Apparently we really need a "debate" over the term ICE AGE because y'all are all wrong...

[EMH]

^^^^Can't provide any actual backup.

In other words, the fact that Antarctica has added 21,000 new layers of ice isn't proof that the ice grew....


that's what you are arguing here...


LOL!!!

Right up there with "planets cool as they get closer to Sun"....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In other words, the fact that Antarctica has added 21,000 new layers of ice isn't proof that the ice grew....


that's what you are arguing here...


LOL!!!

Right up there with "planets cool as they get closer to Sun"....

In other words, you still haven't provided any backup.

 

[Mushroom]

In other words, you still haven't provided any backup.

To zealots and fanatics, no kind of evidence is needed. All that matters is their faith, and you simply have to accept it when they say "Trust me, bro".

There is a reason I lump conspiracy theorists, zealots, religious fanatics, junk scientists, and all the others of similar ilk into the category of "having nothing of importance to say".

They almost never provide any kind of scientific evidence to back up their claims, and on the rare occasions they do they are either without a reference so we have to take their word for it, the work or reference they cite is saying something completely different than they claim, or it's just some pseudo-science nonsense.

When challenged for references, they either ignore it or spin and attack the person asking for references. And if they are provided by others they normally attack them as "shills" or something similar.

Where as myself, I am a true skeptic and trust nobody. I even encourage people to not even trust me, but to take the time and effort and research things themselves. To verify and validate my references, and find out the facts for themselves.

Not being skeptical and simply accepting something because another tells you it is so is the first step to becoming sheeple.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To zealots and fanatics, no kind of evidence is needed. All that matters is their faith, and you simply have to accept it when they say "Trust me, bro".

There is a reason I lump conspiracy theorists, zealots, religious fanatics, junk scientists, and all the others of similar ilk into the category of "having nothing of importance to say".

They almost never provide any kind of scientific evidence to back up their claims, and on the rare occasions they do they are either without a reference so we have to take their word for it, the work or reference they cite is saying something completely different than they claim, or it's just some pseudo-science nonsense.

When challenged for references, they either ignore it or spin and attack the person asking for references. And if they are provided by others they normally attack them as "shills" or something similar.

Where as myself, I am a true skeptic and trust nobody. I even encourage people to not even trust me, but to take the time and effort and research things themselves. To verify and validate my references, and find out the facts for themselves.

Not being skeptical and simply accepting something because another tells you it is so is the first step to becoming sheeple.

To zealots and fanatics, no kind of evidence is needed.

He's a unique one.
There used to be huge amounts of evidence to support his claims,
but Obama (and the Jews) hid it all in 2010.

 

[EMH]

scientific evidence

ice cores actually are scientific evidence.

They are the source of the changes in atmospheric CO2 that your fudgebaking heroes use.

Somehow that is data, noticing that ice cores prove ice grew every year to create the ice core layer is not...

LOL!!!

 

[Mushroom]

ice cores actually are scientific evidence.

They are the source of the changes in atmospheric CO2 that your fudgebaking heroes use.

Somehow that is data, noticing that ice cores prove ice grew every year to create the ice core layer is not...

As typical, attacking the poster and avoiding the actual data.

And as an FYI, I reject the entire "Man made climate change" nonsense as bad pseudo-science. So what you are doing is an extreme case of gaslighting. Attacking me for a position I do not even hold.

And I notice, as is all to typical with you there is no actual evidence. Just demanding that we accept what you believe without any actual scientific reference.

 

[Old Rocks]

^^^^^

Doesn't want to admit "interglacials" are refuted by ice cores...

LOL!!!

Dumb-de-dumb dumb. Any more pure bullshit to peddle there, old boy?

Interglacial periods are recorded in Greenland ice cores through the analysis of annual layers of ice, which provide valuable insights into past climate conditions, including temperature variations and ice thickness.

Ice​

1. Layering of Ice: Ice cores are drilled from the Greenland ice sheet, where layers of snow accumulate annually. As snow compacts over time, it transforms into ice, creating distinct layers that can be analyzed much like tree rings. Each layer corresponds to a year of snowfall, allowing scientists to reconstruct climate data year by year.
   
   1
2. Temperature Reconstruction: The NEEM (North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling) project has successfully extracted ice cores that provide a complete record of the last interglacial period, known as the Eemian, which occurred approximately 130,000 to 115,000 years ago. By analyzing the isotopic composition of the ice, researchers can infer past temperatures, revealing that Greenland was significantly warmer during this period than previously estimated.
   
   1
3. Evidence of Melting: The ice cores also show evidence of surface melting during the Eemian, indicated by layers of refrozen meltwater. This melting is crucial for understanding how the Greenland ice sheet responded to warmer temperatures and contributes to our knowledge of potential future climate scenarios.
   
   1
4. 
   
   
   1 Source

Sediment​

• Sub-glacial Sediments: In addition to ice, sediments retrieved from beneath the ice sheet contain well-preserved fossils, biomolecules, and pollen grains. These findings confirm the existence of ecosystems that thrived in Greenland when it was ice-free, providing context for the climate conditions during interglacial periods.
  
  1
• Environmental DNA (eDNA): Recent techniques involve analyzing ancient environmental DNA found within the sediments, which reveals the types of vegetation and animal life that existed during warmer periods, further illustrating the ecological changes that occurred during interglacial times.
  
  1
• 
  
  
  1 Source

Implications​

• The data obtained from Greenland ice cores not only enhance our understanding of past interglacial periods but also inform predictions about future climate change. The findings suggest that the warming expected in the coming decades could lead to conditions similar to those experienced during the Eemian, with significant implications for global sea levels and ecosystems.
  
  2
  In summary, the study of Greenland ice cores provides a detailed and nuanced understanding of interglacial periods, revealing how climate has changed over millennia and offering critical insights into the potential impacts of current and future warming trends.
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  2 Sources

Niels Bohr Institutet
Greenland ice cores reveal warm climate of the past


biologyinsights.com