3 ms·

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?

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...
- nika 16y ago
  "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." Or maybe he raised a point that is eluding you because you don't understand the science. His claim is not that there are no institutions looking at ice cores, and the text you quoted actually lends support to his argument.
  - moe 16y ago
    He's throwing around broad claims (wikipedia is wrong, climate research is wrong) and making ad hominem attacks without providing a factual point of his own. I don't claim to understand the science in depth. But neither do I see why I should take his word over what appears to be the current consensus in scientific climate research.
    - nika 16y ago
      Since you seem to be online, let me walk you thru an example. What do you believe is the "current consensus in scientific climate research" on whether glaciers are shrinking or growing? On the balance, are they receding?
    - nika 16y ago
      You are the one calling him names, and you are the one engaging in ad hominem, and you are not even being honest about what he said. (eg: he never said "climate research is wrong") In fact, you jumped in here, depsite knowing nothing about the science, and have made quite an ass out of yourself. But of course, the reasonable people who have been patient with your are down voted and you are upvoted. Because you support global warming. This site is a hive mind, full of unthinking idiots and thus not worth wasting time on.

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...
nika 16y ago
"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." Or maybe he raised a point that is eluding you because you don't understand the science. His claim is not that there are no institutions looking at ice cores, and the text you quoted actually lends support to his argument.
- moe 16y ago
  He's throwing around broad claims (wikipedia is wrong, climate research is wrong) and making ad hominem attacks without providing a factual point of his own. I don't claim to understand the science in depth. But neither do I see why I should take his word over what appears to be the current consensus in scientific climate research.
  - nika 16y ago
    Since you seem to be online, let me walk you thru an example. What do you believe is the "current consensus in scientific climate research" on whether glaciers are shrinking or growing? On the balance, are they receding?
  - nika 16y ago
    You are the one calling him names, and you are the one engaging in ad hominem, and you are not even being honest about what he said. (eg: he never said "climate research is wrong") In fact, you jumped in here, depsite knowing nothing about the science, and have made quite an ass out of yourself. But of course, the reasonable people who have been patient with your are down voted and you are upvoted. Because you support global warming. This site is a hive mind, full of unthinking idiots and thus not worth wasting time on.