Ice Core Chronology

[RickG]

Ice core chronology is only one of the many tools available for studying past climates. Below is a graph representing these many tools which include ice cores. One thing I wish to point out especially to dad, is the many different avenues of data sources that all reveal the same data. This is especially important for validity and verifications. I think that may be what dad means by "proof". All of these different and completely independent data sources show the same thing. This doesn't represent just one or two methods of proof, but many many methods and sources of proof.

(Source: Evidence for last interglacial chronology and environmental change from Southern Europe)

The above is from the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A larger and more detailed figure is available at the above link.

For anyone who wishes to review actual data go to this link:

Data Access and Data Contribution - WDC for Paleoclimatology

Software programs for processing the data are at the above link as well free of charge. Enjoy

 

[dad]

Come on dad, I have already described this several times before, it is even in the OP. Pay attention and relate all the information posted.

"The amount of dust in a single annual layer is seasonal. There is more dust in the spring than in the fall." Like all the other markers that are listed in the OP they occur seasonally.

Here, I'll just restate some of these markers. Understand that the main point I wish to convey is there are numerous "independent" markers in each annual layer that without question verify each annual layer. I will not describe the specific characteristics of each of these here as they are adequately described in the OP.

1. Visual layers
2. Electrical conductivity
3. Trace chemicals
4. Dust
5. Isotope concentrations and ratios
6. Cosmogenic nuclides
7. Volcanic ash

Note: The last two are used to correlate specific horizons in which specifically dated events are related, not annual layers. This is used to calibrate individual cores from different sites.

Come on RickG, you posted a pic from we know not where with what looked like a speck of dust in it! That hardly clinches a case that even in the very lowest ice layer a pattern of dust exists in layers that can only be summer winter!!! Try to be honest.

 

[dad]

No, the image posted by CabVet is a graphic representation based on real data. There are no artist's impressions involved whatsoever. Have a look at this.




Here is a photo of ice in a core collected by from the North Greenland Ice Core Project showing annual layers of the ice from about 1800 m depth, which means the ice is about 20 000 years old.The curve shows the variations in light intensity measured by a line scanner showing the light intensity scattered from the ice. (Source: What is the Evidence for Global Warming )

Note the graphical overlay of laser light scanning. See how the peaks and valleys correlate with summer and winter seasons. The peaks are all different because of the different amounts of dust deposited season to season. But in all cases each light layer has a high peak and each dark layer has a low peak. Also note the different widths of each layer. This is due to the amount of seasonal snow accumulation. One would not expect each years snow accumulation to be exactly the same each year, would they.

Hey, a few points on that. One is that how hard is it to take a core 2 km long, and find some spot where an overlay would sort of match!!?? Why that spot?

Can you do that with the lowest few feet of the ice core? Do these layers form a uniform patten all the way through just like the pic?? Proof?

Let's start at what we KNOW.

 

[Zaius137]

Alright, I will explain it to you even though I know you are not interested. These ice cores are 3+ kilometers think, that is 2 miles thick, do you know how much a piece of ice that thick weighs? So, at the bottom of it, the ice actually melts under the pressure of the top layers because under such a high pressure the melting temperature of water decreases. Even though ice has been accumulating in Antarctica for 15 million years, the ice itself cannot be older than 1 million years at the bottom because at that pressure the ice at the bottom simply melts.

That has got to be one of the most ad-hoc explanation I have encountered in this forum. It is not only ad-hoc it does not cover the smaller dates supposedly determined at lesser depths in the range of 450k years. They should actually be well within the range between 6 and 15 million years at that given point.

What is wrong then? The assumptions are…

I believe (dad) is closer to the mark than you. You actually have two conclusions derived by the accepted science that present a major contradiction in the dates. When do you people ever really admit that maybe the basic assumptions used here and other places may be amiss?

 

[RickG]

Come on RickG, you posted a pic from we know not where with what looked like a speck of dust in it! That hardly clinches a case that even in the very lowest ice layer a pattern of dust exists in layers that can only be summer winter!!! Try to be honest.

Would you be referencing my post 183? The pic comes from the Koshland Museum of the National Academy of Sciences, who in turn credits it to the National Science Foundation and the USGS. The speck you must be talking about is a gas bubble, not dust. I stated in that post the most dust is not usually visible with the naked eye but rather is detected with a scanning laser light. The stripes you see in the pic are a combination of different matter particulates including pollen, dust, volcanic ash, carbon deposits from smoke, etc.

And once more, I will warn you about questioning my honesty. Quite frankly, you have not even tried to present yourself as being sincere with any of your questions. Instead of seeking information, you have made absurd comments and baseless accusations. I think you have made it quite clear that anything I present, regardless of the sources are going to be dismissed and denied without even the slightest intent of a fair assessment.

 

[RickG]

Hey, a few points on that. One is that how hard is it to take a core 2 km long, and find some spot where an overlay would sort of match!!?? Why that spot?

Yes, it is quite difficult to take deep ice cores, nevertheless, it is done. The figure I posted is self explanatory, I don't know why anyone would have difficulty in interpreting it. The graphic overlay is from the data taken from that part of the core. It is not a "find some spot that matches".

Can you do that with the lowest few feet of the ice core? Do these layers form a uniform patten all the way through just like the pic?? Proof?

If they are taken from stable ice cratons as most are, yes. The limiting factor is, as CabVet I believe stated, is the amount of pressure being exerted on the base. Cores in Antarctica can sustain many more layers than Greenland because snow accumulation (therefore layer thickness) is greater in Greenland than the Antarctic. I have explained this in a previous post.

 

[grimbly]

That has got to be one of the most ad-hoc explanation I have encountered in this forum.

Nope, Your statement that Rick's explanation is "ad-hoc" is unequivocally refuted by one simple everyday observation.

Ice Floats

You should be able to work out the rest for yourself.

 

[Jazer]

No. I am saying that the ice has likely only existed about 4500 real years. Since the present state would have only come to exist presumably more than 100 years after the flood, most ice would have been deposited in this time.

Is that what you want the state to teach our high school students in public high school? Should we forget what the Phd's at all the leading universities have to say about it?

 

[Zaius137]

Is that what you want the state to teach our high school students in public high school? Should we forget what the Phd's at all the leading universities have to say about it?

Is it those same PhDs that say the Antarctica ice stared forming 15 million years ago and basically that it has been in its present state for 6 million years? Or is it the current ice core crowd saying that it is only 800k years old?

You don’t really care do you, since you don’t see a problem…

 

[Zaius137]

Nope, Your statement that Rick's explanation is "ad-hoc" is unequivocally refuted by one simple everyday observation.

Ice Floats

You should be able to work out the rest for yourself.

You know ice sinks in rubbing alcohol….

This statement has as much to with your post as your post has to mine…

And it wasn’t Rick who I was talking to… can you read before you comment.

 

[grimbly]

I noticed that you commented on my getting who you responded to wrong but you never addressed the significance of my response to your claim of Cabvet's explanation being ad-hoc. If you were qualified to make a judgment on Cabvets post being ad-hoc, you would realize why my statement of fact refutes your claim. Think first, then post.

The fact that ice floats has certain ramifications as to why we can not find 15 million year old ice at the bottom of a 2-4 kilometer deep ice column. You should be able to work it out

 

[Zaius137]

I noticed that you commented on my getting who you responded to wrong but you never addressed the significance of my response to your claim of Cabvet's explanation being ad-hoc. If you were qualified to make a judgment on Cabvets post being ad-hoc, you would realize why my statement of fact refutes your claim. Think first, then post.

The fact that ice floats has certain ramifications as to why we can not find 15 million year old ice at the bottom of a 2-4 kilometer deep ice column. You should be able to work it out

First off you are not at the bottom of the ice…

I know of lakes deep under the ice of Antarctica but not necessarily at 3km (measured depth (you must prove it)). I would like to look at post #184 where it clearly shows at a depth of 3200 meters an age of 1 million years. That depth as I pointed out should be in the range of 3200/7000*14 million years ~6.9 million years (subject to the same assumptions as the 1 million year estimate). The illustration clearly shows an age between 900 thousand and 1 million years(a factor of about 7). Extrapolate the 6.9 million years to the surface ice and you still have a problem (this gives the same 6 million year estimate in accepted age).

Direct ice dating seems to have difficulties if the 14 million year date is assumed to be correct. To reiterate, the problem gets worse when you see that most of the existing ice and ice shelf today was basically in place at 6 million years. In essence near surface ice should be around 6 million years old.

Hand waive all you like but there still remains a very large discrepancy in the dates.

 

[dad]

Come on dad. You know that is a completely baseless supported accuation with absolutely zero evidence. You have already been presented with many independent avenues of evidence that show the age of the ice to be much older. If you want to discuss Noah's flood then do it in one of the many threads concerning that topic. This topic is not the place for it.

Again, this topic is about ice core chronology and what it reveals about past climates. Please stay on topic.

It is not a topic to discuss your personal beliefs concerning the age of the earth. If you wish to do that start your own thread. I'll be happy to join that type of discussion there, but not here. Thank you.

Science tosses out dates based on belief. It is only fair that I can also do so based on biblical dates. All that remains is to see where the evidence lies. Nothing shows anything much older, that is your personal belief. Not accepted. One cannot discuss the ice age without the flood since that is where the water came from many assume.

Ice after all is frozen water.

 

[dad]

Would you be referencing my post 183? The pic comes from the Koshland Museum of the National Academy of Sciences, who in turn credits it to the National Science Foundation and the USGS. The speck you must be talking about is a gas bubble, not dust. I stated in that post the most dust is not usually visible with the naked eye but rather is detected with a scanning laser light. The stripes you see in the pic are a combination of different matter particulates including pollen, dust, volcanic ash, carbon deposits from smoke, etc.
....

So a gas bubble!! Wow. How impressive. That really clinches it! There was plants and gas and dust pre flood and at the atart of the ice age. So this doesn't seem to help you.

 

[dad]

Yes, it is quite difficult to take deep ice cores, nevertheless, it is done. The figure I posted is self explanatory, I don't know why anyone would have difficulty in interpreting it. The graphic overlay is from the data taken from that part of the core. It is not a "find some spot that matches".

Well, someone picked THAT part! Now a question..are not cores taken from the top down? Why does your pic show the layers 'sideways'? I mean the long lines go up and down?

I have never really focused in on the ice age, so don't know it all. I would be interested to know if indeed the ice age did start at the flood.

Oh, and what exactly do those superimposed black lines represent?

Also, if the ice supposedly represents a million years if the poster that said the bottom 15 million years melted away, would not a sample about half way down then be (in your belief system) about a half million years old?

 

[dad]

Is that what you want the state to teach our high school students in public high school? Should we forget what the Phd's at all the leading universities have to say about it?

Well, first of all I want to know what it true. Then I vote we try to teach that where possible. Is that OK with you?

I already know that radioactive decay is not usable for dating. I already know tree rings and corals also are not useful. I already know that historical dating fades in accuracy as it gets near the flood era. That leaves...what? Ice cores? So I am looking at what people have to offer on this oft used so called clock here.


I do not know when or how the ice age started. I suspect that it was at the time of the flood. So I would like to see what I am up against here. Rick seems to be knowledgeable on the subject...so why not?

Now if oceans of water came up in the founts of the deep, as I mentioned also coming up could have been some materials that would tend to freeze it fast. A modern example might be liquid nitrogen...etc.


In fact this is used to make snow.


"Observe the following snow-making stages:

1. Water is atomized using high-pressure compressed air
2. The water arrives at the snow gun and is pushed out the special nozzles at the end of the barrel
3. Liquid Nitrogen (which freezes at the amazingly low temperature of –196 degrees Celsius) is also passed through the snow gun
4. The extreme cold of the liquid nitrogen snap freezes the atomized water into powder-like snowflakes.

The secret formula?

One ton of liquid nitrogen + one ton of water = one ton of snow!"

~ Welcome to Snow City Singapore ~

 

[Farinata]

I already know that radioactive decay is not usable for dating.

And of course your doubt and skepticism is backed up by ample peer reviewed evidence. Please leave the science to the scientists and those without such obvious bias. If you want to believe the earth is 6000 years old or whatever, then by all means go ahead but please keep your superstitions to yourself. Don't try to pretend that it's science based.

 

[dad]

And of course your doubt and skepticism is backed up by ample peer reviewed evidence.

It is? I have not doubt, I have absolute certainty. No one can prove that this state existed way back in the day. So present decay is only good within the state we live now. That cannot be dismissed or overruled.

Please leave the science to the scientists and those without such obvious bias.

No. I am tired of their ignorance and bias. And anything that believes in some unproven state is NOT science anyhow. Get over it.

If you want to believe the earth is 6000 years old or whatever, then by all means go ahead but please keep your superstitions to yourself.

If you want to believe the earth is 4 billion years old or whatever, then by all means go ahead but please keep your superstitions to yourself.

Don't try to pretend that it's science based...cause it has no basis.

Now get back on topic. I am not here to fight a battle that is already won.

 

[Farinata]

It is? I have not doubt, I have absolute certainty. No one can prove that this state existed way back in the day. So present decay is only good within the state we live now. That cannot be dismissed or overruled.

I don't understand your criticism about "this stating existing back in the day" at all. Please to expand on it?

If you want to believe the earth is 4 billion years old or whatever, then by all means go ahead but please keep your superstitions to yourself.

What positive evidence do you have that points to the earth being 6000 years old? Assume you are presenting the case to a neutral party. How would you go about proving such a proposition?

I apologize if my tone in my initial reply was a little bristly but I hope you can at least understand my frustration even if you don't agree with it.

 

[dad]

I don't understand your criticism about "this stating existing back in the day" at all. Please to expand on it?

Sorry it isn't on topic to get into it.

http://splitmerge.webs.com/split.pdf

What positive evidence do you have that points to the earth being 6000 years old? Assume you are presenting the case to a neutral party. How would you go about proving such a proposition?

Again, I could ask what evidence you have it is however many years you imagine....too big a topic to get into. Suffice it to say your old dates are old hat.

I apologize if my tone in my initial reply was a little bristly but I hope you can at least understand my frustration even if you don't agree with it.

Yes. No problem. Maybe I'll straighten you out some day in another thread.