Perhaps you should take your thoughts up with Richard Alley? His email is provided should you care to set him straight from your wealth of knowledge on the subject.
Richard Alley: Alley was educated at Ohio State University and University of Wisconsin–Madison where he was awarded a PhDin 1987
Alley was awarded the Seligman Crystal in 2005 “for his prodigious contribution to our understanding of the stability of the ice sheets and glaciers of Antarctica and Greenland, and of erosion and sedimentation by this moving ice.”
https://www.igsoc.org/journal/56/200/j10j201.pdf
ABSTRACT. Ice cores are remarkably faithful recorders of past climate, providing multiply duplicated reconstructions with small and quantifiable uncertainties. Ice-core reconstructions in general do not rely on assumed quantitative time-invariance of empirical calibrations between climate and sedimentary characteristics, but instead rely on assuming little more than the constancy of physical law over time. The history of some of the discoveries that allow these ice-core climatic reconstructions is instructive for students, citizens and policymakers. Much important ice-core science was published in the Journal of Glaciology and the Annals of Glaciology
Wildrose, why don’t you regale Dr. Alley with your knowledge of glaciation? He has spent his whole career on the subject but I’m sure the tidbits you know will set him straight.
When he starts posting here I will.
You can email him. Don’t let him continue to suffer without you correcting him. Don’t be shy.
I don’t understand your reluctance. You clearly believe you know more than Dr Alley who has spent his life studying glaciation starting with his PhD and culminating in multiple awards for research over a 30+ year career.
But you know more. Why not share your insights with people that could benefit? Set Dr Alley straight!
It’s always funny that you go personal when you can’t defend your own positions.
Sad, but funny.
Samm
5218
But I didn’t present a graph to debunk AGW. The graph that was presented showed exactly what it claimed to show, approximately 10,000 years of proxy temperature on the Greenland ice field. You are the one who claimed it was being used to represent something else.
What is the “company line” for those who work at Australia’s BoM or CSIRO? Which employees’ (of the BoM or CSIRO) pay cheques are dependent on toeing the “company line”? In fact what is the name of the company?
Samm, go back to when it was introduced to the thread. It was used to demonstrate global warming was wrong. I pointed out it did not represent global temps and lacked data more current than 1855 which would miss most of the years of actual anthropogenic warming. The poster who originally included the graph agreed it did not disprove warming. Only you are saying that now.
Samm
5221
That’s ridiculous. Where have I ever even implied, let alone said, that it disproved global warming?
You were not the original poster of the graph. Glad we agree the graph does not disprove global warming.
Samm
5223
That does not answer my question.
Hey, if you weren’t defending the graph’s use as evidence against global warming then we all were just talking past each other.
I’m just glad we finally agree that the graph is not evidence against global warming.
Samm
5225
I’ve come to the conclusion that you don’t actually read my posts. Although that is giving you the benefit of doubt.
Ok. I’m just glad we agree the graph is not evidence against global warming.
Samm
5227
You could have saved 20-30 posts if you had actually read mine.
You said the graph questioned AGW. It does not as it is useless. It is not evidence against global warming.
Samm
5229
I said no such thing. I haven’t talked about AGW at all.
Nobody here has been arguing there is no warming. Just another strawman.
