Paleo-atmospheres: The Ice-Core Record

[RickG]

Chrystaline polar ice has ample space between its molecules of water to trap chemical impurities and gases in the form of "fossil air" which provides a direct measurement of past atmospheres. It is these chemical impurities and gases that not only allow us to look at paleo-atmospheres, but to also provide a reliable chronology in which they occurred as well. Many of them are not only annual indicators but seasonal indicators as well.

The primary paleoclimate indicators measured in ice cores include stable isotopic ratios of the ice lattice and stable isotopes of the trapped gases as well. Some are soluble (NHO3, HCl, H2O2, NH3) and insoluble cations such as NH4+, Ca2+, Mg2+ and anions such as NO3-, ClSO4^2-, electrical conductivity and cosmogenic isotopes. Dust and pollen are also indicators as well.

The intent of this thread is to look into each of these climate indicators and how we are able to understand what they reveal.

 

[AV1611VET]

So they dig down tens of thousands of layers of ice, make the assumption that they're looking at thousands and thousands of years into the past ... then they dig down a little further and ... lookey here:

Spoiler: What they find:

A lost squadron of planes.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So they dig down tens of thousands of layers of ice, make the assumption that they're looking at thousands and thousands of years into the past ... then they dig down a little further and ... lookey here:

Spoiler: What they find:

A lost squadron of planes.

I'm quite certain that RickG has shown you why that claim is wrong.
Plus, it also has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.

 

[RickG]

So they dig down tens of thousands of layers of ice, make the assumption that they're looking at thousands and thousands of years into the past ... then they dig down a little further and ... lookey here:

Spoiler: What they find:

A lost squadron of planes.

Oh! You mean Dr. Wielands fantasy.

 

[Derek Meyer]

So they dig down tens of thousands of layers of ice, make the assumption that they're looking at thousands and thousands of years into the past ... then they dig down a little further and ... lookey here:

Spoiler: What they find:

A lost squadron of planes.

I think that you're not telling the truth here. Do you know the difference between layers of ice and annual layers of ice?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you know the difference between layers of ice and annual layers of ice?

Yes.

That's why I said "tens of thousands" in the first part of my post, and "thousands and thousands" in the second.

 

[Ophiolite]

How do you define assumption AV? Don't throw some online definitions at me please. Tell me, in your own words, what assumption means to you.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Yes. That's why I said "tens of thousands" in the first part of my post, and "thousands and thousands" in the second.

You still haven't answered the question. Here it is again:

Do you know the difference between layers of ice and annual layers of ice?

Let's give you a little hint. The thickness of ice layers vary. The thickness of annual ice layers vary. Some years it snows more than others, for example. Some years places experience lots of snowstorms dumping lots of snow in layers stacked on top of each other. Some years a place experiences only a few snowstorms dumping some snow. The thicknesses of the layers vary. Some years one or two big snowstorms can dump many metres of snow. In other years they experience very few snow storms.But, even one or two snow storms can dump metres of snow. In layers.

Some years are colder than others. Some years all the snow that falls on an area melts. Other years they don't.

So, how do you tell the difference? The guys who actually study ice can.

I think that you're not telling the truth here.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think that you're not telling the truth here.

I'd say that's a standard first reaction with most.

Here's where I'm coming from with all this:

And yes, it's hundreds, not thousands like I said.

My bad.

But I just looooove to be accused of not telling the truth, so I'm glad I made a mistake.

 

[RickG]

I'd say that's a standard first reaction with most.

Here's where I'm coming from with all this:

And yes, it's hundreds, not thousands like I said.

My bad.

But I just looooove to be accused of not telling the truth, so I'm glad I made a mistake.

Oh yes, Kent Hovinds version of Carl Wielands lost squadron fantasy. AV, if you deplore creation science as much as you have indicated in the past, why introduce someone who is probably more into making stuff up than anyone in the creation science community?

Now let me ask you a serious question. Do you know the problems with the lost squadron analogy and why it is so absolutely ridiculous?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'd say that's a standard first reaction with most.

Here's where I'm coming from with all this:

And yes, it's hundreds, not thousands like I said.

My bad.

But I just looooove to be accused of not telling the truth, so I'm glad I made a mistake.

And you have been shown by RickG that Hovind's claim is false.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now let me ask you a serious question. Do you know the problems with the lost squadron analogy and why it is so absolutely ridiculous?

I'm familiar with the discussion you and I had some time ago.

Something about the squadron being on the edge of the ice; and scientists only take true samples from the middle.

Or something like that.

 

[AV1611VET]

And you have been shown by RickG that Hovind's claim is false.

I've been told by RickG the video is wrong.

A reaction I've come to expect.

I believe RickG has told me the Bible is wrong too.

So what's your point?

RickG says it's wrong, so I'm supposed to think it's wrong too?

If that's your attitude, you don't know me very well.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I've been told by RickG the video is wrong.

A reaction I've come to expect.

I believe RickG has told me the Bible is wrong too.

So what's your point?

RickG says it's wrong, so I'm supposed to think it's wrong too?

If that's your attitude, you don't know me very well.

With regards to the buried planes, Rick is the better person to listen to since he actually has a degree which encompasses things like ice-core dating, while Hovind is just a shill.
Of course, thinking something's wrong, knowing something's wrong, accepting something's wrong and believing something's wrong are four completely different things.

And you can't really say anything about having an attitude about being wrong since... well, you're signature says it all really.

 

[AV1611VET]

With regards to the buried planes, Rick is the better person to listen to since he actually has a degree which encompasses things like ice-core dating, while Hovind ...

And I believe Hovind got his information from a scientist as well.

This isn't RickG vs Hovind.

This is RickG vs that guy Hovind cited.

If you want to concentrate on Hovind and not the scientist who supplied the information, though, I understand.

It's par for the course around here.

Weakest link and all.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And I believe Hovind got his information from a scientist as well.

This isn't RickG vs Hovind.

This is RickG vs that guy Hovind cited.

If you want to concentrate on Hovind and not the scientist who supplied the information, though, I understand.

It's par for the course around here.

Weakest link and all.

(RickG, I apologise for going off topic, but I feel this needs to be pointed out)
Or, and here's an even more likely scenario: Hovind didn't understand anything of what the scientist wrote, decided that the scientist was wrong and decided to put forward his own theory, which was completely wrong, without getting it checked.
This is not RickG vs the scientist. This is just Hovind showing he's wrong again.

Again: RickG has an actual degree in this sort of thing, so if he says something about ice-core dating, you should probably just shut-up and listen.
And RickG, I have no problems with you getting this deleted for being off-topic.

 

[RickG]

I'm familiar with the discussion you and I had some time ago.

Something about the squadron being on the edge of the ice; and scientists only take true samples from the middle.

Or something like that.

A bit more than something like that. Like the annual snow fall there exceeds 2 meters while that at the central domes where cores are taken receives only a few millimeters at most. Also, the planes were still in the firn, not actual ice and the thickness of it has absolutely noting to do with the annual layers other than the deep one goes the thinner they get. And lets not forget the topic of this thread, which is not so much about dating annual layers as it is about studying past climates.

 

[Derek Meyer]

And I believe Hovind got his information from a scientist as well.

That's why everyone's got the giggle reading that nonsense from you. Maybe old goal bird Hovind should get his information from the thousands of peer-reviewed published specialists on the subject of ice cores instead of from a weather forecaster employed by AiG.

 

[RickG]

And I believe Hovind got his information from a scientist as well.

Then name said scientist.

This isn't RickG vs Hovind.

The thread is about paleoclimatology with respect to ice core data.

This is RickG vs that guy Hovind cited.

You have a long history of interrupting threads and getting them off topic.

If you want to concentrate on Hovind and not the scientist who supplied the information, though, I understand.

Again, what scientist?

It's par for the course around here.

Yup, your never ending task of off topic comments derailing threads.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I guess the only thing I can ask, with regards to paleo-climates and ice core data is how would they be able to discern that, several hundred million years ago, the Earth had a more oxygen rich atmosphere? What would be the make up for the ice to show that?