Climate Change

[hcap]

Originally Posted by chadk66

Really in a nutshell the whole global warming scam is based on the belief of the ice core samples. And nobody in their right mind believes anybody can nail down avg. temps to within two degrees in a damn ice core sample. And those samples come from one area of the earth. And in the next breath they try to tell us that it's an avg temp from throughout the whole world. Then the icing on the cake is none of them have a damn clue what the ideal temp of the earth should be. Not a single anti global warming persons has changed their mind I would think.

Gee I have to use two big words. Scientific American.


Careful more big words to follow.......

How are past temperatures determined from an ice core?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-temperatures/

Temperature, in contrast, is not measured directly, but is instead inferred from the isotopic composition of the water molecules released by melting the ice cores.

Water is made up of molecules comprising two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen (H2O). But it's not that simple, because there are several isotopes (chemically identical atoms with the same number of protons, but differing numbers of neutrons, and therefore mass) of oxygen, and several isotopes of hydrogen. The isotopes of particular interest for climate studies are 16O (with 8 protons and 8 neutrons that makes up 99.76 percent of the oxygen in water) and 18O (8 protons and 10 neutrons), together with 1H (with one proton and no neutrons, which is 99.985 percent of the hydrogen in water) and 2H (also known as deuterium (D), which has one proton and one neutron). All of these isotopes are termed 'stable' because they do not undergo radioactive decay.

Using sensitive mass spectrometers, researchers are able to measure the ratio of the isotopes of both oxygen and hydrogen in samples taken from ice cores, and compare the result with the isotopic ratio of an average ocean water standard known as SMOW (Standard Mean Ocean Water). The water molecules in ice cores are always depleted in the heavier isotopes (that is, the isotopes with the larger number of neutrons) and the difference compared to the standard is expressed as either

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by hcap

Gee I have to use two big words. Scientific American.


Careful more big words to follow.......

How are past temperatures determined from an ice core?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-temperatures/

Temperature, in contrast, is not measured directly, but is instead inferred from the isotopic composition of the water molecules released by melting the ice cores.

Water is made up of molecules comprising two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen (H2O). But it's not that simple, because there are several isotopes (chemically identical atoms with the same number of protons, but differing numbers of neutrons, and therefore mass) of oxygen, and several isotopes of hydrogen. The isotopes of particular interest for climate studies are 16O (with 8 protons and 8 neutrons that makes up 99.76 percent of the oxygen in water) and 18O (8 protons and 10 neutrons), together with 1H (with one proton and no neutrons, which is 99.985 percent of the hydrogen in water) and 2H (also known as deuterium (D), which has one proton and one neutron). All of these isotopes are termed 'stable' because they do not undergo radioactive decay.

Using sensitive mass spectrometers, researchers are able to measure the ratio of the isotopes of both oxygen and hydrogen in samples taken from ice cores, and compare the result with the isotopic ratio of an average ocean water standard known as SMOW (Standard Mean Ocean Water). The water molecules in ice cores are always depleted in the heavier isotopes (that is, the isotopes with the larger number of neutrons) and the difference compared to the standard is expressed as either

Nobody in their right mind believes you can estimate avg temps to that degree. nobody. And this is exactly why you can't get any more support for this theory. You can doctor it up with all the scientific hoopla you want but it's not now nor will ever pass the sniff test. Sorry.

[davew]

Originally Posted by hcap

Gee I have to use two big words. Scientific American.


Careful more big words to follow.......

How are past temperatures determined from an ice core?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-temperatures/

Temperature, in contrast, is not measured directly, but is instead inferred from the isotopic composition of the water molecules released by melting the ice cores.

Water is made up of molecules comprising two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen (H2O). But it's not that simple, because there are several isotopes (chemically identical atoms with the same number of protons, but differing numbers of neutrons, and therefore mass) of oxygen, and several isotopes of hydrogen. The isotopes of particular interest for climate studies are 16O (with 8 protons and 8 neutrons that makes up 99.76 percent of the oxygen in water) and 18O (8 protons and 10 neutrons), together with 1H (with one proton and no neutrons, which is 99.985 percent of the hydrogen in water) and 2H (also known as deuterium (D), which has one proton and one neutron). All of these isotopes are termed 'stable' because they do not undergo radioactive decay.

Using sensitive mass spectrometers, researchers are able to measure the ratio of the isotopes of both oxygen and hydrogen in samples taken from ice cores, and compare the result with the isotopic ratio of an average ocean water standard known as SMOW (Standard Mean Ocean Water). The water molecules in ice cores are always depleted in the heavier isotopes (that is, the isotopes with the larger number of neutrons) and the difference compared to the standard is expressed as either

What chad is saying is why don't they also take ice core samples from North Pole, North Dakota. and tallest mountains of the world?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by chadk66

Nobody in their right mind believes you can estimate avg temps to that degree. nobody. And this is exactly why you can't get any more support for this theory. You can doctor it up with all the scientific hoopla you want but it's not now nor will ever pass the sniff test. Sorry.

There are masny ways of measuring atmosperic gasses and temperatures recorded in the layers of ice cores. Sorry you don't get the science.
SORRY



http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gla...e-core-basics/

An example of using stable isotopes to reconstruct past air temperatures is a shallow ice core drilled in East Antarctica[10]. The presence of a “Little Ice Age”, a cooler period ending ~100 to 150 years ago, is contested in Antarctica. Disparate records often provide conflicting evidence. This ice core attempted to investigate the evidence for cooler temperatures during this period.


The figure above shows changes in ice temperature during the last several glacial-interglacial cycles and comparison to changes in global ice volume. The local temperature changes are from two sites in Antarctica and are derived from deuterium isotopic measurements. The bottom plot shows global ice volume derived from δ18O measurements on marine microfossils (benthic foraminifera) from a composite of globally distributed marine sediment cores. From Wikimedia Commons.

[hcap]

Big word alert.....

Proxy (climate)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate)

In the study of past climates ("paleoclimatology"), climate proxies are preserved physical characteristics of the past that stand in for direct meteorological measurements and enable scientists to reconstruct the climatic conditions over a longer fraction of the Earth's history.

Reliable global records of climate only began in the 1880s, and proxies provide the only means for scientists to determine climatic patterns before record-keeping began.

Yes there are some conflicts and some inaccuracies, but climate science tries to be as accurate as possible by using a multi prong approach using climate proxies to reconstruct historical climate records.

Examples of proxies include ice cores, tree rings, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments, and carbonate speleothems. The character of deposition or rate of growth of the proxies' material has been influenced by the climatic conditions of the time in which they were laid down or grew. Chemical traces produced by climatic changes, such as quantities of particular isotopes, can be recovered from proxies. Some proxies, such as gas bubbles trapped in ice, enable traces of the ancient atmosphere to be recovered and measured directly to provide a history of fluctuations in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. To produce the most precise results, systematic cross-verification between proxy indicators is necessary for accuracy in readings and record-keeping.

[Tom]

In the study of past climates ("snakeoilology")

FTFY

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Tom

FTFY

You are making me reconsider that part of evolution that suggests man evolved from monkeys as a settled science.

Makes sense, and would also cast doubt on some micro-sized walnut brains ever growing up.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Tom

FTFY

Sorry I used too many big words for you.

[Tom]

Oooooo.
Double reply.

[chadk66]

HCAP just doesn't seem to get most people just don't buy the BS. They can try and blow smoke up our ass using big words and all that jazz but it'll never change the fact most don't buy it. You know the lip stick on the pig deal

[hcap]

Originally Posted by chadk66

HCAP just doesn't seem to get most people just don't buy the BS. They can try and blow smoke up our ass using big words and all that jazz but it'll never change the fact most don't buy it. You know the lip stick on the pig deal

I understand you do not even want to try and learn anything. Too many big words?

As usual no alt righters wants to seriously discuss science, just more conspiracy theories.

You gents are beyond help. Babble among yourselves.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by hcap

Sorry I used too many big words for you.

You are a pathetic condescending jerk, you must have a pretty sad existence. You don't "use" any big words, you cut and paste them.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

You are a pathetic condescending jerk, you must have a pretty sad existence. You don't "use" any big words, you cut and paste them.

true story. Only one he impresses is himself

[Tom]

Originally Posted by hcap

I understand you do not even want to try and learn anything. Too many big words?

I prefer small words.
In fact, I am thinking of two small ones right now.
One syllable each.
Care to guess what they are?

Hint - not "Hey now."

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by Tom

I prefer small words.
In fact, I am thinking of two small ones right now.
One syllable each.
Care to guess what they are?

Hint - not "Hey now."

Does the first one start with F and have 4 letters and the other start with O and is 3 letters?