And I don't always do so to avoid bias in my claims. I honestly provide information that I believe supports my claims. The information I link to does not always match my own conclusions. I am a generalist that takes multiple sources into account and don't buy into everything I read. And I don't buy into all the material I may link to.
That's all well and good, it's just that occasionally, some of the sources you link to are well outside the scientific community. In saying that you don't buy into all the material you link to, just what is your criteria for buying or not buying into that material?
I have criteria as well for accepting material I read. I stick with credible scientific organizations and institutions that are well respected within the scientific community. In the peer review literature, I check the number of citations a paper has received and review the papers which cited the original to get a perspective of what other scientists say about the research. I also stay withing the realm of credible journals, there are some in which the reviewers are not always experts in the fields they review. I will also occasionally communicate with an author when I need clarification or additional information. Most authors of published peer review literature are glad to provide such information. Having an academic background at the graduate level in the area doesn't hurt either.
But not it's limitations? Then the info is garbage. Let me offer a less sterilized view from reality.
Offer a less sterilized
view from reality? Why in the world would you want to abandon reality?
" However they also give evidence of stratigraphic disturbances affecting at least some of the fast variations.
Sky, no one says the entire length of ice cores obtained are perfect. Of course they contain stratigraphic disturbances (anomalies). For a number of reasons there are disturbances where little to no information can be derived. That is not the fault of the instrumentation and also why multiple cores are drilled and compared.
However, the role of stratigraphic disturbances cannot be settled until ice flow modellers can explain the kind and the mechanisms of such disturbances.This will be a difficult task, especially for the very short cold periods where the ice layer with completely different characteristics is only about 0.2 m thick."
It would only be fair to finish out the statement, wouldn't it.
This will be a difficult task, especially for the very short
cold periods where the ice layer with completely different
characteristics is only about 0.2 m thick. Hope remains that
much can be learned about the Eemian climate from the existing
two cores. Ultimately, just as these cores were needed to validate
the rapid oscillations already observed in the Camp Century and
Dye3 cores, a new core, where the Eemian period is farther above
bedrock, will be needed to give a final answer.
"Particularly,
dating of the ice present in the GRIP core under the 54 m increment below 2900m displaying disturbed stratigraphy is very difficult. However,
the uncertainty on the age of the oldest glacier ice just above the silty ice does not affect the interpretation of the basal ice from the GRIP core as given here.
It can be assumed that the Greenland Ice Sheet was also developed during the interglacials preceding the Eemian since the climate during these periods was less warm than that of the Eemian. "
"When Ca is low, the background acidity is fairly constant throughout the core, suggesting a fairly stable combination of source emissions, transport and uptake during these periods.
This conclusion is tempered by difficulties in understanding the air/snow relationship for acidic species (e.g. nitric acid) in particular. "
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/document/finalrpt/gripfinl.txt
So really Sky, what is your point? Are you trying to suggest from one of the earliest cores drilled in Greenland where the technology was not as robust then as it is now somehow negates today what is known with today's technology and methods?
