notto said:Sunny Day, Cloudy Day, Clear Day, Snowy Day??
I've got layers like that in my back yard right now.
What are you doing there? that proved the layers you see in ice aren't anual layers.
Upvote
0
notto said:Sunny Day, Cloudy Day, Clear Day, Snowy Day??
I've got layers like that in my back yard right now.
Just to make sure we are on the same page, you are talking about the multiple layers by the airplanes?ThaiDuykhang said:You still refuse to explain why multiply layers are formed.
Along the coast where there is heavy snow there is a difference between visible layers and annual layers.If you can't explain how should 5.5ft snow with only one/two anual layer when you can see lots of them,
Most living creatures who live in the air get the carbon for their bodies from the CO2 in the air.ThaiDuykhang said:limerock melted in water will affect every creature evenly, so if you can't date a snail you can't date a human fossil either.
That's a miserable find for TEs. Humans also take in lots of carnates from minerals for example Na2CO3 and NaHCO3. How many pizzas have you eaten? How much soda waters have you drunk? Your bone might indicate you're thousands of years old.Robert the Pilegrim said:Most living creatures who live in the air get the carbon for their bodies from the CO2 in the air.
<sigh>
Amazing what happens when you do the correct search.
My bad for not finding this sooner.
http://www.radiocarbon.org/Subscribers/Fulltext/v41n2_Goodfriend_149.html
A number of earlier studies have established that land snail shell carbonate typically has a radiocarbon age anomaly: the measured 14C age is older than the actual age, as a result of ingestion of old carbonate (e.g., limestone) and its incorporation into the shell (Evin et al. 1980; Burleigh and Kerney 1982; Goodfriend and Stipp 1983; Goodfriend and Hood 1983; Goodfriend 1987). The ingested carbonate dissolves in the stomach acid, producing CO2, which dissolves in the body fluids to become part of the bicarbonate pool. This bicarbonate pool is the source material from which calcium carbonate is precipitated during the process of shell growth (Goodfriend and Hood 1983).
ThaiDuykhang said:What are you doing there? that proved the layers you see in ice aren't anual layers.
Yes, I'm talking about the layers form above the downed plane. However Deamiter has shown snow/ice doesn't need melt to form layers. (Try refute this!)Robert the Pilegrim said:Just to make sure we are on the same page, you are talking about the multiple layers by the airplanes?
If so, then I presume you get multiple layers from melts in between significant snowfalls. (Melts that you would get along the coast, but not necessarily inland away from the moderating influence of the ocean.)
Along the coast where there is heavy snow there is a difference between visible layers and annual layers.
[more browsing] Ah, okay
The ice cores are done in places where you don't get melting in order to avoid contamination of lower snow and ice by melting snow and ice at the top which occurs in the "percolation" zones.
Greenland has about 50% percolation zones, while Antarctica has only minimal coverage of such zones.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020107fa_FACTEven in summer, when the sun never sets, the snow doesn't melt in central Greenland, though during a clear day some of the top layer will evaporate. Then at nightor what passes for nightthis moisture will refreeze. The immediate effect is lovely to behold: one morning, I was wandering around North GRIP at about five o'clock, and I saw the hoarfrost growing in lacy patterns underfoot. As the summer snow gets buried under winter snow, it maintains its distinctive appearance; in a snow pit, summer layers show up as both coarser and airier than winter ones.The more rigorous GRIP sites alluded to this but I hadn't seen it spelled out quite so clearly as they were far more interested in more esoteric information.
As I have noted before these visible layers agree with other measurements all of which can be seen to occur on an annual basis.
not thickness nor visible boundaries? any TE agrees with that?notto said:The layers that are used for dating ice core and determined based on annual phenomen such as pollen, dust, density, and composition - not thickness or even visible boundaries. Unlike the layers in my back yard.
See how that works. They are DIFFERENT.
ThaiDuykhang said:not thickness nor visible boundaries? any TE agrees with that?
How thick is an anual layer? 5.5 feet? any TE agrees with that?
Which contains carbon which came from the air around the wheat plants, that is basic photosynthesis.ThaiDuykhang said:That's a miserable find for TEs. Humans also take in lots of carnates from minerals for example Na2CO3 and NaHCO3. How many pizzas have you eaten?
<Belch>How much soda waters have you drunk?
ThaiDuykhang said:not thickness nor visible boundaries? any TE agrees with that?
How thick is an anual layer? 5.5 feet? any TE agrees with that?
Do you understand what an anual layer is?
Repeating it doesn't make it true.ThaiDuykhang said:And? Given a some layers You simply don't know how they formed.
Look at these layers. They're quite visible, right?
http://p38assn.org/images/p38s/gg/downunder.jpg
Tell me how they're different to your "anual layers".
you simply can't distinguish your "anual" layer from daily layers. when someone dig up 100000(or 10000 I forget the exact number) layers of ice, no one can tell which is anual layer which is daily layer
Parameters used to date the core included ECM, dust, nitrate and ammonium, which all give excellent annual layersThaiDuykhang said:Tell me how they're different to your "anual layers".
you simply can't distinguish your "anual" layer from daily layers. when someone dig up 100000(or 10000 I forget the exact number) layers of ice, no one can tell which is anual layer which is daily layer
Parameters used to date the core included ECM, dust, nitrate and ammonium, which all give excellent annual layersIf you like lower snow fall, go to the northern most part of Greenland and watch the ice core there. Very thin or no ice core you can find. according to you that indicate a young earth.
notto said:Parameters used to date the core included ECM, dust, nitrate and ammonium, which all give excellent annual layers
Parameters used to date the core included ECM, dust, nitrate and ammonium, which all give excellent annual layers
Parameters used to date the core included ECM, dust, nitrate and ammonium, which all give excellent annual layers
(not thickness)
Indeed. Contrary to what's been said before, most of OUR carbon doesn't come from the atmosphere directly. It comes from plants (and animals that EAT plants). Of course THOSE plants and animals eventually got it from the atmosphere -- and at MOST a dozen years ago... Not nearly enough time for the C14 to decay.ThaiDuykhang said:That's a miserable find for TEs. Humans also take in lots of carnates from minerals for example Na2CO3 and NaHCO3. How many pizzas have you eaten? How much soda waters have you drunk? Your bone might indicate you're thousands of years old.
Sure. Bones accumulate carbon. They're "made" the same way as snailshells. The DIFFERENCE is that humans don't eat more limestone than plants and animals.Keep in mind of bones next time you bash snailshells. it grows the same way as snailshells.
EXACTLY right! We're showing why mollusk shells can't be dated -- why seals can't be dated, why penguins are bad candidates etc...Everytime you try to prove why snailshells can't be dated, you also prove why everything else can't be dated as well.
Actually, the carbonation in sodas often comes from the exhaust of burning fossil fuels. Gross but true. (It goes through a lengthy scrubbing process, but still.)Deamiter said:So yes, we get carbon from Pizza (which is organic). Yes we get carbon from soda (which is from the atmosphere).
Very well put.EXACTLY right! We're showing why mollusk shells can't be dated -- why seals can't be dated, why penguins are bad candidates etc...Everytime you try to prove why snailshells can't be dated, you also prove why everything else can't be dated as well.
There's decades of research into this -- we're not coming up with anything new! C14 dating is NOT accurate for EVERY living thing. That's been stated up front, so this shouldn't come as a suprise to you.
ThaiDuykhang said:1. It's a land snail
2. whenever there's date from carbon dating there're C14 in it. failure to detect C14 means the sample is infinitely old