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

Statement and Paleo climate problems.

  1. May 23, 2007 #1
    It has been observed lately that I'm a bit passionate fighting the global warming myth. Before starting the paleo climate business in this thread, I think it's good to explain why.

    I used to be a fighter pilot and as such I had no issues with climate whatsoever. That job is a bit demanding so there was little excess brain power available to ponder about it. So after flying I got a boring desk job and needed diversion. That came soon enough with this:


    The discovery documentary about the Jarkov mammoth said that the animal, found in the northernmost part of Siberia was 20,000 old. Now, I happened to remember that this was about the coldest part of the Last Glacial Maximum, and here was an animal grazing fodder just next to the North Pole. Certainly something definitely did not add up and I decided to solve that riddle.

    The quest had started and soon two friends joined. It became clear that modern ice age interpretation of the Greenland ice cores are highly incompatible with the mammoth reality. So if that reality is real then the ice core interpretation of temperatures must be wrong. It is, I know why and how and I can proof it.

    The problem is that this erratic ice core interpretation is also the fundament, the basis of global warming. So we have a big conflict here and the peer review arena ensures that there is no chance for competing truths. That ensures one to become a sceptic. It's simply impossible to sort out the mammoth steppe, the extinctions and the ice ages with the wrong premisses.

    I'd like to tell the story of the problem of the ice cores. Problem is that it is rather technical. So I'll try to elabrate. The idea is that if it is not comprehensable, then it's the fault of the narrator. So, please give me feedback if it is understandable.

    Back later
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. May 23, 2007 #2
    So let's start off with something that looks like an abstract.

    Here you can see the interpretation of the Greenland ice cores in terms of temperature. It has also been the cause of the climate panick. 10 to 15 degrees temperature changes in a mere few years. Incredible and a big warning what can happen if you pass the tipping point or whatever triggered these sudden flip flops.

    I will demonstrate that this intepretation is wrong along several lines. We will see that actual temperature changes around the Northern hemisphere happened much earlier, we will also see that the sudden drop known as the Younger Dryas does not show up as such an explicite temperature change elsewhere. We will also see a distinct change in aridness.

    We will investigate the science behind this temperature graph and we will see that some errors and wrong choices have been made.

    What first? The evidence or the faulty logic?
  4. May 23, 2007 #3
    for me logic....
  5. May 23, 2007 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    My skepticism here comes out of ignorance of geology and is not necessarily an argument, but how do we know the mammoth wasn't migrating and starving to death or didn't have some sort of cold-weather sustenance? How many other mammoths have been found in the area?

    I appreciate you explaining the basis of your passion for the subject, and in return I will tell you why I am skeptical about it: because it sound like a conspiracy theory (not particularly this thread, just your overall posting scheme). I don't know if that's your intent or not, but that's the way it rubs on me, and I know you haven't explicitly said that (that I've read) so I admit this is just the way I 'feel', and not anything about what I 'know'
  6. May 23, 2007 #5
    Don't you remember the Alaskan horses post I made a just short of a year ago? Funny, I do:


    Also I'd recommend a search with my username, search word "mammoth". Furthermore, I have a reference list here of the submitted but obviously rejected paper:

    http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/ext-refs-new.pdf [Broken]

    Our knowledge of the Siberian paleo climate has bloomed in the last few years. I'd recommend especially Ager et al, Andreev et al, 2002,2004, Aptroot, van Geel, and that's only on the first page under the A, Key publications are Mol et al 2004, 2006, (that's my pal, "Sir Mammoth"), furthermore Schirrmeister et al 2002 and Zazula et al 2006.

    But you could also browse the abstracts here:

    http://www.yukonmuseums.ca/mammoth/progabst.htm [Broken]

    Highly recommended to take notice of a completely different glacial world. No, The ice age cartoons are way off and the biotope of the Mammoth was highly comparable to the prairies of the Bison.

    No conspiracy, just frustration to be unable to change the heading of the global warming hype one micro meter.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  7. May 23, 2007 #6
    Okay the logic first. I hope to be understandable for everyone, so I pretend I'm explaining it for my 12 year old nephew, hoping not to offend anyone.

    Explaining the isotope fractionation in the water cycle:

    The same sort of atoms come with different atom numbers or weights, caled isotopes. Normal Oxygen has 16 particles in the nuclei (16O) but some have 17 or 18 particles, known as 17O and 18O isotopes. 17O is extremely rare but about every 500th atom is 18O. Also hydrogen (H) is most abundant with a single proton (1H) but some have also a neutron (2H) also called Deuterium (D). So water can have several isotopes H2O, DHO, H2 18O, etc.

    It's also percievable that the heavier water molecules have slower speeds with the same amount of impulse (mv). That's why they prefer the lower energy states just like the fat boys in class. So they evaporate more difficult and condensate more easily than the light, agile atoms. However this is temperature dependent, the higher the temperature, more fat boys get on higher energy states and the difference is reduced.

    So this behavior changes the amount or ratio of heavy isotopes (known as d18O or dD for deuterium) during evaporation and condensation, depending on the temperatures. So if you'd analyze the dD and d18O ratio in the ice core it tells something about the temperature.

    That's the easy part. More elaboration here:


    Note especially:

    Assuming that #2 is impossible to control and should be fairly constant for a given fixed location, averaging out, we remain with the main variable: temperature of condensation, controling the isotope "signature" of the precipitation and hence the ice in the ice cores.

    Now we revert to the main scholar study about the validity of the temperature reconstructions of water isotopes in ice cores:

    http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/GLACIO/hoffmann/Texts/jouzelJGR1997.pdf [Broken]

    Unfortunately I don't get it OCR'd but I recommend especially para's 2.5 and 4.3.

    Anybody getting a bit suspicious now?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  8. May 23, 2007 #7

    Detailed analyses of the life agenda of Mammoths is being done by Prof Daniel Fisher at Ann Harbor New Michican.


    Unfortunatey I have not seen the publication yet on the tusk analysis of the Jarkov mammoth, but it has been suggested from the combinations of isotopes in the dentine that migration was irregular. Females appeared to migrate biannually. Bulls did not seem to migrate a lot. There was little reason to migrate/ Winter snow was sparse (Zazula) and the fodder remained available througout the year on top of the snow. And migrate to where? Most of the area was uniformly mega fauna steppe.

    Back to the main issue. Hint: at what temperature does water vapor condensate?
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  9. May 23, 2007 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Oh man, I totally forgot about that. There were horses in Alaska. That's so crazy every time I think of it.

    So, to sum it up:

    you're saying a mammoth and horses existed at the same time in the same place that is being analyzed as an ice core that claims they couldn't be living at the time?
  10. May 24, 2007 #9
    That's the idea. If we refuse to live with cognitive dissonance, we have to face that it is impossible that the current permafrost tundra areas, unable to support many grazers, was 10-15 degrees colder around the Last Glacial Maximum and supported mega fauna herds like bisons, camels, lions, giant sloths and mammoths of course.

    But we were pondering about the ice cores. Back to the isotopes. Why were those large isotope excursions translated to temperature. Perhaps because of this?

    http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/GISP3.GIF [Broken]

    See how the methane concentration also mimmicks the isotopes and the accumulation? And methane is a greenhouse gas of course and greenhouse gas is temperature, so isotopes are temperature? NOT!

    Since the isotope ratios of the precipitation are primarily dependent on temperature at condensation, I asked at what temperature would water vapor condensate. That temperature is known as "dew point". It's an important element of the meteorology.

    So :
    IF "the dew point is a direct measure of the amount of moisture present in the air"

    AND "the temperature of condensation of the precipitation (dew point) controls the isotopic signature of precipitation"

    THEN the isotopes measure humidity, not temperature.



    In other words, it's not the heat, it's the humidity (Non Calor Sed Umor).
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  11. May 24, 2007 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    To be honest, I don't understand how you could calculate what isotopes existed in what ratios for elements with simplicity, so I couldn't judge any of this data. It's even harder to imagine how such isotopes would populate the atmosphere based on data from the earth.... but I'm not a geologist or a geophysicist... or a climatologist. I could make a conclusion and then find things in the data to support it, but any good arguer can do that. So I still remain at the so-called middle-ground fallacy on the subject.

    What's the harm in researching alternatives to oil products and reducing emissions anyway? I'm not so concerned about the whole wide world as I am about myself.

    When it gets -40 here, we get an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_layer" [Broken] (basically, everything gets trapped in a soup of low energy in town. All the smoke from smoke stacks pile up against lower atmospher, polluting the town.

    At this point it becomes painfully obvious that that all sorts of petroleum exhaust are unhealthy for biological system. I commend the advanced in cleaner burning coal and safer systems, but I don't feel any reason to criticize alternative power and further emission control (as much as getting my IM tags can be a pain, I like breathing cleaner air)
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  12. May 24, 2007 #11
    It may be noted that we are following the scientific method here. We observe an abnormality which we try to explain using physics only with the additional handycap that previous erratic explanations have distorted the view on the reality.

    Please, do understand that this is not an issue at all. We have a mystery to solve here. How did the Mammoth live and die out.?In the course of the solution we find out that previous science messed up. That is the issue here.

    More than happy to think in solutions of nowadays problems and hey I'm driving a super efficient diesel doing 52,5 miles per gallon (US). But I repeat once more, science must not be messed up to enforce adaptation of behavior. That's junk science, preventing us from working those things out.
  13. May 24, 2007 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well, here's a good place to look for that... right here at my own institute:

    There will always be junk science around. If you're really interested in supporting science, get in an contribute with your own experiments and theories and work on getting published. Junk science is as unstoppable as religion, crime, and government.

    We're most productive when we ignore it (unless of course, it affects us personally, beyond recourse) and contribute to the positive aspects.

    look at these gems:

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  14. May 24, 2007 #13
    Please say hallo to prof Dale Guthrie a good friend of Dick Mol.

    But it's getting annoying when junk science is the basis of policy making

    So we wrote this article, showing that the current interpretation of ice cores is wrong and that it's all about aridness and moist periods. Theory and evidence match. Also we demostrate that genuine warming signals are not observed in the ice cores. So this goes to the peer reviewer who understands that everything he had believed in and had advocated and had written numerous articles about was totally wrong all of a sudden. What do you think would happen (has happened)?
    Last edited: May 24, 2007
  15. May 24, 2007 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    tell me about it... "reefer madness" was my personal favorite. A scientist can hardly be a politician, and politicians can't be very scientific in a competitive (and especially capitalistic) democracy. The masses don't follow scientific theory, they generally base their decisions off of the way they feel emotionally about something (fear passed through society and negative reinforcement I assume with uncertainty) and politicians care about the masses: people are their resource.

    Physical scientists tend to be more into things: how they work, what causes them, all the different mechanisms; but science is so complex nowadays that you can't learn everything in your lifetime, not even in your own branch of physics, let alone the mathematical techniques behind expressing the applications of all these techniques (and furthermore getting a calculator sufficient in crunching the numbers).

    As a result, scientists are somewhat disconnected from each other. I don't care much for technocracy but it dominates science.

    it gets red marks, you revise it, and try again next year. Shouldn't always go back to the same peer reviewer, right? I'm in no position to judge a peer-review decision, but this one of the weaknesses of skepticism. Once a skeptic has accepted something, their skeptical about letting it go (I'm not pointing at you here, but at the peer review process)

    I can't make enough sense of the system to even judge whether the peer review process does more good than bad, but this is what I know:

    There's a hodgepodge of information out there: some of it's good, some of it's bad (whether it has the marks of prestige or not). If you're interested in learning something, because you want to do something then you test the information that seems most practical until you get it to do what you want it to do (i.e. fly people around, help with communication, protect you from hostiles, keep people alive, entertain people, entertain yourself), then the scientific process has served it's purpose.

    If you take all that data and start preaching to people about what it means, then you don't seem as personally interested in it, and I tend to ignore it like I ignore television news (it seems to represent persuasive/political arguments more often than not).

    You're expecting perfection out of the scientific community, but it's made up of humans. Boltzmann committed suicide over the scientific community denying him, and is now he's a household physics name. Get the papers to the right people, they'll eventually be submitted to the endless database of informations out there... if they prove correct and useful in the future, they will be reinforced when someday somebody searches by subject matter and finds something that they're either a) interested in or b) want to use to make an argument.
    Last edited: May 24, 2007
  16. May 24, 2007 #15
    Okay, let's try and get back on topic.

    I tried to demonstrate that the isotope signature of the precipitation (like in ice cores) resembles the dew point or absolute moisture in the air.

    here you can play with the numbers.

    http://www.dryfast.nl/algemeen/algemeen/luchtvochtigheid.html [Broken]

    Don't worry, instructions in English. i hope you all have studied http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/GLACIO/hoffmann/Texts/jouzelJGR1997.pdf [Broken] very closely to see if they have covered this element. Cloud temperature is mentioned once. But obviously with moist weather cloud temperature is high whilst with dry weather clouds must be cold due to the dew point mechanism.

    Therefore when the climate is moist, the isotope signature looks like warm and under arid conditions isotope signature looks like "cold" and what do we see:

    http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/GISP3.GIF [Broken]

    Annual snow accumulation (top) and isotopes (middle) correlate neatly especially during the spikes. So actually it appears that we are looking at two forms of the same information. Arid periods and dry periods. No more.

    We need more data to confirm what we see, but before that some more reasoning, the seasonality next.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  17. May 25, 2007 #16
    Seasonality of precipitation.

    We have seen that the isotope signature is a function of the dewpoint, nevertheless, dewpoints tend to be higher in summer time than in winter time. Also on Greenland, summer is the snowing season as in winter it is too cold to snow. So, if you'd probe the uncompressed top part of the ice sheet for several samples a year, you'll clearly see the yearly cycle in isotope values like this:

    http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/GISP-2-site-15.GIF [Broken]

    Also very tempting to call that seasonal temperatures changes, but it's still seasonal dew point changes. Anyway you can also see that the youngest snow/ice has the highest amplitude since deeper down the snow gets compressed and mixed and the seasonal extremes fade away. At about 10,000 years the seasonal fluctuation is no longer visible and the main value has regressed to the weighted annual average. So the ratio of the amount of snowing in winter and summer gets very important. Hence, the more snowing in summer time, the warmer it seems.

    Now look again at
    http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/GISP3.GIF [Broken]

    See once more that the isotope ratio and the annual snowfall correlates tightly, so if the snow fall spikes were mostly about summer snow, then seasonality in itself could explain the isotope ratio as well. The researchers are aware of this. See para 4.3 of Jouzel et al:

    http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/jouzeletal97.GIF [Broken]

    See that they realize that reality proves the seasonality dependence, nevertheless they prefer to believe a model loaded with suppositions, to decide that isotopes are temperature. Models right, reality wrong.

    How about some empirical evidence:


    There you are; reality exactly as expected: arid summer, hence low dewpoints, appears as 'cold' isotopes. Arid summer is also seasonal distortion of the weighted average also appearing as 'cold'. Abnormal warm summers? Nope it's reality, the only thing that is wrong, is the interpretation of the ice cores, which actually show little summer snow compared to winter snow with low dewpoints, instead of low temperatures in the Younger Dryas.

    But they found a way out not to rock the boat, climate models and some vague fohn effect. Again, reality wrong and models right

    At this point, Pythagorean, I formed my opinion that models should be banned by law.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  18. May 25, 2007 #17


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Models have been very useful to those of us actually doing practical things and not trying to make big assumptions.

    I think a model is just like any paper, though. If you have honesty and integrity behind, it can be helpful in understanding systems. If you're just programming it to make a point, then of course it will fail to adhere to reality. Papers can be written persuasively too, though, and can be just as misleading if you take them to heart. Data can be hand-picked, interpretations can be supportive, etc, etc.
  19. May 25, 2007 #18
    Certainly true and the legislation would need some fine tuning, but speculation, proof claiming and decision making with models without empirical evidence should be the main elements.

    Anyway, this thread could continue along a few lines. My http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/ext-refs-new.pdf [Broken] contains dozens of examples, which show that:

    1: Actual Northern hemisphere warming started around 17,500 Cal years ago, without the Greenland ice cores noticing it.

    2: No additinial warming is apparant at the onset of the first big spike of the Bolling Allerod event, but on lots of places it got soaking wet.

    3: At the onset of the Younger Dryas, there was some local cooling which could be explained by increased seasonality (extreme cold winters) but sudden Northern Hemisphere aridness was widespread (with one exception: Polyak et al 2004, dating problems?). This is a real wow since just about every publication about the last glacial transitions proclaims the extreme coldness of the Younger Dryas but many of them also encounter some "not understood" mysteries, generated by the misunderstandig of the Younger Dryas.

    4: Finally, the end of the Younger Dryas, the prelude to the Holocene, again shows widespread sudden wetness rather than strong temperature increases, .

    We could go over them one by one but first some more observations.

    Does it help if we realize that much of the paleoclimatologic research is centered around how bad the global warming will be? That would garantee some bias, steering the decisions. So how important are these isotopes in the climate business? Spencer Weart has registrated that painstakenly here (mega site).

    It may be clear now that the Greenland Ice Cores played a key role in the devellopment of the image of global warming. Too bad that this major isotope error played the key role in the key role. With unbiased science and without models it would have stopped the latest in 2002 with the exploration of Bjorck et al's Greenland lake proxies.

    We can also analyse in detail why things went so wrong. The key role for that is calibrating problems with carbon dating.

    Questions? There should be lots.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  20. May 26, 2007 #19
    So how could the arid period show up in the ice core record, when presumably that would be when there was no precipitation?
  21. May 27, 2007 #20
    Then I have a wrong idea of arid, as in less precipitation, not zero precipitation. The accumulation rate of snow during the arid/dry period was 2.5-5 times less than during the wet periods.
  22. May 27, 2007 #21
    Since humidity is product of the moisture and temperature of the air, the above If statement is false.
  23. May 28, 2007 #22
    Interesting but your not looking at the entire precipitation cycle.

    The ratio of O-18 in water vapor is an indicator of temperature of the body of water in which it evaporated from, as well as the condensation point. Dew points are condensate points of water vapor. All of these processes are a proxy for temperature.

    To confirm the conclusions of the scientists studying the ice cores, O-18 is measured in the calcium carbonate that collects on the ocean floor.

    There may be a conflict with your mammoth studies and climate history. If so it is a mystery to be solved.

    I am not a paleoclimatologist, and even I can see there are serious flaws in your reasoning here.

    I am not disagreeing the arid and moist conditions effect O-18 ratios, I am just pointing out that temperature is key part of the whole precipitation cycle and is therefore reflected in the ratio of O-18 to O-16.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 28, 2007
  24. May 28, 2007 #23
    Well you may want to recheck my post #8, where it says:

    Notice that temperature during evaporation is not a main factor controlling the isotope signature of precipitation.

    I know, if you take a week or two and check my threads here, you'll fiond out that I refer to that every once and a while. perhaps it's an idea to start another thread on that.

    Normally mysteries emerge when several diverting research areas are cross checked again. Then the awfull mismatch means that at least one of them is totally off track. That's the case here. Ice core interpretation is for sure.

    There are two elements here that need to match, the theory and the evidence. We can proof that the main warming preceded the first ice core isotope spike with 2000 years. We can also proof that the spike at 14,500 years also codated with large scale glacier advances. it's also the time that the Kilimanjaro glacier emerged. Need some?
  25. May 29, 2007 #24
    Go on andre, I am totally swamped with my work these days to post questions but this looks like thread with coherent perspective on your views. i would like you to keep developing your argument as you do so far.... Once I have some time I will sit down and go through it all.
  26. May 29, 2007 #25
    Note it says the two main factors for a given location.

    These are factors in the analysis. But the temperature of the air when the precipitation fell is not what is being measured. And like I said, the amount of moisture in the air is a feedback of temperature. In the southern hemisphere the air and sea are in close contact so the humidity is relatively constant.
    In other words, the amount of moisture in the air is a measure of the temperature of the air.

    The ice core isotope signature is used as a proxy for the temperature of the southern ocean, not the temperature of the air when the snow fell. Therefore the temperature of the ocean is the key factor in determining the isotopic ratio of the water vapor when it formed.

    There was a lot going on with climate 14,000 years ago.

    Is your proof global or local?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook