Scientists scour past for future climate clues

Posted: November 30, 2019 by oldbrew in atmosphere, climate, Cycles, History, research
Tags: , ,

Ice core sample [image credit: Discovering Antarctica]


Of course they are pushing the usual doom and gloom messages based on dubious greenhouse gas theories, but a glimmer of light perhaps is that they accept the Earth has warmed and cooled in the past due to unknown factors. They in effect admit the obvious, namely that attribution of climate change to humans in some, or any, degree cannot be quantified at present. But the bluffing goes on.

As the pace of global warming outstrips our ability to adapt to it [Talkshop comment – allegedly], scientists are delving deep into the distant past, hoping that eons-old Antarctic ice, sediments and trees chart a path to navigate our climate future, says Phys.org.

“What interests us is to understand how the climate works,” says Didier Roche of France’s National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS).

At the Laboratory for Climate and Environment Sciences (LSCE), just outside Paris, the aim is to establish a comprehensive record of climate change dating back hundreds of thousands of years, to chart the repeated warming and cooling cycles the Earth has gone through and to try to understand what drives them.

Get that far and it becomes possible to determine what part humans play in the current global warming phase through the massive greenhouse gas emissions, principally CO2 and methane, that have come with industrialisation and population growth.

A key research tool are the cores of ice, some dating back 800,000 years, which contain tiny bubbles of trapped air and are drilled out at depths of up to 3.2 kilometres (two miles) by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA).

While the air bubbles reveal CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels, similar cores of sediment or tree ring records help build up the picture of Earth’s climate.

From the gas bubbles “we can reconstitute the composition of the atmosphere,” said Anais Orsi, researcher at France’s Atomic Energy Commission (CEA).

Particles of dust meanwhile “can tell us if there were lots of forest fires in Patagonia or if Australia was going through a very dry spell,” she said.

As for trees, with their very clear record of growth rings, “they can tell us about temperature, sunlight, humidity levels,” said Valerie Daux, professor at the University Versailles-Saint Quentin, just outside Paris.

Levels of the carbon 14 isotope, which allow for a close dating of material, provide another line of investigation to establish “at what speed an ecosystem can adapt to climate change,” said the CEA’s Christine Hatte.

Climate models essential

All the data is collected and processed to be put into climate models and then extrapolated into what appears set to be a much warmer future.

Full article here.

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    A lot of time will be spent poking around in ancient gas bubbles. However…

    The amount of human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is immeasurably small compared to the total atmospheric mass (total CO2 is only 0.06% of atmos. mass). So, the effect on pressure is practically zero. Hence, human CO2 emissions have NO effect on climate!

    2:01 pm – 28 Nov 2019
    Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.
    @NikolovScience

  2. Gamecock says:

    ‘hoping that eons-old Antarctic ice, sediments and trees chart a path to navigate our climate future’

    ‘Navigate?’ Rilly?

    Meaningless drivel. An apparent attempt to make the research relevant. It is basic research. Nothing more.

    CNRS, LSCE, EPICA, CEA, M-O-U-S-E.

    Is it funding time again?

  3. Stephen Richards says:

    The CNRS are global warming fanatics backed by the Academie Français de la science. Alegre and Courtillot faced them a few years ago with good, solid evidence against CO² CAGW but were ruled incorrect by the socialist acadmie.

    Gamecock. The french academies don’t need to worry about funding. We are socialist and have been since the end of the WWI. You want money? Just ask and the taxpayer will pay. We have the highest taxes in Europe, not just the EU and the near highest in the world.

  4. Stephen Richards says:

    (total CO2 is only 0.06% of atmos. mass).

    When did it get to 600ppm. I must have slept through that.

  5. JB says:

    “Useless” as incarcerated Spock declared to Kirk.

    All they need to do is closely examine the ice-core data over the last 100K years, and it will become clearly evident that there was a major change beginning 12K years ago. The Sumerians/Babylonians recorded what that change was. But science today is too compartmentalized, even within individual disciplines to pay attention.

  6. ivan says:

    The moment anything goes into the unvalidated climate models we know that only garbage will be the result. Why should this be any different? It will not increase any understanding of the climate unless they jettison the belief that CO2 has anything to do with warming.

  7. Curious George says:

    As for trees, with their very clear record of growth rings, “they can tell us about temperature, sunlight, humidity levels,” said Valerie Daux, professor.

    That’s the problem exactly. A tree growth depends on many factors, and we simply don’t know how to disentangle them. As thermometers, most trees are totally useless.

  8. Nelson says:

    CO2 represent approximately .04% of atmospheric molecules, but because it is heavier than other gas molecules it contributes more to molecular weight. This is why Need uses .06%. the molar form of the Ideal Gas Laws uses molecular weight as an input. The question I struggle with is the effect on pressure. To get the IPCC result of say 3 degrees for a doubling of CO2, a .06% increase in molecular weight has to have a huge increase in pressure.

  9. stpaulchuck says:

    “As the pace of global warming outstrips our ability to adapt to it…”

    what planet are they living on?? I’ve seen nothing to credit such a blatant lie.
    Fewer hurrucanes, fewer tornadoes, greener planet, etc. is somehow outstripping our ability to adapt? Seriously? What a load of rubbish from a rubbish junk science institute.

  10. Phoenix44 says:

    So climate has always changed and frequently warms and cools. We don’t really know how and we certainly don’t know why. Yet we we know with some extraordinary degree of certainty that any changes now are man-made.

    And they seriously don’t see the problem?

  11. oldbrew says:

    Stephen Richards says:
    November 30, 2019 at 2:33 pm (Edit)
    (total CO2 is only 0.06% of atmos. mass).

    When did it get to 600ppm. I must have slept through that.
    – – –
    Stephen – the mass, not the composition 🙂

    A CO2 molecule has more mass than a nitrogen or oxygen one.

  12. oldbrew says:

    Phoenix44 says:
    November 30, 2019 at 6:21 pm
    – – –
    They may see the problem, but think they can ‘solve’ it by looking at ancient ice cores 🤔

  13. Here again the lie about methane being an important greenhouse gas is mentioned – see https://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2011/10/ .
    Another view, according to Drs N & Z, is that surface temperature of rocky (solid) objects in the solar system is related to the atmospheric pressure at the surface and the distance from the sun. The partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere on earth is about 0.04 kPa and the for CH4 it is about 0.00017 kPa. Neither gas contribute to surface temperature. It is very likely that the sun, Jupiter and Saturn have solid cores but no one knows what the temperature is at the surface.
    Probes to explore Mercury, and some of the larger moons of Jupiter and Saturn could add to the N&Z theory. I understand probes are planned to explore Titan to provide better data of surface pressure, surface and atmospheric composition, and climate changes occurring there.

  14. oldbrew says:

    Of course N&Z are saying the whole mass of the atmosphere is the ‘important greenhouse gas’, due to its gravity-induced pressure.

  15. Gamecock says:

    “somehow outstripping our ability to adapt?”

    The most amusing to me is sea level rise. “Oh noes!” One to three millemeters per year isn’t going to drown anyone. We can adapt by just walking away. Crawling away. At 1-3mm a year, how many years does it take to even be able to tell that it has changed?

  16. Damian says:

    “Here again the lie about methane being an important greenhouse gas is mentioned”

    Isn’t this claimed due to methane breaking down, by photodissociation, into other GHGs?

  17. hunterson7 says:

    As has already been pointed out, but it is worth repeating:
    To claim that the climate is changing faster than we can cope is to make a false claim.

  18. Damian, please read my post with link above. Methane does not breakdown. A minute portion can react with ozone to form methanol which is highly soluble in water so that it can not be measured in lower parts of the atmosphere. Methane is also taken in by some plants and bacteria. From leakage through greater usage of natural gas there has been a small increase in the methane atmospheric content but the increase is so small to be insignificant.
    Old Brew I would have thought that you recall the relation P1V1=P2V2 so partial pressures are volume related. You maybe thinking of the 5th postulate of (chemical engineering) thermodynamics which states “The macroscopic properties of homogeneous PVT systems in internal equilibrium can be expressed as functions of temperature, pressure and composition only.” This relates to the ideal gas law PV=nRT. Small changes in trace gases (CO2 & CH4) do not affect the overall composition of the atmosphere.

  19. oldbrew says:

    Small changes in trace gases (CO2 & CH4) do not affect the overall composition of the atmosphere.

    Agreed. I don’t think I suggested otherwise?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s