A Calculating Age

[dad]

Please describe how, in your own words.

OK, describe something specific dated.

Here is something for you...

"Today's knowledge of fossil ages comes primarily from radiometric dating, also known as radioactive dating. Radiometric dating relies on the properties of isotopes."

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/dinosaur-bone-age.htm

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't believe you. You observe here where the3re is time. Any movements in stars are seen in our time. Why do you run away from those observations?

If there weren't time at the star, the photons would never have been produced or traveled to us. What we observe is what time and space did at the star.

Instead of accepting these facts, you make up stories and fantasies about movement in space without time, as if that were possible. This is the type of pretzel you have to twist yourself into in order to ignore the evidence.

 

[RickG]

OK, describe something specific dated.

Ice Cores.

 

[dad]

If there weren't time at the star, the photons would never have been produced or traveled to us. What we observe is what time and space did at the star.

Who made that rule?

Traveling only takes time if there is time! Photons could be the way light exists in OUR time and space for all we know. In so many ways you fail. You should admit not really knowing.

 

[dad]

Ice Cores.

Darn I already edited the post and picked dino bones.

Oh well, let's do ice instead.

Again isotopes are used in ice cores.

"

Methods
1. Counting of Annual Layers
2. Pre-determined Ages Used as Markers
3. Radioactive Dating
4. Ice Flow Models

http://www.academia.edu/2602359/Methods_for_Dating_Ice_Cores

Ice flow models are no doubt present state based. Pre determined ages...very funny. Radioactive same state past belief based so called dating...and 'annual' layers. Obviously that is present state based, as they look at what a year brings about now.


Bing and a bam and a boom.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ice Cores.

Yet when it comes to the subject of so-called global warming - almost everyone then ignores that ice core data and blames the current reoccurring rise, approximately every 125,000 years - less than any in history - on man. But I wasn't aware you could radiocarbon date ice cores. So tell us, during those long periods of extreme cold - versus the tiny little warm spells - would you agree that those layers just might be laid down at a faster rate than we currently observe - one of those tiny little warm spells - and judge everything by? That therefore our concept of the passage of time might indeed be flawed based upon layering rates we observe during those extremely far apart and small warming periods?

We are after all, basing our belief on annual layering rates during one of those tiny little warming periods.

EDIT:
I mean after all, in just 50 years we have observed 260 feet of ice accumulated in Greenland alone. Against claims of how long these layers take to form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_Girl

Since the Greenland ice sheet is approximately 4000 feet thick - just at the actual observed rate - versus theory - it would take less than 1000 years. So once again we find the actual data does not match claims of how long layering takes.

 

[RickG]

Darn I already edited the post and picked dino bones.

Oh well, let's do ice instead.

Again isotopes are used in ice cores.

"

Methods
1. Counting of Annual Layers
2. Pre-determined Ages Used as Markers
3. Radioactive Dating
4. Ice Flow Models

http://www.academia.edu/2602359/Methods_for_Dating_Ice_Cores

http://www.academia.edu/2602359/Methods_for_Dating_Ice_Cores

How does any of that support your position? Are you focusing solely on the problems that can be encountered? If so, that is intellectual dishonesty. That is, focusing only on things that appear to support your position while ignoring everything that does not.

Here's an example you may be able to understand:

Adam buys a car.

Problems:

• Can't get a loan
• Bought a straight shift but doesn't know how to drive one
• Doesn't know his way home from the dealer
• Car may break down
• Car may run out of gas
• May have a flat tire
• etc.

Things ignored:

• Has good credit, loan no problem.
• Learns how to drive a straight shift.
• Car has GPS showing way home.
• Brand new car, no maint. problems.
• Car has full tank of gas.
• New tires
• etc.

Ice flow models are no doubt present state based.

Which has nothing to do with your made up dream world changed-state-past.

Pre determined ages...very funny.

Another thing you ignored. Your source is nothing more than an outline, not to mention you are ignoring the context of what is meant by pre determined ages. It doesn't mean that they make up ages.

Radioactive same state past belief based so called dating...and 'annual' layers. Obviously that is present state based, as they look at what a year brings about now.

Again, there is no evidence to support any changed state past. NONE!.

Bing and a bam and a boom.

Yup! Bign and bam and boom. An excellent example of intellectual dishonesty. Do you even know how annual layers are determined?

 

[RickG]

Yet when it comes to the subject of so-called global warming - almost everyone then ignores that ice core data and blames the current reoccurring rise, approximately every 125,000 years - less than any in history - on man. But I wasn't aware you could radiocarbon date ice cores. So tell us, during those long periods of extreme cold - versus the tiny little warm spells - would you agree that those layers just might be laid down at a faster rate than we currently observe - one of those tiny little warm spells - and judge everything by? That therefore our concept of the passage of time might indeed be flawed based upon layering rates we observe during those extremely far apart and small warming periods?

We are after all, basing our belief on annual layering rates during one of those tiny little warming periods.

What you presented above is an affirmation that you agree with ice core data. Excellent!

EDIT:
I mean after all, in just 50 years we have observed 260 feet of ice accumulated in Greenland alone. Against claims of how long these layers take to form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_Girl

Since the Greenland ice sheet is approximately 4000 feet thick - just at the actual observed rate - versus theory - it would take less than 1000 years. So once again we find the actual data does not match claims of how long layering takes.

Interesting that you would bring that up while completely ignoring that I have a thread on that very topic. I'll check it in a moment to see if you have posted any comments. If not please do so. In the mean time I'll explain the problem with that claim.

Greenland is not gaining ice volume, it is loosing ice volume at an accelerated rate. Your accusation concerns the so called "Lost Squadron" that was forced to land in Greenland during WWII. Where the planes landed was the SE portion of Greenland near the coast where the annual snow fall exceeds 2 meters a year. The 260 feet of ice you claim is well over half snow pack and Firn, not ice. It is also on a very active glacier. The 4000 feet of ice you mention is in the northern area of Greenland where annual snow fall is only a few inches. A comparison of actual ice thickness there with that of lost squadron is extremely fallacious.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/ancientice.html#Oxygen and Other Isotopes

Why don't we study how isotopes actually behave in ice.

"The short-term peaks of d18O in the ice sheets have been ascribed to annual summer/winter layering of snow formed at higher and lower air temperatures. These peaks have been used for dating the glacier ice, assuming that the sample increments of ice cores represent the original mean isotopic composition of precipitation, and that the increments are in a steady-state closed system.

Experimental evidence, however, suggests that this assumption is not valid, because of dramatic metamorphosis of snow and ice in the ice sheets as a result of changing temperature and pressure. At very cold Antarctic sites, the temperature gradients were found to reach 500°C/m, because of subsurface absorption of Sun radiation. Radiational subsurface melting is common in Antarctica at locations with summer temperatures below -20°C, leading to formation of ponds of liquid water, at a depth of about 1 m below the surface. Other mechanisms are responsible for the existence of liquid water deep in the cold Antarctic ice, which leads to the presence of vast sub-sheet lakes of liquid water, covering an area of about 8,000 square kilometers in inland eastern Antarctica and near Vostok Station, at near basal temperatures of -4 to -26.2°C. The sub-surface recrystallization, sublimation, and formation of liquid water and vapor disturb the original isotopic composition of snow and ice. . .

Important isotopic changes were found experimentally in firn (partially compacted granular snow that forms the glacier surface) exposed to even 10 times lower thermal gradients. Such changes, which may occur several times a year, reflecting sunny and overcast periods, would lead to false age estimates of ice. It is not possible to synchronize the events in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, such as, for example, CO2 concentrations in Antarctic and Greenland ice. This is, in part the result of ascribing short-term stable isotope peaks of hydrogen and oxygen to annual summer/winter layering of ice. and using them for dating. . .

In the air from firn and ice at Summit, Greenland, deposited during the past ~200 years, the CO2 concentration ranged from 243.3 ppmv to 641.4 ppmv. Such a wide range reflects artifacts caused by sampling or natural processes in the ice sheet, rather than the variations of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Similar or greater range was observed in other studies of greenhouse gases in polar ice." http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/


As for annual layers, some of us are quite aware as to how they are determined:

Of course those who support isotope dating will ignore that Glacier Girl found in 260 feet of ice 50 years later was found beneath hundreds of so called annual layering rings which they of course claim supports their isotope data.

"“After the snow deposition on polar ice sheets, not all the chemical species preserve the original concentration values in the ice. In order to obtain reliable past-environmental information by firn and ice cores, it is important to understand how post-depositional effects can alter the chemical composition of the ice.These effects can happen both in the most superficial layers and in the deep ice. In the snow surface, post-depositional effects are mainly due to re-emission in the atmosphere and we show here that chloride, nitrate, methane-sulphonic acid (MSA) and H2O2 [hydrogen peroxide] are greatly affected by this process; moreover, we show how the mean annual snow accumulation rate influences the re-emission extent. In the deep ice, post-depositional effects are mainly due to movement of acidic species and it is interesting to note the behavior of some substances (e.g. chloride and nitrate) in acidic (high concentrations of volcanic acid gases) and alkaline (high dust content) ice layers . . . We failed to identify any consistent relationship between dust concentration or size distribution, and ionic chemistry or snowpack stratigraphy.”

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...the_Penny_Ice_Cap_Baffin_Island_Arctic_Canada

http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/AncientIce/Greenland_Melt.jpg
http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/AncientIce/Portage Glacier Melt.jpg
http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/AncientIce/Pasterze Glacier Melt.jpg

Of course this is extensively used by those who promote global warming - but always excluded by those who support layering data and dating. So we can reasonably presume, can we not, that during the Middle Holocene where scientists believe the global temperatures were 2 to 5 degrees C warmer - that even more melting would have occurred?

 

[RickG]

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/ancientice.html#Oxygen and Other Isotopes

Why don't we study how isotopes actually behave in ice.

"The short-term peaks of d18O in the ice sheets have been ascribed to annual summer/winter layering of snow formed at higher and lower air temperatures. These peaks have been used for dating the glacier ice, assuming that the sample increments of ice cores represent the original mean isotopic composition of precipitation, and that the increments are in a steady-state closed system.

Justa, before I respond to your post, I want to ask do you know what "d18O" means. Just curious.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What you presented above is an affirmation that you agree with ice core data. Excellent

What was affirmed is that your claims of annual layering rates are judged by a time of rare warming. You base the entire history of the earth by what you observe today - and somehow think that is ok, even if you also believe global temperatures were up to 8 to 10 degrees C cooler - and then try to tell us layering must have occurred at the same rate as during this warm spell. No one believes this but you. And we will ignore mammoths flash frozen and buried in ice so fast they still had daisies in their stomachs? But everything happened in the past as it happened today, right? Right????

Interesting that you would bring that up while completely ignoring that I have a thread on that very topic. I'll check it in a moment to see if you have posted any comments. If not please do so. In the mean time I'll explain the problem with that claim.

Greenland is not gaining ice volume, it is loosing ice volume at an accelerated rate. Your accusation concerns the so called "Lost Squadron" that was forced to land in Greenland during WWII. Where the planes landed was the SE portion of Greenland near the coast where the annual snow fall exceeds 2 meters a year. The 260 feet of ice you claim is well over half snow pack and Firn, not ice. It is also on a very active glacier. The 4000 feet of ice you mention is in the northern area of Greenland where annual snow fall is only a few inches. A comparison of actual ice thickness there with that of lost squadron is extremely fallacious.

Yes, this indeed looks like a plane run over by a glacier - NOT. Good excuse though - or good attempt to divert the truth.

Snow, yep, if you say so:

I expect that thread is as full of your errors as your post is. Glaciers which grind down granite and crush things - miraculously leaves the plane virtually intact. If you say so.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justa, before I respond to your post, I want to ask do you know what "d18O" means. Just curious.

I know what everything I study means, or I wouldn't be discussing it - unlike some.

But so you know - since you don't actually - it is the measure of stable isotopes O18 and O16.

But apparently you like everyone else ignores the diffusion we observe even near the surface of glaciers - let alone at great depths and under great pressures. You fool no one but yourself.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course the real kicker is that glaciers once spread across almost all of the continents. But then melting occurred and the continents became mostly ice free. But then we ignore this and ignore all the ice that also must have been on top of Greenland during this period of ice ages and all the ice that must have melted off - and claim we can calculate the age of the ice by layering. Layering data is severely flawed - being that in the past there must have been miles more of ice on Greenland if there was 3 to 4 miles of ice on the Americas. So if your radiometric dating was correct - it would have given even older ages - being that during the time when the glaciers melted off of North America and Europe - it must have melted off of Greenland as well. Leaving what was left only of ancient age. Yet they tell us they can consistently date the ice on Greenland from the present backwards, ignoring their claims of 3 to 4 miles of ice covering the northern latitudes that must also have melted off of Greenland.

Yet we hear nothing of this great gap that must exist during the melting of ice across the hemisphere. Are told of constant layering dates that can be traced consistently backwards.

I'd say that consistent tracing is pure dreaming of what they want to be able to claim - not reality. So are we to believe that during the time of glaciers that spread 3 to 4 miles thick across the northern hemisphere, Greenland was unaffected???? Or that during this time of the melting of 3 to 4 miles of ice - Greenland was again unaffected????

 

[RickG]

I know what everything I study means, or I wouldn't be discussing it - unlike some.

But so you know - since you don't actually - it is the measure of stable isotopes O18 and O16.

But apparently you like everyone else ignores the diffusion we observe even near the surface of glaciers - let alone at great depths and under great pressures. You fool no one but yourself.

 

[RickG]

I know what everything I study means, or I wouldn't be discussing it - unlike some.

Really? I would say without a doubt that your claim that the "lost squadron" nullify's ice core chronology demonstrates a total ignorance of the process.

But so you know - since you don't actually - it is the measure of stable isotopes O18 and O16.

Well, I certainly don't claim to be an expert, however, I do have over 25 years professional experience as a chemist analyzing isotope and ion ratios, an M.S. in Earth Science, with a concentration in paleoclimatology. So yes, I "actually" do know something about the subject.

But apparently you like everyone else ignores the diffusion we observe even near the surface of glaciers - let alone at great depths and under great pressures. You fool no one but yourself.

And I am very familiar with the diffusion rate of the δ18O/16O isotopes, that is why I asked if you knew what they meant; as well as δ Deuterium, which you didn't mention. Contrary to what you are claiming those ratios are a very accurate method of measuring annual layers. What your source, Pitman, an M.D. who has no education in paleoclimatology whatsoever, conveniently, fails to mention is that the stable isotope method, like all dating methods, have their limits. In the case of stable isotope ratios they are very good up 8,500 years, and in many cases for as much as 14,000 years. And the reason those isotopes lend themselves to such accuracy due to fractionation of the heavier isotopes due seasonal temperature difference.

Beyond the stable isotope method and limits numerous other proxy's are available as well. Some include seasonal specific concentrations of Calcium, Nitrate, Sodium, and Sulfate ions, acidity, conductivity, and pollen.

 

[crjmurray]

I know what everything I study means, or I wouldn't be discussing it - unlike some.

But so you know - since you don't actually - it is the measure of stable isotopes O18 and O16.

But apparently you like everyone else ignores the diffusion we observe even near the surface of glaciers - let alone at great depths and under great pressures. You fool no one but yourself.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[bhsmte]

Thanks for the laugh.

He does know fairie dust though.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Really? I would say without a doubt that your claim that the "lost squadron" nullify's ice core chronology demonstrates a total ignorance of the process.

That''s what I hear you "claiming," yet presnt no facts to argue against anything.

Well, I certainly don't claim to be an expert, however, I do have over 25 years professional experience as a chemist analyzing isotope and ion ratios, an M.S. in Earth Science, with a concentration in paleoclimatology. So yes, I "actually" do know something about the subject.



And I am very familiar with the diffusion rate of the δ18O/16O isotopes, that is why I asked if you knew what they meant; as well as δ Deuterium, which you didn't mention. Contrary to what you are claiming those ratios are a very accurate method of measuring annual layers. What your source, Pitman, an M.D. who has no education in paleoclimatology whatsoever, conveniently, fails to mention is that the stable isotope method, like all dating methods, have their limits. In the case of stable isotope ratios they are very good up 8,500 years, and in many cases for as much as 14,000 years. And the reason those isotopes lend themselves to such accuracy due to fractionation of the heavier isotopes due seasonal temperature difference.

Beyond the stable isotope method and limits numerous other proxy's are available as well. Some include seasonal specific concentrations of Calcium, Nitrate, Sodium, and Sulfate ions, acidity, conductivity, and pollen.

So you will ignore all the layers which must have both occurred and disappeared to keep your faith????

Of course the real kicker is that glaciers once spread across almost all of the continents. But then melting occurred and the continents became mostly ice free. But then we ignore this and ignore all the ice that also must have been on top of Greenland during this period of ice ages and all the ice that must have melted off - and claim we can calculate the age of the ice by layering. Layering data is severely flawed - being that in the past there must have been miles more of ice on Greenland if there was 3 to 4 miles of ice on the Americas. So if your radiometric dating was correct - it would have given even older ages - being that during the time when the glaciers melted off of North America and Europe - it must have melted off of Greenland as well. Leaving what was left only of ancient age. Yet they tell us they can consistently date the ice on Greenland from the present backwards, ignoring their claims of 3 to 4 miles of ice covering the northern latitudes that must also have melted off of Greenland.

Yet we hear nothing of this great gap that must exist during the melting of ice across the hemisphere. Are told of constant layering dates that can be traced consistently backwards.

I'd say that consistent tracing is pure dreaming of what they want to be able to claim - not reality. So are we to believe that during the time of glaciers that spread 3 to 4 miles thick across the northern hemisphere, Greenland was unaffected???? Or that during this time of the melting of 3 to 4 miles of ice - Greenland was again unaffected????

So despite your claims of accuracy, you ignore that 3 to 4 miles of data - and it's respective time frame is missing, yet date them as if it was a continuous process?? I'm at a loss to understand how you justify such a dating method that ignores what science believes to have occurred?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

He does know fairie dust though.

I certainly see it right now, that's for sure. Why didn't you address the subject matter of the post and instead opt for an argument of fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Seems that's all I ever see - not debate on the science - but avoidance on your part. So basically until you decide to respond to the science - you will be ignored. I've no time for children that think attacking the poster instead of the post is scientific.

 

[bhsmte]

I certainly see it right now, that's for sure. Why didn't you address the subject matter of the post and instead opt for an argument of fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Seems that's all I ever see - not debate on the science - but avoidance on your part. So basically until you decide to respond to the science - you will be ignored. I've no time for children that think attacking the poster instead of the post is scientific.

As many times as your arguments have been refuted by others, why would I need to pile on? I am too nice a guy to do that.