Why are ice core data considered reliable?
If a warm period prevents ice formation or causes melting then past layers would mix and no new layers would form.
>>7985778
You are underestimating how thick the ice they gather data from is. It's literally miles thick. Can you even begin to imagine how deep that goes?
anyway, if the layers mixed together, they wouldnt look like pic related.
>>7985784
>ten thousand year of extreme heat.
>300 million years of ice core surface melts away. No new gets added during thouse ten thousand years because it's a melting period.
>2016
>"oh the ice is thick so I'm sure those hot years somehow ended up being recorded in there despite the heat!"
>>7985791
That's why it's important to choose sites which never go above freezing. Ice cores are only selected from extremely cold, well insulated sites. And we empirically know they are reliable because they agree with other proxies. If they were missing long periods of melt then we would see them skip in their agreement with other proxies.
>>7985796
>other proxies.
like what?
>>7985798
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate)
>>7985798
Like your mum m8
>>7985796
>they agree with other proxies.
>What is conformation bias
There is literally no evidence for global warming.
>>7985803
>What is conformation bias
Something you just made up.
>There is literally no evidence for global warming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XrOscFu1y8&nohtml5=False
>>7985803
You have evidence right in your face that is a fact. Maybe you should reconsider your world views.
>>7985806
>Something you just made up.
As usual with global warming (or is it climate change now?) proponents they're doing understand anything to do with science.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
>youtube
Sure thing buddy.
>>7985810
Oh *confirmation* bias. See, it's hard to understand you when you spell words like other words.
Yeah, how are different proxies agreeing with each other confirmation bias? That makes zero sense. Are objects on Earth falling at the same rate "confirmation bias" towards gravity?
>>7985819
>See, it's hard to understand you when you spell words like other words.
>>7985819
>He can't spot a typo and correct for it.
Fucking brainlets, when will they learn then fuck off.
>How is the supposed relationship between two different measurements affected by confirmation bias.
Holy fuck, are you a complete retard or is it just a convincing act?
>>7985826
OK, so you are not interested in defending your claims. I can see this is not going to be a very productive discussion. Have a good day.
>>7985810
>confirmation bias
explaining to you how you are wrong, then not acknowledging what you say isnt confirmation bias. It's telling you why you are wrong and offering a better explanation. this is how problems are solved in 2016.
>global warming cant be real because of X!
>well, actually X isnt relevant. Here's why.
>CONFIRMATION BIAS! CONFIRMATION BIAS!
we all knew you were trolling from the moment you said "global warming isnt real" so just give it a rest.
>properly using plural form of datum in a sentence
it doesn't look right
>>7985778
I wanna suck on that ice core so bad
>>7986331
You can suck on my ice core m8
>>7985803
>There is literally no evidence for global warming
Educate yourself you absolute retard. It's 100% undeniable by now
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/changing-climate-10-years-after-inconvenient-truth
