Increased CO2 as the cause for civilisation

It has been known for decades from archeology that the incredibly important technological transition from small bands of hunter-gatherers to sedentary agriculture (wherever possible) took place about 10,000 years ago. This transition eventually enabled specialization of labor, towns, cities, and all of modern civilization. This technological transition happened all over the world, in many ecosystems, with people geographically isolated, so independently developed. It was spontaneous, similar, roughly simultaneous, and 'finished' by about 9000 years ago. There are many archeological hypotheses as to how, why, and most importantly for this post, when. None satisfactorily explain the rough global similarity and simultaneity. We know from ice cores that the atmospheric CO2 level was ~180-190ppm at the last glacial maximum (LGM). We know that it was ~280ppm preindustrial, and that that level had persisted for millennia in the present Holocene interglacial. The natural ocean mediated rise in CO2 from near plant starvation levels to pre-industrial levels fully explains the similar and roughly simultaneous emergence of sedentary agriculture globally, as a simple function of plant primary productivity, foodshed dimensions and natural human behaviors.

Tim the plumber wrote:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/04/07/a-beneficial-climate-change-hypothesis/

It has been known for decades from archeology that the incredibly important technological transition from small bands of hunter-gatherers to sedentary agriculture (wherever possible) took place about 10,000 years ago. This transition eventually enabled specialization of labor, towns, cities, and all of modern civilization. This technological transition happened all over the world, in many ecosystems, with people geographically isolated, so independently developed. It was spontaneous, similar, roughly simultaneous, and 'finished' by about 9000 years ago. There are many archeological hypotheses as to how, why, and most importantly for this post, when. None satisfactorily explain the rough global similarity and simultaneity. We know from ice cores that the atmospheric CO2 level was ~180-190ppm at the last glacial maximum (LGM). We know that it was ~280ppm preindustrial, and that that level had persisted for millennia in the present Holocene interglacial. The natural ocean mediated rise in CO2 from near plant starvation levels to pre-industrial levels fully explains the similar and roughly simultaneous emergence of sedentary agriculture globally, as a simple function of plant primary productivity, foodshed dimensions and natural human behaviors.

The idea that increased CO2 has allowed greater plant productivity thus allowing the development of early argiculture.

The question of why not during the previous interglacials needs talking about but is this related to the emergance of increased human intelligence/language/culture/religion?

Tim the plumber wrote:
Ummm,

Why does the satability of the coast line make it possible...

Loads of cities and towns are on navigble rivers and civilisations such as the Inca had hardly anything to do with the sea at all. Even the great civizations of the ancient world, Egypt, Summaria etc were river based and such would the loss of the port again be that difficult?

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/04/07/a-beneficial-climate-change-hypothesis/

It has been known for decades from archeology that the incredibly important technological transition from small bands of hunter-gatherers to sedentary agriculture (wherever possible) took place about 10,000 years ago. This transition eventually enabled specialization of labor, towns, cities, and all of modern civilization. This technological transition happened all over the world, in many ecosystems, with people geographically isolated, so independently developed. It was spontaneous, similar, roughly simultaneous, and 'finished' by about 9000 years ago. There are many archeological hypotheses as to how, why, and most importantly for this post, when. None satisfactorily explain the rough global similarity and simultaneity. We know from ice cores that the atmospheric CO2 level was ~180-190ppm at the last glacial maximum (LGM). We know that it was ~280ppm preindustrial, and that that level had persisted for millennia in the present Holocene interglacial. The natural ocean mediated rise in CO2 from near plant starvation levels to pre-industrial levels fully explains the similar and roughly simultaneous emergence of sedentary agriculture globally, as a simple function of plant primary productivity, foodshed dimensions and natural human behaviors.

The idea that increased CO2 has allowed greater plant productivity thus allowing the development of early argiculture.

The question of why not during the previous interglacials needs talking about but is this related to the emergance of increased human intelligence/language/culture/religion?

I doubt that the interglacial had much to do with intelligence - evolution works on a rather slower timescale - but I agree that it is very unlikely that modern civilisation would have developed if the current interglacial had not occurred.

One distinguishing feature of the current interglacial has been its high stability. Compared with earlier interglacials, the global temperature, and hence sea level, has remained almost constant for the past 10,000 years or so (until just recently). This has allowed coastal communities to develop and thrive, which some also consider to have also been critical to the development of modern civilisation.

Tim the plumber wrote:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/04/07/a-beneficial-climate-change-hypothesis/

It has been known for decades from archeology that the incredibly important technological transition from small bands of hunter-gatherers to sedentary agriculture (wherever possible) took place about 10,000 years ago. This transition eventually enabled specialization of labor, towns, cities, and all of modern civilization. This technological transition happened all over the world, in many ecosystems, with people geographically isolated, so independently developed. It was spontaneous, similar, roughly simultaneous, and 'finished' by about 9000 years ago. There are many archeological hypotheses as to how, why, and most importantly for this post, when. None satisfactorily explain the rough global similarity and simultaneity. We know from ice cores that the atmospheric CO2 level was ~180-190ppm at the last glacial maximum (LGM). We know that it was ~280ppm preindustrial, and that that level had persisted for millennia in the present Holocene interglacial. The natural ocean mediated rise in CO2 from near plant starvation levels to pre-industrial levels fully explains the similar and roughly simultaneous emergence of sedentary agriculture globally, as a simple function of plant primary productivity, foodshed dimensions and natural human behaviors.

The idea that increased CO2 has allowed greater plant productivity thus allowing the development of early agriculture.

The question of why not during the previous interglacials needs talking about but is this related to the emergence of increased human intelligence/language/culture/religion?

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/04/07/a-beneficial-climate-change-hypothesis/

It has been known for decades from archeology that the incredibly important technological transition from small bands of hunter-gatherers to sedentary agriculture (wherever possible) took place about 10,000 years ago. This transition eventually enabled specialization of labor, towns, cities, and all of modern civilization. This technological transition happened all over the world, in many ecosystems, with people geographically isolated, so independently developed. It was spontaneous, similar, roughly simultaneous, and 'finished' by about 9000 years ago. There are many archeological hypotheses as to how, why, and most importantly for this post, when. None satisfactorily explain the rough global similarity and simultaneity. We know from ice cores that the atmospheric CO2 level was ~180-190ppm at the last glacial maximum (LGM). We know that it was ~280ppm preindustrial, and that that level had persisted for millennia in the present Holocene interglacial. The natural ocean mediated rise in CO2 from near plant starvation levels to pre-industrial levels fully explains the similar and roughly simultaneous emergence of sedentary agriculture globally, as a simple function of plant primary productivity, foodshed dimensions and natural human behaviors.

The idea that increased CO2 has allowed greater plant productivity thus allowing the development of early agriculture.

The question of why not during the previous interglacials needs talking about but is this related to the emergence of increased human intelligence/language/culture/religion?

These levels of atmospheric CO2 have to be looked upon with a very large amount of skepticism. At levels of 200 ppm and below photosynthesis ceases. Most of the sources for these reported extremely low levels are from geological data which have extremely large error margins.

Those levels that come from the ice cores in Antarctica are in a completely isolated environment. Moreover it is unlikely that they are very accurate either.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/04/07/a-beneficial-climate-change-hypothesis/

It has been known for decades from archeology that the incredibly important technological transition from small bands of hunter-gatherers to sedentary agriculture (wherever possible) took place about 10,000 years ago. This transition eventually enabled specialization of labor, towns, cities, and all of modern civilization. This technological transition happened all over the world, in many ecosystems, with people geographically isolated, so independently developed. It was spontaneous, similar, roughly simultaneous, and 'finished' by about 9000 years ago. There are many archeological hypotheses as to how, why, and most importantly for this post, when. None satisfactorily explain the rough global similarity and simultaneity. We know from ice cores that the atmospheric CO2 level was ~180-190ppm at the last glacial maximum (LGM). We know that it was ~280ppm preindustrial, and that that level had persisted for millennia in the present Holocene interglacial. The natural ocean mediated rise in CO2 from near plant starvation levels to pre-industrial levels fully explains the similar and roughly simultaneous emergence of sedentary agriculture globally, as a simple function of plant primary productivity, foodshed dimensions and natural human behaviors.

The idea that increased CO2 has allowed greater plant productivity thus allowing the development of early agriculture.

The question of why not during the previous interglacials needs talking about but is this related to the emergence of increased human intelligence/language/culture/religion?

These levels of atmospheric CO2 have to be looked upon with a very large amount of skepticism. At levels of 200 ppm and below photosynthesis ceases. Most of the sources for these reported extremely low levels are from geological data which have extremely large error margins.

Those levels that come from the ice cores in Antarctica are in a completely isolated environment. Moreover it is unlikely that they are very accurate either.

I don't see why the air trapped in ice that was formed millions of years ago will be different in composition now than it was when it was first trapped.

I also don't see that the Southern ocean water/air circulation zone is all that different in composition to the rest of the world. It has the same sort of level of CO2 now and that has been produced in the Northern hemisphere by us.

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/04/07/a-beneficial-climate-change-hypothesis/

It has been known for decades from archeology that the incredibly important technological transition from small bands of hunter-gatherers to sedentary agriculture (wherever possible) took place about 10,000 years ago. This transition eventually enabled specialization of labor, towns, cities, and all of modern civilization. This technological transition happened all over the world, in many ecosystems, with people geographically isolated, so independently developed. It was spontaneous, similar, roughly simultaneous, and 'finished' by about 9000 years ago. There are many archeological hypotheses as to how, why, and most importantly for this post, when. None satisfactorily explain the rough global similarity and simultaneity. We know from ice cores that the atmospheric CO2 level was ~180-190ppm at the last glacial maximum (LGM). We know that it was ~280ppm preindustrial, and that that level had persisted for millennia in the present Holocene interglacial. The natural ocean mediated rise in CO2 from near plant starvation levels to pre-industrial levels fully explains the similar and roughly simultaneous emergence of sedentary agriculture globally, as a simple function of plant primary productivity, foodshed dimensions and natural human behaviors.

The idea that increased CO2 has allowed greater plant productivity thus allowing the development of early agriculture.

The question of why not during the previous interglacials needs talking about but is this related to the emergence of increased human intelligence/language/culture/religion?

These levels of atmospheric CO2 have to be looked upon with a very large amount of skepticism. At levels of 200 ppm and below photosynthesis ceases. Most of the sources for these reported extremely low levels are from geological data which have extremely large error margins.

Those levels that come from the ice cores in Antarctica are in a completely isolated environment. Moreover it is unlikely that they are very accurate either.

I don't see why the air trapped in ice that was formed millions of years ago will be different in composition now than it was when it was first trapped.

I also don't see that the Southern ocean water/air circulation zone is all that different in composition to the rest of the world. It has the same sort of level of CO2 now and that has been produced in the Northern hemisphere by us.

For one thing - because it was never trapped. Air can move through ice. Especially when it is being compressed under vast weights of ice sheets.

And you have to remember that as cold water the amount and types of gases dissolved into the freshwater frost is very low.

So the ice cores have more error bars than accuracy.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can air get drawn into ice at very high pressure and depth?

The air was never in water. It was in snow that got compressed into ice. Given that air fizzes out of ice burgs it is definitely clear that the air in them is under pressure. This means that air cannot be going from the atmosphere into the ice. It must already be there from when the ice formed.

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can air get drawn into ice at very high pressure and depth?

The air was never in water. It was in snow that got compressed into ice. Given that air fizzes out of ice burgs it is definitely clear that the air in them is under pressure. This means that air cannot be going from the atmosphere into the ice. It must already be there from when the ice formed.

I don't know what you're referring to. The gases that are being analyzed in the ice isn't bubbles. It is gases that are dissolved in the freshwater that form the frost which is eventually compressed into the Antarctic ice sheet. Being dissolved in the water that means that it move about in the ice freely.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can air get drawn into ice at very high pressure and depth?

The air was never in water. It was in snow that got compressed into ice. Given that air fizzes out of ice burgs it is definitely clear that the air in them is under pressure. This means that air cannot be going from the atmosphere into the ice. It must already be there from when the ice formed.

I don't know what you're referring to. The gases that are being analyzed in the ice isn't bubbles. It is gases that are dissolved in the freshwater that form the frost which is eventually compressed into the Antarctic ice sheet. Being dissolved in the water that means that it move about in the ice freely.

According to the British Antarctic Survey, the gases in ice cores are indeed in the form of bubbles:

"Crucially, the ice encloses small bubbles of air that contain a sample of the atmosphere – from these it is possible to measure directly the past concentration of gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) in the atmosphere."

Ice cores and climate change

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can air get drawn into ice at very high pressure and depth?

The air was never in water. It was in snow that got compressed into ice. Given that air fizzes out of ice burgs it is definitely clear that the air in them is under pressure. This means that air cannot be going from the atmosphere into the ice. It must already be there from when the ice formed.

I don't know what you're referring to. The gases that are being analyzed in the ice isn't bubbles. It is gases that are dissolved in the freshwater that form the frost which is eventually compressed into the Antarctic ice sheet. Being dissolved in the water that means that it move about in the ice freely.

According to the British Antarctic Survey, the gases in ice cores are indeed in the form of bubbles:

"Crucially, the ice encloses small bubbles of air that contain a sample of the atmosphere – from these it is possible to measure directly the past concentration of gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) in the atmosphere."

Ice cores and climate change

Since the various gases pass through ice in different manners, such a means of identifying atmospheric gases in geological periods would be greatly inaccurate. While salt water is less permeable fresh water as the glaciers and ice sheets of Antarctica are not.

Furthermore, there is a condition called "katabatics" which is caused by extreme conduction/convection on the Antarctic area that isolates conditions there meaning that the weather there and the atmosphere there is essentially isolated from the rest of the planet.

We continue to go through these sorts of things - you are fixated on arguing with anyone that you consider a "denier" - even the new person who entrant who is trying to use cloud cover as a source of the inequality between the models and reality.

Don't pretend to know things you do not. Idiotic things like trying to use the interior of the Sun as a source of emissions is just one of them. The exterior of the Sun is considerably cooler and the emissions of the Sun are from the outer surface and not the interior.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can air get drawn into ice at very high pressure and depth?

The air was never in water. It was in snow that got compressed into ice. Given that air fizzes out of ice burgs it is definitely clear that the air in them is under pressure. This means that air cannot be going from the atmosphere into the ice. It must already be there from when the ice formed.

I don't know what you're referring to. The gases that are being analyzed in the ice isn't bubbles. It is gases that are dissolved in the freshwater that form the frost which is eventually compressed into the Antarctic ice sheet. Being dissolved in the water that means that it move about in the ice freely.

According to the British Antarctic Survey, the gases in ice cores are indeed in the form of bubbles:

"Crucially, the ice encloses small bubbles of air that contain a sample of the atmosphere – from these it is possible to measure directly the past concentration of gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) in the atmosphere."

Ice cores and climate change

Since the various gases pass through ice in different manners, such a means of identifying atmospheric gases in geological periods would be greatly inaccurate. While salt water is less permeable fresh water as the glaciers and ice sheets of Antarctica are not.

Furthermore, there is a condition called "katabatics" which is caused by extreme conduction/convection on the Antarctic area that isolates conditions there meaning that the weather there and the atmosphere there is essentially isolated from the rest of the planet.

We continue to go through these sorts of things - you are fixated on arguing with anyone that you consider a "denier" - even the new person who entrant who is trying to use cloud cover as a source of the inequality between the models and reality.

Don't pretend to know things you do not. Idiotic things like trying to use the interior of the Sun as a source of emissions is just one of them. The exterior of the Sun is considerably cooler and the emissions of the Sun are from the outer surface and not the interior.

I think most people reading this will consider the British Antarctic Survey to be a more reliable source of information on the properties of ice than some random idiot on the internet who constantly and blatantly lies about everything.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can air get drawn into ice at very high pressure and depth?

The air was never in water. It was in snow that got compressed into ice. Given that air fizzes out of ice burgs it is definitely clear that the air in them is under pressure. This means that air cannot be going from the atmosphere into the ice. It must already be there from when the ice formed.

I don't know what you're referring to. The gases that are being analyzed in the ice isn't bubbles. It is gases that are dissolved in the freshwater that form the frost which is eventually compressed into the Antarctic ice sheet. Being dissolved in the water that means that it move about in the ice freely.

According to the British Antarctic Survey, the gases in ice cores are indeed in the form of bubbles:

"Crucially, the ice encloses small bubbles of air that contain a sample of the atmosphere – from these it is possible to measure directly the past concentration of gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) in the atmosphere."

Ice cores and climate change

Since the various gases pass through ice in different manners, such a means of identifying atmospheric gases in geological periods would be greatly inaccurate. While salt water is less permeable fresh water as the glaciers and ice sheets of Antarctica are not.

Furthermore, there is a condition called "katabatics" which is caused by extreme conduction/convection on the Antarctic area that isolates conditions there meaning that the weather there and the atmosphere there is essentially isolated from the rest of the planet.

We continue to go through these sorts of things - you are fixated on arguing with anyone that you consider a "denier" - even the new person who entrant who is trying to use cloud cover as a source of the inequality between the models and reality.

Don't pretend to know things you do not. Idiotic things like trying to use the interior of the Sun as a source of emissions is just one of them. The exterior of the Sun is considerably cooler and the emissions of the Sun are from the outer surface and not the interior.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can air get drawn into ice at very high pressure and depth?

The air was never in water. It was in snow that got compressed into ice. Given that air fizzes out of ice burgs it is definitely clear that the air in them is under pressure. This means that air cannot be going from the atmosphere into the ice. It must already be there from when the ice formed.

I don't know what you're referring to. The gases that are being analyzed in the ice isn't bubbles. It is gases that are dissolved in the freshwater that form the frost which is eventually compressed into the Antarctic ice sheet. Being dissolved in the water that means that it move about in the ice freely.

According to the British Antarctic Survey, the gases in ice cores are indeed in the form of bubbles:

"Crucially, the ice encloses small bubbles of air that contain a sample of the atmosphere – from these it is possible to measure directly the past concentration of gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) in the atmosphere."

Ice cores and climate change

Since the various gases pass through ice in different manners, such a means of identifying atmospheric gases in geological periods would be greatly inaccurate. While salt water is less permeable fresh water as the glaciers and ice sheets of Antarctica are not.

Furthermore, there is a condition called "katabatics" which is caused by extreme conduction/convection on the Antarctic area that isolates conditions there meaning that the weather there and the atmosphere there is essentially isolated from the rest of the planet.

We continue to go through these sorts of things - you are fixated on arguing with anyone that you consider a "denier" - even the new person who entrant who is trying to use cloud cover as a source of the inequality between the models and reality.

Don't pretend to know things you do not. Idiotic things like trying to use the interior of the Sun as a source of emissions is just one of them. The exterior of the Sun is considerably cooler and the emissions of the Sun are from the outer surface and not the interior.

When I see the Antarctic explorer films there is snow blowing about.

This snow is eventually collected into more solid stuff that does not blow about but is not solid 100% water ice but something inbetween that we normally call slightly compacted snow.

That stuff has more of it collect above it. It contains quite a lot of ice.

Eventually this is under loads of snow/compacted snow/ice. It still has the air pockets in it. They are compressed due to the high pressure. When it gets into the ocean as a burg it fizzes as it melts.

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can air get drawn into ice at very high pressure and depth?

The air was never in water. It was in snow that got compressed into ice. Given that air fizzes out of ice burgs it is definitely clear that the air in them is under pressure. This means that air cannot be going from the atmosphere into the ice. It must already be there from when the ice formed.

I don't know what you're referring to. The gases that are being analyzed in the ice isn't bubbles. It is gases that are dissolved in the freshwater that form the frost which is eventually compressed into the Antarctic ice sheet. Being dissolved in the water that means that it move about in the ice freely.

According to the British Antarctic Survey, the gases in ice cores are indeed in the form of bubbles:

"Crucially, the ice encloses small bubbles of air that contain a sample of the atmosphere – from these it is possible to measure directly the past concentration of gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) in the atmosphere."

Ice cores and climate change

Since the various gases pass through ice in different manners, such a means of identifying atmospheric gases in geological periods would be greatly inaccurate. While salt water is less permeable fresh water as the glaciers and ice sheets of Antarctica are not.

Furthermore, there is a condition called "katabatics" which is caused by extreme conduction/convection on the Antarctic area that isolates conditions there meaning that the weather there and the atmosphere there is essentially isolated from the rest of the planet.

We continue to go through these sorts of things - you are fixated on arguing with anyone that you consider a "denier" - even the new person who entrant who is trying to use cloud cover as a source of the inequality between the models and reality.

Don't pretend to know things you do not. Idiotic things like trying to use the interior of the Sun as a source of emissions is just one of them. The exterior of the Sun is considerably cooler and the emissions of the Sun are from the outer surface and not the interior.

When I see the Antarctic explorer films there is snow blowing about.

This snow is eventually collected into more solid stuff that does not blow about but is not solid 100% water ice but something inbetween that we normally call slightly compacted snow.

That stuff has more of it collect above it. It contains quite a lot of ice.

Eventually this is under loads of snow/compacted snow/ice. It still has the air pockets in it. They are compressed due to the high pressure. When it gets into the ocean as a burg it fizzes as it melts.

Tim, the ice cores are not from the last century or two those layers are completely unacceptable for sampling. Below this, AS the FROST (it almost never snows in Antarctica - it is the driest desert on Earth) compacts it forces air out. And since the various gases move through ice at different rates the sampling isn't very accurate. If sampling dissolved gases isn't accurate looking for trapped air bubbles most assuredly isn't accurate.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can air get drawn into ice at very high pressure and depth?

The air was never in water. It was in snow that got compressed into ice. Given that air fizzes out of ice burgs it is definitely clear that the air in them is under pressure. This means that air cannot be going from the atmosphere into the ice. It must already be there from when the ice formed.

I don't know what you're referring to. The gases that are being analyzed in the ice isn't bubbles. It is gases that are dissolved in the freshwater that form the frost which is eventually compressed into the Antarctic ice sheet. Being dissolved in the water that means that it move about in the ice freely.

According to the British Antarctic Survey, the gases in ice cores are indeed in the form of bubbles:

"Crucially, the ice encloses small bubbles of air that contain a sample of the atmosphere – from these it is possible to measure directly the past concentration of gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) in the atmosphere."

Ice cores and climate change

Since the various gases pass through ice in different manners, such a means of identifying atmospheric gases in geological periods would be greatly inaccurate. While salt water is less permeable fresh water as the glaciers and ice sheets of Antarctica are not.

Furthermore, there is a condition called "katabatics" which is caused by extreme conduction/convection on the Antarctic area that isolates conditions there meaning that the weather there and the atmosphere there is essentially isolated from the rest of the planet.

We continue to go through these sorts of things - you are fixated on arguing with anyone that you consider a "denier" - even the new person who entrant who is trying to use cloud cover as a source of the inequality between the models and reality.

Don't pretend to know things you do not. Idiotic things like trying to use the interior of the Sun as a source of emissions is just one of them. The exterior of the Sun is considerably cooler and the emissions of the Sun are from the outer surface and not the interior.

When I see the Antarctic explorer films there is snow blowing about.

This snow is eventually collected into more solid stuff that does not blow about but is not solid 100% water ice but something inbetween that we normally call slightly compacted snow.

That stuff has more of it collect above it. It contains quite a lot of ice.

Eventually this is under loads of snow/compacted snow/ice. It still has the air pockets in it. They are compressed due to the high pressure. When it gets into the ocean as a burg it fizzes as it melts.

Tim, the ice cores are not from the last century or two those layers are completely unacceptable for sampling. Below this, AS the FROST (it almost never snows in Antarctica - it is the driest desert on Earth) compacts it forces air out. And since the various gases move through ice at different rates the sampling isn't very accurate. If sampling dissolved gases isn't accurate looking for trapped air bubbles most assuredly isn't accurate.

Do you think that there is or is not a lot of wind blown whits icey stuff flying around in Antarctica?

Do you think that when this stuff finally settles down it does so with no air pockets in it?

Do you think that these air pockets get trapped in the stuff as it becomes compacted ice?

If you have some sort of science that shows that the air manages to move about in the deep ice please link to it.

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can air get drawn into ice at very high pressure and depth?

The air was never in water. It was in snow that got compressed into ice. Given that air fizzes out of ice burgs it is definitely clear that the air in them is under pressure. This means that air cannot be going from the atmosphere into the ice. It must already be there from when the ice formed.

I don't know what you're referring to. The gases that are being analyzed in the ice isn't bubbles. It is gases that are dissolved in the freshwater that form the frost which is eventually compressed into the Antarctic ice sheet. Being dissolved in the water that means that it move about in the ice freely.

According to the British Antarctic Survey, the gases in ice cores are indeed in the form of bubbles:

"Crucially, the ice encloses small bubbles of air that contain a sample of the atmosphere – from these it is possible to measure directly the past concentration of gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) in the atmosphere."

Ice cores and climate change

Since the various gases pass through ice in different manners, such a means of identifying atmospheric gases in geological periods would be greatly inaccurate. While salt water is less permeable fresh water as the glaciers and ice sheets of Antarctica are not.

Furthermore, there is a condition called "katabatics" which is caused by extreme conduction/convection on the Antarctic area that isolates conditions there meaning that the weather there and the atmosphere there is essentially isolated from the rest of the planet.

We continue to go through these sorts of things - you are fixated on arguing with anyone that you consider a "denier" - even the new person who entrant who is trying to use cloud cover as a source of the inequality between the models and reality.

Don't pretend to know things you do not. Idiotic things like trying to use the interior of the Sun as a source of emissions is just one of them. The exterior of the Sun is considerably cooler and the emissions of the Sun are from the outer surface and not the interior.

When I see the Antarctic explorer films there is snow blowing about.

This snow is eventually collected into more solid stuff that does not blow about but is not solid 100% water ice but something inbetween that we normally call slightly compacted snow.

That stuff has more of it collect above it. It contains quite a lot of ice.

Eventually this is under loads of snow/compacted snow/ice. It still has the air pockets in it. They are compressed due to the high pressure. When it gets into the ocean as a burg it fizzes as it melts.

Tim, the ice cores are not from the last century or two those layers are completely unacceptable for sampling. Below this, AS the FROST (it almost never snows in Antarctica - it is the driest desert on Earth) compacts it forces air out. And since the various gases move through ice at different rates the sampling isn't very accurate. If sampling dissolved gases isn't accurate looking for trapped air bubbles most assuredly isn't accurate.

Do you think that there is or is not a lot of wind blown whits icey stuff flying around in Antarctica?

Do you think that when this stuff finally settles down it does so with no air pockets in it?

Do you think that these air pockets get trapped in the stuff as it becomes compacted ice?

If you have some sort of science that shows that the air manages to move about in the deep ice please link to it.

Absolutely the frost flies around. Absolutely as it settles and builds up it contains bubbles that can get trapped.

But as the ice sheet builds it puts these bubbles under huge pressure which causes the mixture of air in those bubbles to move through the ice at various rates. So these bubbles are not representative of the air they supposedly sample.

Let's remember how theories like this are fractured into pieces every day only to be replaced by theories that are just as inaccurate.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can air get drawn into ice at very high pressure and depth?

The air was never in water. It was in snow that got compressed into ice. Given that air fizzes out of ice burgs it is definitely clear that the air in them is under pressure. This means that air cannot be going from the atmosphere into the ice. It must already be there from when the ice formed.

I don't know what you're referring to. The gases that are being analyzed in the ice isn't bubbles. It is gases that are dissolved in the freshwater that form the frost which is eventually compressed into the Antarctic ice sheet. Being dissolved in the water that means that it move about in the ice freely.

According to the British Antarctic Survey, the gases in ice cores are indeed in the form of bubbles:

"Crucially, the ice encloses small bubbles of air that contain a sample of the atmosphere – from these it is possible to measure directly the past concentration of gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) in the atmosphere."

Ice cores and climate change

Since the various gases pass through ice in different manners, such a means of identifying atmospheric gases in geological periods would be greatly inaccurate. While salt water is less permeable fresh water as the glaciers and ice sheets of Antarctica are not.

Furthermore, there is a condition called "katabatics" which is caused by extreme conduction/convection on the Antarctic area that isolates conditions there meaning that the weather there and the atmosphere there is essentially isolated from the rest of the planet.

We continue to go through these sorts of things - you are fixated on arguing with anyone that you consider a "denier" - even the new person who entrant who is trying to use cloud cover as a source of the inequality between the models and reality.

Don't pretend to know things you do not. Idiotic things like trying to use the interior of the Sun as a source of emissions is just one of them. The exterior of the Sun is considerably cooler and the emissions of the Sun are from the outer surface and not the interior.

When I see the Antarctic explorer films there is snow blowing about.

This snow is eventually collected into more solid stuff that does not blow about but is not solid 100% water ice but something inbetween that we normally call slightly compacted snow.

That stuff has more of it collect above it. It contains quite a lot of ice.

Eventually this is under loads of snow/compacted snow/ice. It still has the air pockets in it. They are compressed due to the high pressure. When it gets into the ocean as a burg it fizzes as it melts.

Tim, the ice cores are not from the last century or two those layers are completely unacceptable for sampling. Below this, AS the FROST (it almost never snows in Antarctica - it is the driest desert on Earth) compacts it forces air out. And since the various gases move through ice at different rates the sampling isn't very accurate. If sampling dissolved gases isn't accurate looking for trapped air bubbles most assuredly isn't accurate.

Do you think that there is or is not a lot of wind blown whits icey stuff flying around in Antarctica?

Do you think that when this stuff finally settles down it does so with no air pockets in it?

Do you think that these air pockets get trapped in the stuff as it becomes compacted ice?

If you have some sort of science that shows that the air manages to move about in the deep ice please link to it.

Absolutely the frost flies around. Absolutely as it settles and builds up it contains bubbles that can get trapped.

But as the ice sheet builds it puts these bubbles under huge pressure which causes the mixture of air in those bubbles to move through the ice at various rates. So these bubbles are not representative of the air they supposedly sample.

Let's remember how theories like this are fractured into pieces every day only to be replaced by theories that are just as inaccurate.

Ice is permeable to gases like carbon dioxide and oxygen. The denser the ice, the less permeable it is, but it never goes to zero.

Given sufficient time, what is trapped in ice DOES change.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Ice is permeable to gases like carbon dioxide and oxygen. The denser the ice, the less permeable it is, but it never goes to zero.

Given sufficient time, what is trapped in ice DOES change.

Well, In time a bubble will completely disappear.

Wake wrote:
How do you dissipate and gas without reducing the pressure in the bubble?

Wake wrote:
And reducing the pressure allows the ice sheet to continue contracting around the bubble putting it back under the same enormous pressure ....... causing the same thing. I'm not sure but I do not believe this happens in saltwater.

Wake wrote:
Surface water contaminants prevent there from being the molecular pathways that freshwater has.

Wake wrote:
Though thinking about it - Do you know how they cut ice cores? They use a hollow drill. These cores are not very large and if enough of a vacuum was pulled as the core is cut out there would almost be an explosion of surface air cutting right through the ice.

Wake wrote:
And the cores do not look like a block of clear ice but more like a 1" diameter round.

Wake wrote:
This leaves so little protection that I'm sure that it would very rapidly be contaminated with ambient air.

Wake wrote:
You might very well have a good theory there that could explain why the CO2 levels could show so low in the ice cores and so variable in the available literature on low levels of CO2 on plant growth.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Ice is permeable to gases like carbon dioxide and oxygen. The denser the ice, the less permeable it is, but it never goes to zero.

Given sufficient time, what is trapped in ice DOES change.

Well, In time a bubble will completely disappear.

Not necessarily. Highly unlikely even.

Wake wrote:
How do you dissipate and gas without reducing the pressure in the bubble?

Gas permeates both ways. Bubbles aren't under high pressure.

Wake wrote:
And reducing the pressure allows the ice sheet to continue contracting around the bubble putting it back under the same enormous pressure ....... causing the same thing. I'm not sure but I do not believe this happens in saltwater.

Ice from saltwater is freshwater. The salt is expelled when saltwater freezes.

Wake wrote:
Surface water contaminants prevent there from being the molecular pathways that freshwater has.

Same 'contaminants'. Salt water freezing produces freshwater.

Wake wrote:
Though thinking about it - Do you know how they cut ice cores? They use a hollow drill. These cores are not very large and if enough of a vacuum was pulled as the core is cut out there would almost be an explosion of surface air cutting right through the ice.

Since ice contains both water and air, I don't think the vacuum is such a problem. The drill itself causes heating though, that CAN contaminate the surface of the core. That's why they use only the internals of the core (of course they don't consider the bandsaw used to GET those internals!).

Wake wrote:
And the cores do not look like a block of clear ice but more like a 1" diameter round.

You should watch an ice carver for a party sculpture sometime. They sculpture with a chain saw, starting with a block of clear ice. The resulting sculpture doesn't look like clear ice either. They have to use a blowtorch on it to get that effect. Similar tricks are done with acrylic and solvent while making trophy sculptures.

Wake wrote:
This leaves so little protection that I'm sure that it would very rapidly be contaminated with ambient air.

Nowhere near as rapidly as you think. However, the core has sat in ice for a very long time (before being drilled), and gas has been permeating through it in all that time.

Wake wrote:
You might very well have a good theory there that could explain why the CO2 levels could show so low in the ice cores and so variable in the available literature on low levels of CO2 on plant growth.

I suspect CO2 levels are so low is simply because CO2, like salt, is expelled from freezing water.

Try putting a soda in the freezer. it comes out flat. (Use a plastic bottle 20oz or less and relieve the pressure first!)

When you open it, you get the gas coming out of the bottle, and under higher pressure. If you reseal the bottle again and allow it to come to room temperature again, the soda is still flat. You let all the CO2 escape when you opened the bottle while it was frozen.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Ice is permeable to gases like carbon dioxide and oxygen. The denser the ice, the less permeable it is, but it never goes to zero.

Given sufficient time, what is trapped in ice DOES change.

Well, In time a bubble will completely disappear.

Not necessarily. Highly unlikely even.

Wake wrote:
How do you dissipate and gas without reducing the pressure in the bubble?

Gas permeates both ways. Bubbles aren't under high pressure.

Wake wrote:
And reducing the pressure allows the ice sheet to continue contracting around the bubble putting it back under the same enormous pressure ....... causing the same thing. I'm not sure but I do not believe this happens in saltwater.

Ice from saltwater is freshwater. The salt is expelled when saltwater freezes.

Wake wrote:
Surface water contaminants prevent there from being the molecular pathways that freshwater has.

Same 'contaminants'. Salt water freezing produces freshwater.

Wake wrote:
Though thinking about it - Do you know how they cut ice cores? They use a hollow drill. These cores are not very large and if enough of a vacuum was pulled as the core is cut out there would almost be an explosion of surface air cutting right through the ice.

Since ice contains both water and air, I don't think the vacuum is such a problem. The drill itself causes heating though, that CAN contaminate the surface of the core. That's why they use only the internals of the core (of course they don't consider the bandsaw used to GET those internals!).

Wake wrote:
And the cores do not look like a block of clear ice but more like a 1" diameter round.

You should watch an ice carver for a party sculpture sometime. They sculpture with a chain saw, starting with a block of clear ice. The resulting sculpture doesn't look like clear ice either. They have to use a blowtorch on it to get that effect. Similar tricks are done with acrylic and solvent while making trophy sculptures.

Wake wrote:
This leaves so little protection that I'm sure that it would very rapidly be contaminated with ambient air.

Nowhere near as rapidly as you think. However, the core has sat in ice for a very long time (before being drilled), and gas has been permeating through it in all that time.

Wake wrote:
You might very well have a good theory there that could explain why the CO2 levels could show so low in the ice cores and so variable in the available literature on low levels of CO2 on plant growth.

I suspect CO2 levels are so low is simply because CO2, like salt, is expelled from freezing water.

Try putting a soda in the freezer. it comes out flat. (Use a plastic bottle 20oz or less and relieve the pressure first!)

When you open it, you get the gas coming out of the bottle, and under higher pressure. If you reseal the bottle again and allow it to come to room temperature again, the soda is still flat. You let all the CO2 escape when you opened the bottle while it was frozen.

I think that pretty much solves the question of how the CO2 levels taken from the Ice Cores and those taken from Tree Rings don't match.