Today I learned: Ice core sample data are not fit for the purpose of comparing modern CO2 level increases to historical changes

submitted by iamonlyoneman from (wattsupwiththat.com)

all 10 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]CreditKnifeMan 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Are you sure?

They're perfect for pseudoscience.

[–]chadwickofwv 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The sad part is that almost all "science" these days is pseudoscience.

[–]CreditKnifeMan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The sad part is that almost all "science" these days is pseudoscience.

$cience the$e day$.

[–]Riva 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Buddy, the lie is bigger than that.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As a climate heretic, I already know.

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Canbot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Not this article per se, but the gist is that an ice age is the exception for earth, not the rule. The ice age is the anomoly, and they are always temporary. So by taking samples from the ice caps which inherently limits the data to the current ice age which started 3 million years ago and is just coming to an end they are essentially cherry picking data.

    When you hear about "ice ages" and cycles of warming and cooling taken from that data they imply that the ice ages are ending and beginning, but that is a lie. What they are showing is simply warmer and cooler periods within this ice age. They are actually called inter-glacial periods. But all the mainstream scientists just lie and call them ice ages.

    The ice age was always going to end, like all ice ages throughout history have ended. The current ice age used to have a lot more ice. Most of it melted before humans were around. Humans came around at the very tail end of that process.

    [–]iamonlyoneman[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    The samples are too far apart. If you are looking at data and sampling every 200 years or every 6000 years, then how are you going to miss a giant spike that only lasts 100 years? The CO2 in the modern time frame has only been going up for a relatively short time. The scientists also threw out any spikes in the data as spurious, which would likely also miss the current habbenings. So if you are looking for short term wild swings in CO2 concentration in ice core data, you're gonna have to find someone to do brand-new sampling because all the old data we have is not suitable for the comparison to the modern day.

    [–]NuclearBadger 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Samples from 800,000 years ago?

    So at no point, in the last 800,000 years the ice melted enough to make a difference.

    [–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    If you believe the earth is zillions of years old, we are currently coming out of a zillion years long ice age, according to The Science.

    [–]jet199 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    We are in an in an ice age compared to the time of the dinosaurs.