Their conclusions are based upon extrapolations out to 3310 data points from 2 or possibly 3 observeable, recorded real time-acquired data points going back at most 50 years.
The global warming premise is complete baloney, but one cannot assume that because one can observe ice depth accumulation over 50 years that the mass of ice which exists goes back 422,700 years.
Far too many unscientific assumptions.
The first time a party of men spent a winter season on Antarctica was the year 1821. No one was doing any scientific measurement of ice thickness depths then, and if they did certainly not in support of any of the 4 papers to be published 175 years later. Antarctica wasn't even fully determined to be a continent until 1840.
Still even if all the custody of data were perfectly preserved and fit the mode of interpretation of data and experimental control such as was published, one has at best 8-9 data points.
One cannot credibly, nor scientifically extrapolate any meaning from these core samples, because outside of observed science, no one can credibly account for the history of an artifact without knowing the custody of that artifact.
A scientist may credibly say that Antarctica has added 3 meters of ice in 50 years. It has been observed and recorded over that time.
No scientist can stand there and say that on the basis of 50 years' observation that 3310 meters of ice on Antarctica was added at a rate of 1 meter per year.
Global warming is baloney, but the data interpretation these 2 publication sources make unfortunately must be subjected to skewering for its equal level of cluelessness.
FReegards!
