Originally posted April 21, 2012 in one of my other blogs!
I am no great degreed academic scholar but simply an Average Joe that like; Franklin, Galileo, Vespuci, and others, is a student of the sciences.
By simply taking the facts as gathered by others and studying those facts I have found striking and glaring problems with the theories that others have derived from the same data. I will attempt in as little space as possible to succinctly and as clearly as possible state what it is that truly is in the data that is commonly available.
All of the data currently being used to studying global warming is the results of the ice coring project that produced what is referred as the Vostok Ice Core Data. The NOAA gives “In January 1998, the collaborative ice-drilling project between Russia, the United States, and France at the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica yielded the deepest ice core ever recovered, reaching a depth of 3,623 m [~11,886 feet] (Petit et al. 1997, 1999). Preliminary data indicate the Vostok ice-core record extends through four climate cycles, with ice slightly older than 400 kyr (Petit et al. 1997, 1999)” as a description of what constitutes the Vostok Ice Core.
The first question that should be asked is why is the ice core data only coming from Antarctica? Why isn’t there data from other locations? The answer of course is simply that ice has not been present in any other location for a period that extends this far into the past indicating that at some points in the past the only place on Earth where an ice cap was to be found was in Antarctica.
The Summary for Policymakers report of the IPCC is a publishing of a theoretical concept and is not absolute scientific proof that manmade greenhouse gases has significant impact on global warming.
The IPCC itself continues throughout the report to describe its conclusions in the terms of “very likely”, “very high confidence”, “high confidence”, “likely”, and “more likely than not” which is a prime indicator that the results being used to create the illusion that greenhouse gases is the cause of global warming is mere speculation.
The report itself identifies on page 9 that approximately 125,000 years ago was “The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period” (ed. please note the statement that it was significantly warmer than present) and that the “reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 m of sea level rise” (ed. that’s approx. 13-20 feet higer).
Other reports and sources based on physical evidence available state that approximately 120,000 years ago that sea level was 6 meters higher than they are today indicating that the volume of water in the ocean would have to have been supplemented by almost all of the northern polar ice cap and the Greenland ice sheet.
The report detailing their opinions on the last interglacial period (about 125,000 years ago) states that the average polar temperatures were at that time 3°C to 5°C higher (ed. 1.8°F to 9°F) than they are at present and those increases were the result not of greenhouse caused warming but simply naturally caused.
The attempt to make a distinction between causes of cyclical temperature previously and current temperature increase has no scientific foundation on which to rest.
The Summary for Policymakers continued the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC which projected continuing decadal temperature increases, with a projection of 0.15°C to 0.3°C for the period 1990 to 2005 in the prior report and 0.2°C (ed. 0.36°F) in future decades extending beyond this report, when the actual mean global temperature over the last decade has not increased but decreased.
This gives rise to questioning whether the assumptions that underlie the theory are valid.
The Summary also states as a summation that “The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when palaeoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise”. Again we have here an acknowledgement by the IPCC that even with greenhouse gases the “the future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago”.
The ice core data brings to the forefront the larger picture that approximately every 125,000 years there is an interglacial warming of the planet caused not by external factors by as a course of normal cycles through which the planet passes.
When the presence of such a cycle is accepted, an analysis of the data from a period of approximately 300 years (1750 to present) would mean that the data would represent a segment of only 2/1000th of the total cycle.
This is far too an insufficient period to be able to base the conclusion that greenhouse caused gases have played a significant role in effecting the overall warming cycle.
Apparent in the ice core data is the realization that, if anything, anthropogenic effects have postponed the warming cycle as the expected global warming has been delayed and the temperatures for this cycle are not reaching the anticipated levels as quickly.
From the data we are far past due for an increase in global temperatures whose effect would have caused a significant increase in sea levels well above those of today as evidenced by the geological data that shows the sea level a mere 125,000 years ago was 20 feet higher than today.
Again in 2005 when the additional ice cores were taken to increase the period covered to 800,000 years the fact remains that at 125,000, 250,000, and 375,000 years ago the carbon dioxide levels were equal to or greater than they are today which helps to explain why 125,000 years ago hardwood forests were growing above the Arctic Circle.