what the hell are talking about? you are mixing arguments. 1. I have not challenged the fact co2 levels are rising. I just provided multiple studies explain the rising levels lag change in ocean temp. And that they do not track with man made co2. 2. That objection still stands the ice cores are proxies for temperature and maybe be inaccurate representations of the amount in of the co2 in the area on the dates they are given. There is a hell of lot of cross checking alchemy going into the dating. http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php By studying air bubbles trapped in ice, scientists can look at time series spanning a few hundred years to see the effect of anthropogenic pollution on atmospheric composition or look at how greenhouse gases fluctuated during the glacial/interglacial transitions. For example, the Vostok Antarctic ice core has shown large fluctuations in CO2 and CH4 over the past 200,000 years. These large variations are believed to be in part due to changes in ocean circulation affecting the amount of dissolved carbon contained in seawater. Furthermore, air bubble analysis has shown that the range of the CO2 variations, although large, did not reach the magnitude forecast to occur from human activities in coming centuries, and also occurred very slowly (over tens of thousands of years) compared to the rapid increases that have been measured over the past 200 years. the recent rise in CH4 and CO2 Limitations: Using the techniques listed above and more, climatologists can attempt to reconstruct past climates and recreate the climate system. On the whole, ice cores have proven extremely useful for paleoclimatology, and many scientists have worked tirelessly to extract every shred of information from each sample. Unfortunately, ice cores do present some difficulties and have limitations that scientists must overcome. One major problem that has become more prevalent in recent years is summer melting of the ice fields. Recent surveys of Greenland have shown large areas of summer melt in southern Greenland, and recent visits to Peru's Quelccaya ice cap have shown melt areas where none existed only 25 years ago. The problem that melting presents is that the melted water percolates down through the ice and can destroy the even layering that regular snowfall produces. This makes accurate dating extremely difficult, and contaminates many of the naturally deposited stable isotopes and other chemical constituents in the ice with non-representative concentrations. In the large ice sheets such as Greenland or Antarctica some melt areas can be avoided by drilling in colder or higher regions. Smaller ice caps on the other hand will generally experience the same conditions overall. Some studies, however, have gained significant scientific value by analyzing cores drilled from around the Greenland ice sheet to show how climatic oscillations such as the NAO affect the North Atlantic region in different and unexpected ways. Thus, simply avoiding high melt areas is not always desired and sampling the whole ice sheet can be very important. While summer melt areas are bad, the ice cap on Mount Kilimanjaro has fared even worse. The whole ice cap is forecast to disappear within 20 years, and although the primary cause for Kilimanjaro's disappearing ice cap has not been fully determined, there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that global average temperatures have been rising and glaciers have been retreating over the past several decades. Another limitation of ice cores is that they only represent data for conditions during snowfall. If little or no snow falls for a few consecutive years, no record will be left in the ice, which could throw off annual dating. If short droughts are a characteristic of a climatic oscillation then they will likely recur, thus accentuating the analytic errors. Antarctica has such low annual snowfall that annual dating is virtually impossible and analyses are only performed for long time periods. A different problem occurs there however, where the ability of wind to transport snow great distances and create drifts must be addressed. That is why, if possible, two cores are often extracted from nearby locations to test the upper layers for data quality and reproducibility. One other potential limitation of ice cores is that core samples can be altered by ice flow and the effect of basal deformations. For very deep ice cores, the effect of the ice bed is important to consider and some drill sites are chosen over others because of the shape of the bedrock. Irregular flow rates, or flow around basal deformities, can cause melting, folds, and other deformations which can propagate upward into younger layers. These deformations can greatly affect how time series are interpreted and in some cases destroy the paleo-record. Fortunately, the Antarctic ice sheet is so thick that extremely long climate histories can be extracted without having to drill all the way to bedrock. The Greenland ice sheet is also very thick, and many of the longest cores have been taken from the ice divide where the ice is the thickest and flows in more predictable ways.
Well he used the term proxy because that's what Salby erroneously does also. I think it's pathetic that both jerm and piehole are both attacking the factual data. As if hundreds of actual experts (as opposed to what they are) have not checked all this stuff out. Of course CO2 levels have increased from man. We are pumping 9 billion tons of it into the air every year. Why they would even question it is mind boggling. But their intent is not find the truth. I am totally convinced they are just ideologically motivated, perhaps paid for, lying pieces of shit. Sorry but that crap pisses me off and they fully deserve the insults.
another paper showing all the uncertainties including diffusion. fro NOAA. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/reports/trieste2008/ice-cores.pdf
2. this is what the recent data shows. "there is no relationship between the fossil carbon emissions curve and the annual carbon increase curve." 1. no one denies the that data shows co2 lags change in ocean temps by 9 to 12 months.