On Sep 1, 6:14Â*pm, gordo wrote:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 23:27:14 +0200, Peter Muehlbauer



wrote:
gordo wrote:

On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:03:59 +0100, "Giga2" "Giga2"
just(removetheseandaddmatthe wrote:

"gordo" wrote in message
.. .
:

a) You have modern measurement since 1958 by MLO.
b) Chemical measurements before that time were ignored and played down.
c) You have proxy data from ice cores, that were proven to be totally
wrong.
Really? Deniers have been talking about CO2 lag using ice cores that
had to be refuted over and over again.

What are you talking about, that temps lead to co2 not the other way around?
That is well accepted for the past by climate scientists!?

Oh then the ice cores are not flawed. You should talk to Peter he says
they fudged the ice cores data.
He never bit but you did.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/IceCoreSprg97.pdf

See Fig. 1 and Fig. 3

Then read chapter on page 4
(I marked the relevant part for you)

Fudging the CO2 Data

Until 1985, the published CO2 readings from air bubbles in
pre-industrial ice ranged from 160 to about 700 ppmv, and occasionally
even up to 2,450 ppmv. After 1985, high readings
disappeared from the publications! To fit such a wide range of
results to the anthropogenic climatic warming theory, which
was based on low pre-industrial CO2 levels, three methods
were used: (1) rejection of high readings from sets of preindustrial
samples, based on the credo: “The lowest CO2 values
best represent the CO2 concentrations in the originally
trapped ice�;23 (2) rejection of low readings from sets of 20th
century samples; and (3) interpretation of the high readings
from pre-industrial samples as representing the contemporary
atmosphere rather than the pre-industrial one.

Publications on greenhouse gases in ice often exhibit similar
symptoms to those of G.S. Callendar, cited above.

##### But the mostimportant deficiency of these studies is the ice matrix
itself, which does not fulfill the absolutely essential closed-system
criterion. This is because liquid water is present in ice even at
very low temperatures, and because many chemical and physical
processes occur, in situ, in ice sheets and in recovered ice
cores. These factors, discussed in References 8, 12, 22, and
24-28, change the original composition of air entrapped in ice,
making the ice core results unrepresentative of the original
chemical composition of the ancient atmosphere. #####

(Rem: This is why Giga is right too. Seeping water falsifies gas age and ice
age. That is why ice cores show a time difference. AGWs were too stupid to
realize and correct this.)

So you are both right? The ice core data on CO2 is flawed but not that
much so that Giga is right but flawed enough for a scientific paper
with the heading global warming fraud exposed.

Here are some typical examples of how the estimates of preindustrial
atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases were determined.
These results were then taken as a basis for estimation
of the man-made climatic warming.11

• Neftel, et al. reported in 1982 rather high median CO2
concentrations in the preindustrial ice core from Byrd, Antarctica,
of about 330 and 415 ppmv, with maximum value reaching
500 ppmv.23 However, in 1988, in the second publication
on the same core, Neftel et al. did not show these high readings;
the highest concentration reported was 290 ppmv, in
agreement with the global warming theory29 (Figure 3).

So? Does this mean corrections?



• Pearman, et al. “on examination of the data,� rejected 43
percent of the CO2 readings from Law Dome, Antarctica core,
39 percent of the CH4 readings, and 43 percent of the N2O
readings, because they were higher or lower than the assumed
“correct� values.30 Thus, they concluded a value of 281 ppmv
CO2 for the pre-industrial atmosphere, and increases from the
year 1600 of 90 percent and 8 percent of CH4 and N2O, respectively.

• Leuenberger and Siegenthaler claimed that their data
from a Greenland ice core demonstrate that the present level
of N2O in the atmosphere, 310 ppbv, is an effect of a recent
19 percent increase caused by industrial activity.31 To reach
this conclusion, they rejected 27 percent of the samples with
N2O readings deemed to be “too high� for pre-industrial ice.
After this “correction,� the average pre-industrial atmospheric
concentration of N2O was declared to be 260 ppmv, although
their value for ice from the year 1822 was 296.1
ppmv. Their results from a shallow Dye 3, Greenland core
show a random N2O distribution. Nevertheless, the authors
formed an increasing temporal trend by rejecting the “incorrect�
high readings.

So it reads they authors rejected the incorrect readings.

• Etheridge, et al. claimed that their ice core results show a
pre-industrial N2O concentration of 285 ppbv.32 This value
was calculated after rejection of 44 percent of their measurements!
From the remaining analyses, the high readings from
16th and 17th century ice (328.3 and 329.8 ppbv), which
were higher than in the 20th century samples (285.7 and
322.9 ppmv), were again eliminated without explanation.

I have to take your word for it that it was without explanation and I
sure as hell am not going digging back to Etheridge et al.Who Â*was the
source for the above paragraph?



• Zardini, et al. rejected a low N2O reading of 240 ppbv in
the youngest part of an Antarctic core from the year 1919.33
From the several-thousand-year-old part of the core, they did
not reject an even lower value of 217 ppbv, but they eliminated
the high values of 310, 354, 359, and 362 ppbv. After
these “improvements,� Zardini, et al. concluded that the preindustrial
N2O level in the atmosphere was 270 ppbv, and that
in the present atmosphere N2O increased “due to fossil fuel
burning.�

So all you have is a), from which you deduct your whole story of warming
by
CO2.
60 years that describes the whole world scenario inclusive the history?

We do have recorded temperatures as you know. Sorry that you dismiss
ice cores but that's your problem.

For El Nino:

We should have to see an El Nino right now on the ascending slope of this
solar cycle. That is calculatable.

http://www.umweltluege.de/images/SOI-BFSc.png

That is a projection to 2009 and it says nothing about Â*a double dip
EL Nina

But all we had is a La Nina, followed by another La Nina until first half
of
2012.
This is a good evidence for an ongoing phase change of the Gleissberg
cycle,
like we had in 1969. This also means that El Nino probability will
strongly
decline, while La Nina probability will strongly increase.
You don't know this but it could slow the rate of warming which
everyone would welcome.

This will continue during the whole century until the next Gleissberg
cycle
phase change not before 2100.

The 11 year cycle seems to be broken at the moment. I first heard of
the 11 year cycle about 35 years ago as it was Hudson's Bay fur
records of Lynx and snowshoe hares. 300 years of fur records. It
showed snowshoe hare numbers increase and lynx following and hares
crashing then lynx crashing in an 11 year cycle.

It is also in context with predictions of a new LIA... and it is
calculatable
by Sun's orbital perturbation.
No models needed.

Among the flaws in your ideas is that you have not factored in the
increase in CO2 and the lack of sunspot activity at the moment.
Maybe its time to quit being an amateur scientist and listen to the
scientists who know what they are talking about. There are a few who
take you to task in this newsgroup.

You have been had with your source

Zbigniew Jaworowski is chairman of the Scientific Council of the
Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland -- an
organization which refuses to disclose its funding source -- and has
served on the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of
Atomic Radiation. He is a global warming skeptic and has connections
to Exxon Mobil and Texaco through the Biological Effects of Low Level
Exposures group -- a front group for corporate interests -- of which
he is listed as an "international member." He also has ties to Exxon
through the Heartland Institute. Dr. Jaworowski was a speaker at the
2008 International Conference on Climate Change, sponsored by the
Heartland Institute.
I wonder if he knows Dr. Singer

ø Gordo It is time you took your brains out of the freezer

— —
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.

1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.

2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling
to that belief even if it means their death.

3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince

anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists,

terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and

predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.Ë™