warming planet. Things like altered migration times and routes. Such data aren't subject to the concerns you mention.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  25. Jul 1, 2005 #24


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Time to hit the hydrology sources: you will find a number of "implicit" assumptions equivalent to what you have just stated; there is no formal statement that I have found that "the hydrologic cycle is at steady state," nor that "there is a defined steady state for the hydrologic cycle." Consider the state of aquifers in N. Amer. at the end of the last ice age: fully charged; totally depleted; and, what has been the evolution of the state of those aquifers (with time constants, for recharge and depletion, of the order of thousands of years) in the 10ka since the last major glaciation?
    Again, see the hydrology, and for laughs, augment that with the archaeological dating of submerged coastal settlements.
    Nor, is there any baseline with which to compare such data. Behavioral changes, expanding and contracting ranges, booming and crashing populations, etc. are also consistent with models having nothing to do with global warming. This is another suspicious character of the warming debate, the conspicuous absence of alternate hypotheses and grounds for rejection in favor of AGHW.
  26. Jul 2, 2005 #25
    It may be interesting to see how the global warming notion has emerged in the recent history. Spencer Weart has compiled this arduously here with the main story here but from a viewpoint of a believer, accepting for instance that on one hand the evidence of the ice cores and carbon dioxide levels during the ice age is the direct trigger for the global warming hype.

    on the other hand there is also:

    (the last statement may be falsified soon, if only somebody would listen)

    So, if you don't understand what you see, then how can you draw global warming conclusions? Then again the climatologists seem to be only interested in isotopes in ice cores and oceanic cores, attempting to explain ice ages from this limited amount of data. If they would only have glanced at some palynological work for instance it would have become clear that the ice age was a totally different story.

    No the ice age did not end 10,000 years or so ago but 18,000 14Carbon-years BP which is 22,000 calender years BP. The upheaval as indicated in the proxies in the 15-10,000 BP era has nothing to do with ice ages but it is the direct result of clathrate destabilisation events.

    As Weart shows explicitely that the Ice age is the direct cause of the global warming hype, nowadays it's almost forgotten, likely because it doesn't make sense. (Karner and Muller, PALEOCLIMATE: A Causality Problem for Milankovitch, Science 2000 288: 2143-2144).

    Because of those problems the hockeystick (fig 1b) came to take over the place of the ice ages. But now that hockeystick is in a http://www.climate2003.com/pdfs/2004GL012750.pdf [Broken]. So what else is remaining that would prove a strong correlation between carbon dioxide levels and global temperature except for a fierce political persuasion campaign?

    Perhaps you get an idea now, Pattylou, why the global warming discussion is a little different here.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook