Is the answer to prove global warming does not exist in the ice cores????

Good luck proving something that does exist, does not exist ;-)

Your writing is too unclear to address whatever confusion you have about the Antarctica ice sheets, coring, and melting. Perhaps you should try formulating your questions a little clearer, rather than thinking out-loud without editing your words into cohesive thoughts.

Edit:

Your writing is still too incohesive to adequately respond too. What's your point/question? Are you claiming ice is NOT melting? Because it most definitely is. You see, our problem is "global" warming and that means we have to avoid confusing local situations with global (which I think is the core of your confusion). Just because 100,000+ year-old mile thick glaciers in Antarctica haven't disappeared doesn't mean ice around the world isn't melting. The total ice mass on Greenland, Antarctica, and the major monitored glaciers from 9 mountain ranges from around the world are all declining (and it appears the rate is accelerating).

Glacier Mass Balance

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb9/sum06.html

Antarctica Ice Mass Decline

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311...

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008...

Greenland Ice Mass Decline

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/113...

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/...

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/139843main_grac...

Edit 2:

Cindy wrote: "Again, we are NOT a greenhouse".

Who are you arguing with? None of the answers say we are a "greenhouse". Try to stay focused. Do you now at least understand that my links prove ice is indeed melting?

Proof of ice cores not existing in global warming is the answer, not the question. The melting of the ice, and with it the evidence, getting iced over, is obviously like the cake, without icing that has melted away. So I wonder not only about whether or not you suffered a TBI at some point, but whether or not I could have some of your spare time, and if anyone could answer this question to your satisfaction. The best response I can give is that we are not a greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases tend to be gaseous, and unless you are like that alien on Star Trek that was a sparkly cloud of malevolent gas, you would have a more solid body than a gas, except possibly for your cerebrum, which might have some big lesions in it.

Excellent question, I would give you a star but I'm too lazy.

He has a valid perspective. climate exchange is consistently happening. submit to in suggestions interior the 1960's it became the earth became experiencing worldwide cooling? Is it by using human interest? possibly it particularly is something to contemplate. Has it handed off in the previous and wasn't because of the fact of human interest? Yep. What with regard to the 4 hundred year long drought interior the southwest that in the time of all hazard drove out the Anasazi. Or the a protracted time long drought that the eastern US became experiencing in the1600's while the Pilgrims and different communities have been touchdown? It became in basic terms 10,000 years in the past that the final of the glaciers became taking flight out of the U. S.. There wasn't any human interest at that factor that could have brought about that warming. So what if there is worldwide warming shall we no longer do something approximately it if there became. we gained't even administration while it rains or no longer. We (the earth) will stay to tell the story it. Even the meteor that destroyed the dinosaurs (and that has no longer been shown, it particularly is barely a great thought) became particularly a great element for mammals and us. Then there is the entire political component. Al Gore owns area of a employer which will administer cap and commerce while it passes (and it will) and he will make hundreds of thousands so he can discover the money for greater beneficial than the seven residences he now has. So why do you think of he's pushing the worldwide warming element?

the melting is mainly in the arctic not the Antarctic or Greenland and Even though there is increased melting it dose not mean that there Will be no ice left.

edit

we are not in a greenhouse but the efefect is silular to one. the greenhouse effect is fact you cannot argue with it unless you somehow disprove several laws of physics.

if the greenhouse effect can not trap heat over a night why then is earth warmer at night then the dark side of the moon or other objects that do not have a layer of atmosphere?

FYI an ice sheet is not just one peace of ice it is a section so many parts can break off.

some food for thought

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570...

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Ther...

Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure I understand what you're searching for but I'll try to answer anyway.

Antarctic is a very cold place. As long as the temperature doesn't exceed 0 C degrees, ice doesn't melt. It doesn't matter if it's -40 C or -1, the ice stays and precipitation will make the layer of snow and ice thicker. Only when a large area of ice has reached 0 degrees, it starts to melt. Interesting link b t w.

Well, global warming is here. There's not a scientist in the world who will deny the temperature graphs.

However, Ice cores do show that there isn't nearly as big a link between CO2 levels and temperature for example. Nor do humans play the only role in it, as there have been similar periods of heating in the past, when there either were no humans, or we will still figuring out which part of the spear goes into the mammoth.

Of course, Al Gore and his "climate patrol" don't want to tell you that.

Dr. Jaworsky expresses some doubts about the methods and results of the ice core data, and points out how credible data which conflicts with IPCCs assertion of stable CO2 is ignored.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=255...

This one has a bunch of links to "deniers" ideas

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/inde...

I see your question about using the Almighty CO2

as a source of energy has been removed - I geuss they couldn't see the humor of it. I still get credit for the answer, tho. Thank you.

jfmoris110@yahoo.com

o trust me, gobal warming is there. no i dont think that gobal warming can be proven false or true with the ice cores but if all the ice melted, they alreasy have like hundreds of sameples to look at. but there is without a doubt global warming is real. the gov just shut everyone up about it becouse i figure they dont wanna cause a mass planatary scale panic. that would be a little bad. if you dont belive me just check out AL GORE'S presentation on the subject.

ice cores do not go back far enough less then 750,000 years sea floor sediments are better as they go back over 60 million years.

any older then 750,000 years and there are no cores because the earth was about 5 degrees warmer then today.

Melting ice is only proof of it is warming, not anthropogenic global warming.