this sort of thing is why I don't take the IPCC seriously at all
nobody, and I mean nobody, knows any atmospheric concentrations of gases or temperatures to any detail in the year 1000
"but ice samples" yeah whatever faggot, you don't know if those samples are representative, and you don't know what kind of contamination or diffusion there might have been. shit changes just sitting around for long periods of time, where "long" can mean potentially just months when you're talking about snow or ice
you *have to* put huge error bars on these sorts of estimates, more like "we think there was methane present (and this is why)" or "we don't think there was methane present" but these clowns are talking about parts per billion measurements 1000 years after the fact
nobody, and I mean nobody, knows any atmospheric concentrations of gases or temperatures to any detail in the year 1000
"but ice samples" yeah whatever faggot, you don't know if those samples are representative, and you don't know what kind of contamination or diffusion there might have been. shit changes just sitting around for long periods of time, where "long" can mean potentially just months when you're talking about snow or ice
you *have to* put huge error bars on these sorts of estimates, more like "we think there was methane present (and this is why)" or "we don't think there was methane present" but these clowns are talking about parts per billion measurements 1000 years after the fact
Follow
@deprecated_ii Also, how do they know how old those ice samples even are? Does carbon dating even apply to water?
Maybe someone can explain that to me, but that just does not make sense either. And perhaps they do not want to admit that there is a LOT of guesswork involved with what they are trying to determine.
