Btw, Can you tell me how ancient temperature is measured from ice cores? My lookup only says we can detect atmospheric composition, and not temperatures from the ice cores.
https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-c...
I think this is also flawed, because this computation requires the ratio of the isotopes in the atmosphere at the period of interest, which we don't have. And the people making this measurement just seem to assume it would certain value derived from the present, which is also unreliable...
So yea, all things considered, pretty unreliable..
Also share if this accuracy requires any implicit assumptions. For example, "If we assume that X today is true then it is true back then as well" where X is not a physical constant...
This is fairly 1:1 linkage, and the Earth-heating effect of atmospheric CO2 was established in what, early 20th century or so?
But this seems to imply that global temperatures are only dependent on CO2 levels. That is a pretty flawed assumption...
It's called science for a reason... (not back-of-a-napkin stuff)
See, since it seems that you are convinced yourselves, can you tell me how accurately the past temperature can be assessed by using this method? I mean +/- how many degrees?
Can you tell me how many research papers on this specific subject you have read, before coming to that conclusion?
Hint: chances are you're correct (!). Size of the error bars, timeframe(s) talked about, how data was gathered, how results were processed etc, that is what such papers are about. Educate yourself! (Wikipedia is usually a good start)
Not to things occurring when your great-great-great-great... (repeat a couple 1000x) ...great-great-great-grandparents were around.
Maybe you'd be so kind & at least check part of a Wikipedia article?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Reconstructin...
10min to go from clueless to "I've read something about how this knowledge came about".
That we cannot accurately look into the past unless we explicitly record it, is something that I experience on a daily basis.
Seriously, if you are so convinced, then why don't you just give me an accuracy measure and reasons to support it? I am not interested in anymore articles that does not contain an explicit accuracy claims and reasons to support the same.
So please understand this. It is not that I am questioning the existence of such techniques. I am questioning their accuracy/reliability..
That is fine. Scientists do the same, all the time.
> we cannot accurately look into the past unless we explicitly record it
Please allow me an opportunity to enlighten you:
We cannot look into the past unless it is recorded somehow.
Note the absence of "we" in the recording part. Also note "somehow" may happen in many different ways.
Sensor data, satellite measurements, ice cores, fossilized creatures captured in stone, slices of tree trunks, samples of minerals whose radioactivity decayed over millenia, history books or landscape features, are just different types of records. Each with their own set of properties (accuracy being 1 of them).
So I am aware. The "we" is important because I said "accurately". When "we" set up the recording, we can make it to record with the required precision. Inferring measurements from incidental things can give the required precision, but it should be justified.
I only reject using them for certain things that require vastly more reliable data. And I am not making the mistake of relying on unreliable data just because it is the best we can manage.
Also why don't you answer my question about ice cores?