Ice caps melting

[empip]

800,000 is only 2% of 40,000,000 years.
What is normal / average ? Can we base that on a dubious time sample of just 2% of a figure which in itself is just 0.9% of the 4.5 billion yr life of the Earth ?
What else has changed over just 40,000,000 years ? Apart from atmospheric chemistry Pretty much everything I would imagine. Therefore the 'normal' must be ever changing too. Everyone seems to run from 'random' but it happens !

For the past 15 yrs temperature has flatlined, but atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise, year on year, why no 'associated' temperature increase ?

-0-

 

[AronSearle]

I'm convinced of the arguments that C02 will cause 1-2c of warming.

Further warming is based on a number of unproven, and seemingly disproved theories, that will also only happen if we are still burning lots of fossil fuels in 50-100 years.

The gulf stream collaspe theory again is unproven and questionable.

Doesnt sound like something I should be bothered about.

I support renewable energy 100%, just not the way we are going about it.

 

[jeds]

But ice core data goes back thousands of years and is a well established and accurate science.

That's not true. Even ice core people admit that there are large numbers of cores that contradict the common theme and can't be explained. And the accuracy of dating is questioned. Look up the lost squadron. This was a squadron of planes that landed on the Greenland ice shelf during the war. The planes couldn't be recovered so they abandoned them. In the 80s or 90s a team set out to find them based on predictions put together by the ice core people. They couldn't find them. After years of looking they eventually found them miles from the prediction and hundreds of feet deeper. It turns out that ice moves and builds up much more than anybody realised. The Ladybird book of ice cores had to be quickly (and very quietly) re-written.

 

[wobs]

But ice core data goes back thousands of years and is a well established and accurate science.

That's not true. Even ice core people admit that there are large numbers of cores that contradict the common theme and can't be explained. And the accuracy of dating is questioned. Look up the lost squadron. This was a squadron of planes that landed on the Greenland ice shelf during the war. The planes couldn't be recovered so they abandoned them. In the 80s or 90s a team set out to find them based on predictions put together by the ice core people. They couldn't find them. After years of looking they eventually found them miles from the prediction and hundreds of feet deeper. It turns out that ice moves and builds up much more than anybody realised. The Ladybird book of ice cores had to be quickly (and very quietly) re-written.

The lost squadron issue is something that creationists jump on, and yet they are of course wrong to do so.

The planes went down close to the end of the glacier, while the cores are usually taken far inland near the summit.

There are many other reasons why this idea doesn't hold up, some of which are here:
http://westerngeologist.blogspot.co.uk/2006/03/gisp2-ice-core-and-age-of-earth.html

The uncertainty of ice cores is a well studied subject. There are time frames that they cover, and it is known what the limits of core data are.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/reports/trieste2008/ice-cores.pdf