zlacker

I never worried about it, but do worry about science lacking the knowledge of millions of years of climate change being put into a few hundred.

>>SebFen+(OP)
I don't quite get your point? Assuming I'm interpreting it correctly:

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-an...

: The oldest continuous ice core records to date extend 123,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica. Ice cores contain information about past temperature, and about many other aspects of the environment. Crucially, the ice encloses small bubbles of air that contain a sample of the atmosphere – from these it is possible to measure directly the past concentration of atmospheric gases, including the major greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

And fossil records go back further with respect to more general climate conditions capable of sustaining various species.

But regardless, changing the climate status quo in a short time will have various impacts, only some of which we can accurately predict and model.

>>anonym+9F
That's exactly my point. Having studied it - what you're telling us represents about 0.025%.

Never would I take a stance at such a low percentage - it isn't representative.

Even after millions of years, it isn't a significant portion of what climate is and was.

>>SebFen+G5e
Millions of years of past tracking of a baseball (assuming one could last that long) has little bearing on the trajectory when thrown yesterday.

We're informed by past conditions and responses - but the most recent conditions (climatic parameters steady state wrt decadal means for past several thousand years + most recent hundred years of atmospheric change) are what matters now wrt AGW.