Are Ice core samples trustworthy?

reply to post by network dude

I have had people try to explain how it's "different" this time and I must be an idiot, because I just don't get it. When we measure how much our temperature has increased it's measured in tenths. So it's minute. Just as those graphs show. Has the temperature ever been static?

The rise in co2 levels is different. We increased our co2 levels 100ppm in a few years.

And methane as well:

The fastest large natural increase measured in older ice cores is around 20ppmv (parts per million by volume) in 1000 years (a rate seen during Earth’s emergence from the last ice age around 12,000 years ago). CO2 concentration increased by the same amount, 20ppmv, in the last 11 years!

In the same graph, I highlighted the last little bit. Sure it's over a very long period of time (relative to our existence) but it's a fraction in the big picture. If we show this data, it fits perfectly that what we are experiencing is perfectly normal and based on this, if it didn't happen, we should have been worried.

Co2 levels have today are nearly off that graph, so I don't expect it to be "perfectly normal".

Mind you, the temperature side is averaged compared to co2 over the years. As I pointed out to Butcherguy, a rapid shift in temperature is not what we are looking at, or scrutinizing. We are scrutinizing the trend of increased greenhouse gases followed by long term temperature changes.

Indigent
I think the samples are solid evidence, the interpretations is what is questionable

Totally this.

reply to post by ENrgLee


More to the point, the Ice core samples are only a record of average gasious distributions in one single part of the world.

Claiming that an ice core sample from vladivostok is an accurate representation of the worlds temperature, is ironic considering that Global warming advocates are claiming that the recent cold spell in america isn't indicative of global climate.

It's like they are trying to eat their cake, and have it too.

I agree with the others who bring up the interpretation of the data and would add one point. I've seen a lot of data discarded simply because it didn't fit the pattern and was referred to as an "anomaly" and set aside. So, I'd have to see the complete data set and how much data was discarded and the reasons.
Another point to remember is that dating methods such as tree ring dating or ice core dating are "relative dating" methods, not "absolute" methods. They depend on an arbitrary "beginning" and "ending" date with the data stuffed between.

reply to post by ENrgLee


It's not a very accurate comparison between arctic ice core samples and weather patterns over North America. The difference is that you can have freak weather patterns over any land mass irregardless of current climate whereas when there are heating and cooling trends the first areas to be affected and show it are near the poles because they are more susceptible and sensitive to variations both locally and globally. These changes will showp in various ways in the core samples.

www.arctic.noaa.gov...

reply to post by peter vlar


Ice core samples tell you about condition around the place where the samples were taken.

Maybe it was really cold in that part of the world because of weather patterns, but warmer than indicated elsewhere.....


The ice core samples are a proxy measurement, not direct measurement.

And temperature readings beginning in the 17th century are simmilaryl spotty in their coverage, as they are not global infrared maps... just dudes with mercury thermometers, writing their findings down on parchment with quills...

And they do not have global coverage.

This is what we have to be careful of when using temperature data from hundreds of years ago... They didn't have the accurate tools that we do now.

reply to post by ENrgLee


I get what you are saying and it make sense. In order to take ice samples you do need.....wait for it......ice.
To be specific, really, really old ice. So there is only two places I know of to get it, North pole area, or South pole area. I would think that looking at two different places at opposite ends of the earth, would give some sort of reference for, if nothing else, that area. It's just that the fact that you can test for C02 percentage as well as other gasses, make it seem like the perfect way to view the past. But as I said, I am no scientist and am only thinking of this with limited knowledge.