Ice Core Chronology

[RickG]

The big issue is how do you correlate them!?
Name one cave icicle or whatever in Texas or someplace that correlates the ice in Greenland? How many times do you need to be asked to get specific?
None of which can date anything out of this state, obviously.

You would need decay which means this set of laws. We do not know they existed. So any radionuclide ratios cannot be attributed to present state decay.
What about trace elements!!!!? They do not establish a present state, nor help your ice claims.

I never saw that. What was the proof?? Evasion doesn't change in your case, doc.

I'll tell you what dad, I'm going make myself perfectly clear.

If you can't behave like an adult, just don't respond to any of my posts or make any comments concerning me or any of my posts. I am sick and tired of being goaded, taunted and having my integrity and education belittled. Is that clear?

 

[Cromulent]

Does somebody want to start a side project with an alter-ego who claims the world was created last Thursday with falsified memories and evidence of an older earth, and claim to be "undefeated" by dad every time he rears his head?

 

[Volokh]

Does somebody want to start a side project with an alter-ego who claims the world was created last Thursday with falsified memories and evidence of an older earth, and claim to be "undefeated" by dad every time he rears his head?

is one alloed to do that?

 

[Cromulent]

is one alloed to do that?

No, but dad deserves it!

 

[Volokh]

No, but dad deserves it!

baning of abusive posters do not happen on this forum?

 

[pgp_protector]

No, but dad deserves it!

Actually Socks are allowed on this site, though they must still follow all the rules.
And baiting Dad (as much fun as it might be) may be a violation of the rules, but that would be up to the Mods to decide.

 

[Cromulent]

baning of abusive posters do not happen on this forum?

It depends on the level of abuse. Dad never crosses that line, he's just haughty and arrogant. It's almost worse.

 

[dad]

I'll tell you what dad, ..

Trace elements....in what way MUST they have been deposited under present laws? Correlation...you claim that ice is correlated by the icicle thingies that grow in caves, is that right? Example of one in action correlating something?

 

[dad]

is one alloed to do that?

They could try but would be defeated.

 

[Cromulent]

They could try but would be defeated.

So prove to me the world wasn't created last Thursday. I await your victory with anticipation.

 

[dad]

So prove to me the world wasn't created last Thursday. I await your victory with anticipation.

So you want to be this guy that advocates no reality? How about the last sentence you typed? Can we agree that this much is real? Can you admit to having posted at least this?

 

[RickG]

Trace elements....in what way MUST they have been deposited under present laws? Correlation...you claim that ice is correlated by the icicle thingies that grow in caves, is that right? Example of one in action correlating something?

I have already presented this to you several times. I would appreciate you looking at it and stop falsely claiming that I haven't shown any examples. And they are not icicle thingies.

http://www.clim-past.net/4/47/2008/cp-4-47-2008.pdf

Bottom of page 51-53. Pay particular attention figures 5 & 6 where matching correlations are graphically shown.

Here's some more sources on speleothems.

http://www.uibk.ac.at/geologie/pdf/qsr06.pdf

http://www.geographie.uottawa.ca/PDF/blauriol/Lauriol_et_al_(1997)_a.pdf

http://people.ku.edu/~lgonzlez/NewFiles/Publications/Bakeretal01.pdf

Interglacial chronology of the Rocky and Mackenzie Mountains based upon 230Th–234U dating of calcite speleothems - Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences

Luminescent microbanding in speleothems: High-resolution chronology and paleoclimate

Interglacial chronology of the Rocky and Mackenzie Mountains based upon 230Th–234U dating of calcite speleothems - Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences

 

[Cromulent]

So you want to be this guy that advocates no reality? How about the last sentence you typed? Can we agree that this much is real? Can you admit to having posted at least this?

Yes, it was created since last Thursday. All of my posts from before last Thursday have been planted by the Creator, as have my memories of writing them, and everyone else's of reading them. She is all-powerful, so is perfectly capable of manipulating memories

 

[Volokh]

So you want to be this guy that advocates no reality? How about the last sentence you typed? Can we agree that this much is real? Can you admit to having posted at least this?

you prove they did?
or that it is just computer posting?

 

[dad]

I have already presented this to you several times. I would appreciate you looking at it and stop falsely claiming that I haven't shown any examples. And they are not icicle thingies.

http://www.clim-past.net/4/47/2008/cp-4-47-2008.pdf

The 11 pages you offer here I did look at. Still didn't see anything that gets into how the cave stuff collaborates. The paper reads more like a fairy tale, rattling on as if all the silly premises used were already accepted. You need to discuss basis, not conclusions veiled in a preaching to the converted document. Try to get this straight, you should use a link address, yes. But only to support the case you make clearly first, or bits you quote from it that supposedly illustrate your position. Stop spamming silly religious links.

What in this link where exactly does anything for you?? Quote it.

Bottom of page 51-53. Pay particular attention figures 5 & 6 where matching correlations are graphically shown.

Here's some more sources on speleothems.

OK, so I looked at a graph. Under it I see this

"The red lines indicate the points of comparison
applied in Fig. 4. The absolutely dated control points for the Hulu Cave are shown in the lower part of the figure.."

Now, discuss what points of comparison. Then we can look at this deceptive and untrue absolute dated nonsense.

So where is this hulu cave? In what way would it be a surprise that at certain depths similar things affected each ice mass??? The issue is what affected it when! Just because two things get affected does not mean either or both were affected by what you preach and believe. Proof?

http://www.uibk.ac.at/geologie/pdf/qsr06.pdf

http://www.geographie.uottawa.ca/PDF/blauriol/Lauriol_et_al_(1997)_a.pdf

http://people.ku.edu/~lgonzlez/NewFiles/Publications/Bakeretal01.pdf

Interglacial chronology of the Rocky and Mackenzie Mountains based upon 230Th–234U dating of calcite speleothems - Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences

Luminescent microbanding in speleothems: High-resolution chronology and paleoclimate

Interglacial chronology of the Rocky and Mackenzie Mountains based upon 230Th–234U dating of calcite speleothems - Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences

Very nice. A long list of links. Now, remember how to debate here, and tell us a point clearly in your own words. Then, if needed, pick a few sentences or paragraphs from a link to quote. In case someone wanted to check, you can then post the address of the link, but many will not have time to do that. We might take your word for it, that the quotes are real, unless you get caught making some up. I have faith that someone educated would likely be honest in that area, so there is little need for the links.

What matters is the simple truth of what the premise and basis for this dating actually is.


For example, I see this on wiki


" In principle, in the more favorable cases, and assuming some simplifying hypotheses, the age of a speleothem could be derived from the total radiation dose cumulated by the sample and the annual dose rate to which it was exposed..."

Speleothem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, if there was no radiation as we know it when the older cave ice was formed how would a radiation dose mean anything? The issue then is proving that our laws and radiation or atomic realities, forces, etc existed!

Again, they use chemical reactions as indicators of age for this ice. However, that assumes a present state existed. Obviously. In fact that is about all you ever do, however shrouded in smoke and mirrors you try to present it.

 

[dad]

Yes,..

OK so you do admit at least to the last sentence you wrote that I referred to? Yes or no? It seems you said yes here.

Well, then if that is a bit hard for you, maybe we can take 1/2 a sentence that you wrote there...


"I await your victory with anticipation." -you

Now here is the first part of that sentence....

"I await your victory.."

You seem to be on the right track in the little you admit to as reality.

 

[Cromulent]

OK so you do admit at least to the last sentence you wrote that I referred to? Yes or no? It seems you said yes here.

Well, then if that is a bit hard for you, maybe we can take 1/2 a sentence that you wrote there...


"I await your victory with anticipation." -you

Now here is the first part of that sentence....

"I await your victory.."

You seem to be on the right track in the little you admit to as reality.

I'm still awaiting that victory dad. All you have to do is prove the world wasn't created last Thursday. Surely no problem for someone of your immense intellect.

 

[RickG]

The 11 pages you offer here I did look at. Still didn't see anything that gets into how the cave stuff collaborates.

Then you didn't read the paper which is published peer review research. It not only demonstrates how things are correlated with speleothems, but conductivity, acidity, cosmogenic nuclides, teprha horizions, comparison with other cores, isotope ratios. The correlations are extremely robust. You don't have so many different and independent methods of correlation if they don't work. The fact is they all correlate and it does work.

I don't see how you could have missed "the cave stuff". I told you exactly what pages it was discussed on the the specific figures where it was depicted.

The paper reads more like a fairy tale, rattling on as if all the silly premises used were already accepted.

Chief, I'm providing you with a plethora of well researched and published science. You are the one babbling fairy tales.

You need to discuss basis, not conclusions veiled in a preaching to the converted document. Try to get this straight, you should use a link address, yes. But only to support the case you make clearly first, or bits you quote from it that supposedly illustrate your position. Stop spamming silly religious links.

I have discussed details and provided numerous links to back up what I have posted. One thing I don't do is quote material and present it as if it were mine, that is dishonest. That is why I post things in my own words. Posting links that are relevant to answering your questions and demonstrating that what I post is backed up by the scientific literature is the proper way to present honest discourse.

What in this link where exactly does anything for you?? Quote it.

Again, I explain what you ask and provide links for more in-depth information. Remember, this is a physical science forum where science is "supposed" to be discussed. In discussing any science, citations are extremely important.

OK, so I looked at a graph. Under it I see this

"The red lines indicate the points of comparison
applied in Fig. 4. The absolutely dated control points for the Hulu Cave are shown in the lower part of the figure.."

I didn't direct you to figure 4, I directed you to figures 5 & 6. Nevertheless, as you have asked I will quote the text describing figure 4.

"Fig. 4. Comparison between CICC05 and independently dated records: the NorthGRIP model time scale "ss09sea" (North Greenland Ice Core Project members, 2004), the GISP2 time scale (Meese et al., 1997), the GRIP SFCP04 time scale (Shackleton et al., 2004) the Kleegruben Cave record (Spotl et al., 2006), and the Hulu Cave record (Wang et al., 2001). A positive value means that the record is younger than GICC05. The grey shaded area represents the GICC05 counting uncertainty (1s). The GICC05 and the GISP2 records are linked via volcanic reference horizions and other match points back to 32.5 ka (Rasmussen et al., 2006; Rasmussen et al, 2008) and by matching the rapid shifts in s18O in the remaining part. The Hulu and Kleegruben Cave records matched as indicated in Figures 5 & 6." (source: Svensson et al, 2008)

Now, discuss what points of comparison. Then we can look at this deceptive and untrue absolute dated nonsense.

"Deceptive...untrue...nonsense." There you go again with more demeaning and belittling comments. Do you really think that is productive?

So where is this hulu cave? In what way would it be a surprise that at certain depths similar things affected each ice mass??? The issue is what affected it when! Just because two things get affected does not mean either or both were affected by what you preach and believe. Proof?

I thought you said you read the paper I linked. It clearly stated that it was in China. There are other speleothems other than Hulu in other locations discussed as well, not just one or two. And as I have also previously explained there are numerous other correlation methods used. Figure 4. alone shows four independent data sets.

Very nice. A long list of links. Now, remember how to debate here, and tell us a point clearly in your own words. Then, if needed, pick a few sentences or paragraphs from a link to quote. In case someone wanted to check, you can then post the address of the link, but many will not have time to do that. We might take your word for it, that the quotes are real, unless you get caught making some up. I have faith that someone educated would likely be honest in that area, so there is little need for the links.

You seemed to be interested in speleothems, so I provided links to several papers that discuss them in detail. Pardon me for providing that information in trying to help you understand the process better.

What matters is the simple truth of what the premise and basis for this dating actually is.

Again, as I have previously stated several times, ice cores provide much information about past climates. The chronology part puts that information in chronological order. It is not a method for dating the earth, it dates the events.

For example, I see this on wiki


" In principle, in the more favorable cases, and assuming some simplifying hypotheses, the age of a speleothem could be derived from the total radiation dose cumulated by the sample and the annual dose rate to which it was exposed..."

Speleothem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, if there was no radiation as we know it when the older cave ice was formed how would a radiation dose mean anything? The issue then is proving that our laws and radiation or atomic realities, forces, etc existed!

Again, they use chemical reactions as indicators of age for this ice. However, that assumes a present state existed. Obviously. In fact that is about all you ever do, however shrouded in smoke and mirrors you try to present it.

You seem to be confused what the radiation events signify. They are not annual records. When there is significant solar irradiation events more than normal radionuclide isotopes are generated. These events are recognized by the significantly higher concentration of those nuclides, one of which is Be-10. There are others as well. Those horizions are then radiometrically dated using uranium or thorium series methods. Those nuclides show up in the speleothems, varves, ice cores and other annual layer sources. The thing is, they all correlate. So if there are any non conformaties in an ice core where annual layers are not clear, they can get back on track at the correlation points. Understand?

 

[Jazer]

So you want to be this guy that advocates no reality? How about the last sentence you typed? Can we agree that this much is real? Can you admit to having posted at least this?

Now we know in part, but that does not make reality any less real.
1 Corinthians 13:12

New King James Version (NKJV)

12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly,
but then face to face. Now I know in part,
but then I shall know just as I also am known.

 

[dad]

I'm still awaiting that victory dad. All you have to do is prove the world wasn't created last Thursday. Surely no problem for someone of your immense intellect.

Baby steps. So can you clearly admit that the last sentence you wrote is real? This we all need to know.