It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Ice cores show faster global warming
Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica show that Earth warmed faster in the 20th century than at any other time in the past 22 millennia, researchers said.
Climatologists from Bern University said their study also showed that concentrations of greenhouse gases are increasing at a faster rate, Swissinfo.com reported. For example, the concentration of carbon dioxide increased by 31 parts per million during one 1,600-year interval in the pre-industrial period -- its fastest growth before the industrial age -- and went up by the same amount in the past 20 years.
More...
Originally posted by pyrytyes
I am just a bit "ignorant" as to the measurements of CO2 concentraions.
They measure the air bubbles included in the ice ("Tiny Bubbles...") to determine CO2% in an interval in the ice, age must be similar to tree-ring age determinations. However, the measurement of current/ existing CO2 concentrations are taken where...? Is the current measurement an average of many atmospheric collections, or site- specific at the collar of the ice-core drill hole?
If you could follow that, then you might agree that sampling tiny air bubbles trapped in ice, at specific local sites, can lead to a very diverse values. Even though many sample sites may be utilized, the values obtained are, regardless, site specific.
For each sample: within the time frame of the formation of the ice, what were the prevailing atmospheric conditions? Local rainfall would contribute a higher dissolved CO2%, than would a clear blue sky.
Originally posted by pyrytyes
Could you throw out an approximate? number of ice-core holes, or site locations in Antarctica? Mind you, I do not dispute the data, nor intend to...it's just that an idea of the number of sites could help better understand/ correlate the statistics. The number of tiny bubbles counted at each site is not as important as the number (and spacing?) of the various borings.
Thanks, again. I will endeavor to "catch up to speed"