In direct response to your question: You make a good point. And it shows that the more we get closer to the truth, the farther we get from the AGW theory.
Seems pretty straight forward to me, what is it you are trying to deny within what is a quite lengthy piece you have cut and pasted, water conductivity used as a basic test at many levels in various science fields.
It does say a more detailed "reliable" test is to directly measure sulfates, are you denying that.
Volcanoes with known eruption dates are a way to give very accurate dates to the shorter term ice record, exact date are of less importance the further back you go, or are you denying volcanoes.
The last paragraph is talking about the last couple of glacial periods and the inter glacial between, or are you also denying that, I ask because denier's seem to be in the phase of trying to deny most science.
From ice cores to glacial melt to sea level rise to ozone lose although these come from three different fields of science.
Anyone with a scrape of chemical science should be able to understand what is being referred to in your quotes, yet you seem to be saying they don't make sense to you.
As you seem to have tried to use a link I provided the other day to do some trolling, lets use it to prove I am who I say I am.
T.H. Jacka (better known as Joe Jacka) lead the Australian Antarctic Glaciology program for many years he is the Son of Fred Jacka a world renowned glaciologist (in glaciology circles) who dates back to the start of the Australian Antarctic program, in the 1960's.
Jo (I know quite well) he retired about a decade ago, the lady who took the first photo M.Holmes is actually Mandy Holmes, who was chef at Casey at the time, I know her as well.
For once what you have makes sense, as (apart from the title) it's science and you have actually added no denier BS, but I'm sure you will remedy that.
As for your added content this is the usual rant of a denier, which takes no account of what solar activity or other effects played a part in what happened 140,000 years ago, right here right now we know what the Sun is doing and have real time data on other activity like volcanic activity, if you had bothered to actually listen to anything real scientists had said in the last decade you would know they had hoped we could limit the end of the century temperature rise to 1-2c (similar to that seen in the last interglacial) but on what is happening they think we are headed for warmer conditions than that, more like 4c. A point I think you would find if you had the courage to look at other pages on the same website, but I'm sure you would rather stick to quoting mad english Lords with nazi fetishes and obscure TV weather men.
I'm not a theorist, but I read that the Milankovitch cycles, changes in solar insolation caused by cyclical variations in the earth's orbit,are the cause of the Earth's varying temperature - and that CO2 amplifies their effect. We are now in a part of the cycle where the Earth should be cooling, but it is not because we are increasing the amount of CO2 by our activities.There is a fuller explanation of this in the reference below:.
I am sure you asked an expert in glaciers or ice core samples they would be able to explain it to you more layman terms. I am neither, so I won't pretend to understand their science.
Does any of this explain the observed measurements and trends of today (the recent climate)??
As far as I aware "known natural variables" can not explain the trends observed today, otherwise the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming would be dismissed (which scientifically it can't, yet?).
"Take a guess and figure out my point or say something reasonable!"
I think it's always easier to say something reasonable rather than figure out your point.
Here's something reasonable: a large temperature change over 15,000 years is much easier to handle (although still quite rapid) than one over 150 years. Additionally it would be much easier to handle when humans don't have many trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure in place, like we do now.
Yes. Next question.
And your point is?
"Measurements of electrical conductivity are also made on the ice cores - these are closely linked to the acidity of the ice. Conductivity shows an annual cycle and is higher in the summer snow than the winter snow. This is probably because of chemical reactions in the atmosphere involving dimethyl sulphide (a chemical produced in greater quantities during the summer months by marine algae and phytoplankton), which result in production of low concentrations of sulphuric acid which is then distributed over the ice sheet. Sulphuric acid is often blasted into the atmosphere by volcanic eruptions. Therefore, the conductivity in the ice cores sometimes shows a peak at the depth corresponding to the time shortly after a volcanic eruption.
A more reliable method of detecting volcanic eruptions from the ice cores however, is to measure sulphate directly. Sulphate also exists in sea salt which is deposited on the ice sheet in small quantities from wind-blown sea spray. Thus, to examine the sulphate derived from volcanoes, the sea-salt sulphate needs first to be accounted for. This can be easily done by measuring the quantities of other chemicals of marine origin.
On Figure 4, along with the accurate dating of the ice core from delta value and hydrogen peroxide, plots of conductivity and non-sea-salt Sulphate are also included. The conductivity graph does indicate annual cycles, but more interesting are the large peaks in this and in the sulphate graphs, which occur at about 1810 and between about 1816 and 1818 AD. The 1816-18 peak is due to the eruption in 1815 of Tambora, a volcano in Indonesia. The peak in about 1810 certainly seems to be due to another volcanic eruption, but none is known to have occurred around then. Volcanic eruptions are useful to glaciologists as a check on the other ice core dating techniques. On the other hand, there are previously unknown volcanic eruptions have been discovered from the evidence from the ice cores."
"140,000 years ago, the climate was about 6°C colder than it is today. This was an ice age period. Then at about 130,000 years ago, there was a quite rapid warming period until about 125,000 years ago, when the climate was, perhaps, 1°C or 2°C warmer than today. These short warmer periods are called inter-glacials. We are in an inter-glacial now. From 120,000 to about 20,000 years ago, there was a long period of cooling temperatures, but with some ups and downs of a degree or two. This was the Wisconsin Period, known as the last Great Ice Age. From about 18,000 or 19,000 years ago to about 15,000 years ago, the climate went through another warming period to the next inter-glacial, - the one we are now in.
http://www.chem.hope.edu/~polik/warming/IceCore/IceCore2.html
