Not exact matches
Although it was not a true
ice age, the
term was introduced It is not uncommon to read that
ice cores from the polar regions contain
records of climatic change from the distant past.
The work by Vinther and colleagues in Southern Greenland is therefore key to helping calibrate the Greenland
ice core records, and impressively, the correlations to the older data are as good as to the recent
record, allowing us to have a little more confidence in the even longer
term proxy data for this region.
Of these proxies, some of the most useful for long -
term climate analyses are
ice cores, sediment
cores, tree rings and, of course, the fossil
record.
How much doubt exactly, in what
terms and in what ways, applied to what scales and for what spans, do you percolate out of all Kernodle's disparate disparagements of the
ice core record?
The computations show similar long -
term variations with the global radionuclides production
records from terrestrial archives such as tree rings and
ice cores which validate the approach.
I assume the error bars are cumulative — i.e., tree rings have a certain error bar, and
ice cores have their error bars, and so do corals and lacustrine
cores (I hope I used the right
term there), and all of them add or multiply together (multiply, if I understand it correctly) when homogenizing and compiling them into one
record.
You cite the Gomez Dome d18O
ice core derived proxy
record as displaying a long
term non-linear trend with similarities to the ICOADS SST
record, stating:
Don has been right all along predicting the global temperatures to drop because he looked at longer
term cycles that are apparent in the
ice core records.