The use of ice cores to show evidence of hundreds of millions of years of ice accumulation is a frequently used argument around here. Frequently dismissed, also. For educational purposes, I have a link to post that shows how climate data is gleaned from these ice cores. I also have a related link the talks about an ice core that, so far there is more ice down there, stretches back 3/4 of a million years.
I don't really think there is anything in here to change anyone's minds, but since it comes up frequently ithought you might at least be interested. I would at least like to add that if you think that these ice layers were layed down in short periods during catastrophic events, then why would you expect layers from different sample locations to show similar histories? If the event were catastrophic, would you not expect some pretty wild variation in what happened at different locations?
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=00001580-C282-1148-828283414B7F012B&catID=3&chanID=sa005
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleid=000352EA-658A-10C7-A58A83414B7F0000
I don't really think there is anything in here to change anyone's minds, but since it comes up frequently ithought you might at least be interested. I would at least like to add that if you think that these ice layers were layed down in short periods during catastrophic events, then why would you expect layers from different sample locations to show similar histories? If the event were catastrophic, would you not expect some pretty wild variation in what happened at different locations?
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=00001580-C282-1148-828283414B7F012B&catID=3&chanID=sa005
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleid=000352EA-658A-10C7-A58A83414B7F0000