4 ms·

I'm sorry and I mean this in the least insulting way I can manage but how on earth can you not see the contradiction there? You actually said... The weather i

I'm sorry and I mean this in the least insulting way I can manage but how on earth can you not see the contradiction there? You actually said... The weather is not the same as climate. When climate changes (and it has always changed in the past) some places become hotter, others become colder. And then one sentence later say... The ice core drillings in deep layers of ice are a great way to learn about the history of climate An Ice Core is a snapshot of conditions present in the area where the snow that makes it up froze. Weather readings from an Ice Core are only accurate to determine the weather in that one area not the overall climate. I don't even care about the Global Warming angle (every HN thread I've ever seen on the topic just devolves into partisan bickering) but the fact that you can't see that contradiction is disturbing.

moe 16y ago
Why not read the wikipedia page he linked before attacking him like that? An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  How would that work? I mean, I'd like you to explain to me how an ice core from one specific location could give you an accurate reading on the global climate? And if it's really possible to determine global climate from one location than why do we have all these weather stations around the world? The answer is "because it isn't possible". Ice cores can provide climate information such as soot in the atmosphere and CO2 levels but it can only give you information on the specific location it was taken from. Any information determined from that regarding the global climate is extrapolation. The text you quote is describing an extrapolation as an absolute. Or in other words just because you read something on Wikipedia doesn't make it true.
  - moe 16y ago
    I mean, I'd like you to explain to me how an ice core from one specific location could give you an accurate reading on the global climate? The properties of the ice and the recrystallized inclusions within the ice can then be used to reconstruct a climatic record over the age range of the core, normally through isotopic analysis. Ice cores can provide climate information such as soot in the atmosphere and CO2 levels but it can only give you information on the specific location it was taken from. The variety of climatic proxies is greater than in any other natural recorder of climate, such as tree rings or sediment layers. These include (proxies for) temperature, ocean volume, precipitation, chemistry and gas composition of the lower atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sea-surface productivity, desert extent and forest fires. Just because you read something on Wikipedia doesn't make it true. See, I'm not a climate scientist. Neither do I believe everything I read on wikipedia. But the article has plenty links and references to suggest there are many institutions and universities involved with this kind of research. Sure, it could all be one big conspiracy. But somehow I find it easier to believe that you're just too lazy to read.
    - TomOfTTB 16y ago
      Either I'm too lazy to read or you're too dumb to realize what the word "extrapolate" means. Here's a quote for you... In mathematics, extrapolation is the process of constructing new data points outside a discrete set of known data points. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extrapolate http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extrapolate When you're taking other information and trying to combine it to reconstruct a climate history that's extrapolation. That means you don't have an actual record and you're making an educated guess as to how other factors might be combined to provide you that missing record. And again you haven't answered my most basic question. If you could get an accurate reading on the global temperature from one location than why do we bother with all the weather stations?
      - moe 16y ago
        I have no idea what kind of axe you have to grind here, but of course it's extrapolation and approximation. What else do you expect, SD Cards with digital weather records from 10k years ago buried into the ground? The point is that many people who are much more familiar with the subject than us two seem to agree that the extrapolation is accurate enough to draw certain conclusions from. If you aren't too busy with your ad hominem attacks then it would be nice if you could make a factual point beyond "Wikipedia is wrong" and "The climate research community is wrong". What exactly are they doing wrong? If you could get an accurate reading on the global temperature from one location than why do we bother with all the weather stations? Well, I think we do the ice thing to learn about the time before we had weather stations. Also all it takes is a look at the TOC of that wikipedia page to notice they're using not one but dozens of core sites on multiple continents. I'm almost sure they're not extrapolating from just a single block of ice, as you're trying to suggest here...

moe 16y ago

Why not read the wikipedia page he linked before attacking him like that? An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time.

TomOfTTB 16y ago
How would that work? I mean, I'd like you to explain to me how an ice core from one specific location could give you an accurate reading on the global climate? And if it's really possible to determine global climate from one location than why do we have all these weather stations around the world? The answer is "because it isn't possible". Ice cores can provide climate information such as soot in the atmosphere and CO2 levels but it can only give you information on the specific location it was taken from. Any information determined from that regarding the global climate is extrapolation. The text you quote is describing an extrapolation as an absolute. Or in other words just because you read something on Wikipedia doesn't make it true.
- moe 16y ago
  I mean, I'd like you to explain to me how an ice core from one specific location could give you an accurate reading on the global climate? The properties of the ice and the recrystallized inclusions within the ice can then be used to reconstruct a climatic record over the age range of the core, normally through isotopic analysis. Ice cores can provide climate information such as soot in the atmosphere and CO2 levels but it can only give you information on the specific location it was taken from. The variety of climatic proxies is greater than in any other natural recorder of climate, such as tree rings or sediment layers. These include (proxies for) temperature, ocean volume, precipitation, chemistry and gas composition of the lower atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sea-surface productivity, desert extent and forest fires. Just because you read something on Wikipedia doesn't make it true. See, I'm not a climate scientist. Neither do I believe everything I read on wikipedia. But the article has plenty links and references to suggest there are many institutions and universities involved with this kind of research. Sure, it could all be one big conspiracy. But somehow I find it easier to believe that you're just too lazy to read.
  - TomOfTTB 16y ago
    Either I'm too lazy to read or you're too dumb to realize what the word "extrapolate" means. Here's a quote for you... In mathematics, extrapolation is the process of constructing new data points outside a discrete set of known data points. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extrapolate http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extrapolate When you're taking other information and trying to combine it to reconstruct a climate history that's extrapolation. That means you don't have an actual record and you're making an educated guess as to how other factors might be combined to provide you that missing record. And again you haven't answered my most basic question. If you could get an accurate reading on the global temperature from one location than why do we bother with all the weather stations?
    - moe 16y ago
      I have no idea what kind of axe you have to grind here, but of course it's extrapolation and approximation. What else do you expect, SD Cards with digital weather records from 10k years ago buried into the ground? The point is that many people who are much more familiar with the subject than us two seem to agree that the extrapolation is accurate enough to draw certain conclusions from. If you aren't too busy with your ad hominem attacks then it would be nice if you could make a factual point beyond "Wikipedia is wrong" and "The climate research community is wrong". What exactly are they doing wrong? If you could get an accurate reading on the global temperature from one location than why do we bother with all the weather stations? Well, I think we do the ice thing to learn about the time before we had weather stations. Also all it takes is a look at the TOC of that wikipedia page to notice they're using not one but dozens of core sites on multiple continents. I'm almost sure they're not extrapolating from just a single block of ice, as you're trying to suggest here...