I hardly know where to start with how bad this article and research is, and how much guts it to took to print it by Scientific American. Julian Sach and his photo-shoot friend Myhrvold try hard to put one over on the scientific community. They think that by using a ten-foot tube to get a six-foot core sample out of an equatorial heat island that their data will not be biased. If you only measure equatorial heat islands, you will only get increased temperature effects, no matter what D/H algae lipid levels are measured. Where's the 3000-foot lake to compare with? The research is biased before it even starts. I commend the authors that they do give some credence to solar activity but their heart isn't in it.
In 1983, Denmark's Willi Dansgaard and Switzerland's Hans Oeschger drilled two Greenland ice cores one mile deep, one mile apart, representing 250,000 years of the Earth's layered climate history. The cores were laid side by side. They found a 2500 year cycle superimposed on the big, ice age, climate swings. Their report in 1984 linked that cycle to the cycles of the Sun. These cycles also noted that it was before CO2 became an issue on this planet. Now, those cores were true research....not the flim-flam 6-foot cores that the authors are trying to promote to get tenure.
