Vostok Ice Core Data graph

We are the Borg.
User avatar
Badger
Posts: 3611
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:57 pm
Location: Here, there, and sometimes elsewhere

Vostok Ice Core Data graph

Post by Badger » Mon Jul 12, 2004 3:10 pm

I stumbled across this graph of the Vostok ice core study. So far, they've analysed it back about 450 000 yrs, out of a core that goes back almost a million years.

Enjoy.

http://jaxmtn.mystarband.net/images/vos ... rature.jpg
Nineteen tequilas later, we had a deal.
You are my density. (G. McFly)
As my daddy always said, always check the fine print for penectomies. (punchdrunk)
Opinions aren't like assholes, because I don't know anyone with a million assholes.
Bettie Page set the standard for fetish models. (selwynator12/5/2008 5:34:37 PM)
Rugby players eat their dead.

Huntsman
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:28 pm

Post by Huntsman » Mon Jul 12, 2004 3:24 pm

While one study does not proof make, it is interesting. Seems that the CO2 levels are following a natural trend, and again one must wonder how much difference man-made effects have. OF course, the graph covers so much time it's hard to tell if there are any changes. A close-up of the last, say, 1000 years compared with a similar timeframe in the other spike data might be interesting, but it doesn't look as if this level of accuracy can be gained. I would also question just what the data mean...is this representative of atmospheric CO2 or is the amount of CO2 trapped in ice a function of the temperature?

Interesting data, but I don't know enough to interpret it.

User avatar
Badger
Posts: 3611
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:57 pm
Location: Here, there, and sometimes elsewhere

Post by Badger » Mon Jul 12, 2004 6:02 pm

I'm sorry, I was thinking of another core study being done in the Antarctic. They are at the 450 000 yr level there, and hope to get to 900 000 years before they hit the base of the glacier.

The Vostok was a different ice core, only stretching back 440 000 yrs.

It'll be interesting when that is compared to the new core, and when sunspot activity is factored in.

It's neat to see this stuff unfolding!
Nineteen tequilas later, we had a deal.
You are my density. (G. McFly)
As my daddy always said, always check the fine print for penectomies. (punchdrunk)
Opinions aren't like assholes, because I don't know anyone with a million assholes.
Bettie Page set the standard for fetish models. (selwynator12/5/2008 5:34:37 PM)
Rugby players eat their dead.

User avatar
SquishyDave
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 3:24 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

Post by SquishyDave » Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:40 am

Huntsman wrote:While one study does not proof make, it is interesting. Seems that the CO2 levels are following a natural trend, and again one must wonder how much difference man-made effects have. OF course, the graph covers so much time it's hard to tell if there are any changes. A close-up of the last, say, 1000 years compared with a similar timeframe in the other spike data might be interesting, but it doesn't look as if this level of accuracy can be gained. I would also question just what the data mean...is this representative of atmospheric CO2 or is the amount of CO2 trapped in ice a function of the temperature?

Interesting data, but I don't know enough to interpret it.
As I understand these things, it's just air that gets trapped in the ice so it should represent accuratly the atmosphere of the time. As usual I could be wrong, but that's what I thought.
Squishy doesn't irritate the hell out of me. - [url=http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=10266]Quester_X[/url]
We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me.

Huntsman
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:28 pm

Post by Huntsman » Wed Jul 14, 2004 2:42 pm

Dave:

Yeah, that's my thought too, but I believe in poking holes (best way to test theories...of course, sometimes I poke in the thick parts, and hurt my finger).

I wonder if there's a correlation to other data, specfically the amount of plant life or other factors.

I'm just speculating wildly, for the most part. Can't wait to see what comes out of all this, though.

User avatar
SquishyDave
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 3:24 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

Post by SquishyDave » Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:06 am

I do know that for a theory on a cold snap in the middle ages or some such, they looked at ice cores and tree rings, they found really old trees, dead, then found slight less older trees, dead, then found alive trees, and some poor bugger had to line them all up so they had an unbroken line of tree rings streching back hundreds of years, then they matched up the exact years the trees grew horribly, with the exact year in the ice records that showed elevated volacinc stuff in the air, and pretty much showed that a big volcano erupted. It was all very clever.

Short answer, for more recent years, they can back up the ice samples with other things such as tree rings. So you can know what you are looking for thousands of years ago. Probably.
Squishy doesn't irritate the hell out of me. - [url=http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=10266]Quester_X[/url]
We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me.

User avatar
Brian the Snail
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 7:07 am

Post by Brian the Snail » Sun Jul 18, 2004 9:02 am

Huntsman wrote:OF course, the graph covers so much time it's hard to tell if there are any changes. A close-up of the last, say, 1000 years compared with a similar timeframe in the other spike data might be interesting, but it doesn't look as if this level of accuracy can be gained.
These sites might help:

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/g ... htm#iceage

Edited to add: Click on the graphs and then the links at the bottom of the page to get the original data.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm