Well, not all ice core data is equal. It depends on the rate of ice accumulation, so high accumulation sites will give much higher precision, especially for more recent years (say, the last few centuries). But my assumption is that low accumulation sites are where we get most of our much older data. I could be totally wrong as I’m talking out my behind.
Low accumulation sites will smooth out the peaks to the scale of centuries, according to that other post, so what looks like 200 years of 300ppm could be a lot spikier in reality. Whether one can do some ‘further analysis’ I have no idea.
I agree 100% with your second paragraph, there’s nothing I’m aware of that suggests CO2 has spiked liked this before. And it seems highly unlikely that it would’ve. And we may well have evidence to actually disprove such a theory.
Well, not all ice core data is equal. It depends on the rate of ice accumulation, so high accumulation sites will give much higher precision, especially for more recent years (say, the last few centuries). But my assumption is that low accumulation sites are where we get most of our much older data. I could be totally wrong as I’m talking out my behind.
Low accumulation sites will smooth out the peaks to the scale of centuries, according to that other post, so what looks like 200 years of 300ppm could be a lot spikier in reality. Whether one can do some ‘further analysis’ I have no idea.
I agree 100% with your second paragraph, there’s nothing I’m aware of that suggests CO2 has spiked liked this before. And it seems highly unlikely that it would’ve. And we may well have evidence to actually disprove such a theory.