Ice Core Chronology

[CabVet]

That's it! Pick something that fits, then ignore all the other evidence that invalidates your cherry pick.

That is not it, he is using genetic data that shows that something is 10,000 to 15,000 years old to say that something is 6,000 years old.

 

[Jazer]

That is not it, he is using genetic data that shows that something is 10,000 to 15,000 years old to say that something is 6,000 years old.

Do you mean God did not do it all in a day? Are you talking about slow gradual change over a period of time? Like perhaps maybe a day in Genesis equals 1,000 years?

 

[RickG]

Do you mean God did not do it all in a day? Are you talking about slow gradual change over a period of time? Like perhaps maybe a day in Genesis equals 1,000 years?

Let's get back on topic. Do you have a question about ice core chronology?

 

[Jazer]

Let's get back on topic. Do you have a question about ice core chronology?

If you have some information about the nanodiamond layer they found in the ice I would like to hear what you have to contribute about that.

 

[RickG]

If you have some information about the nanodiamond layer they found in the ice I would like to hear what you have to contribute about that.

http://pages.uoregon.edu/dkennett/p...ry_of_Nanodiamonds_in_Greenland_Ice_Sheet.pdf

 

[Naraoia]

7. Volcanic eruptions. Significant volcanic eruptions occur on average twice a century and eject enormous amounts of volcanic ash into the atmosphere. This dust can be radiometrically dated which are also cross-referenced to annual layer chronologies.

Which isotopes would you use to get enough precision? Ice core time scales are dwarfed by all the non-[sup]14[/sup]C half-lives I can think of.

Concerning your description of genesis in relation to plants and animals. The plants described in genesis are land plants. The oldest fossils that appear to be of organic origin are just over 4 billion years old, while unmistakable fossils of organic origin are around 3.2 billion years old. Those fossils are are animal, not plant.

Did you mean bacteria, or did I miss something really really exciting?

 

[RickG]

Which isotopes would you use to get enough precision? Ice core time scales are dwarfed by all the non-[sup]14[/sup]C half-lives I can think of.

Uranium series, Ar/Ar, and Isochron techniques as well as thermoluminescence works in most cases. In the case of Vostok cores K/Ar could be used since they date back over 800,000 years. Carbon-14 can be used on any trapped organic matter.

Did you mean bacteria, or did I miss something really really exciting?

If you are talking about the earliest life, that would be bacteria.

 

[Naraoia]

If you are talking about the earliest life, that would be bacteria.

Yep. I suspected your mention of animals was just cerebral flatulence

 

[Jazer]

http://pages.uoregon.edu/dkennett/p...ry_of_Nanodiamonds_in_Greenland_Ice_Sheet.pdf

That helps. tks. I do wonder about how that artical starts out with the discussion of " abundant nanodiamond". How can something that small be abundant? Even from a photo I saw it looks like the nanodiamonds are abundant even by our scale. Not just on their level.

 

[RickG]

That helps. tks. I do wonder about how that artical starts out with the discussion of " abundant nanodiamond". How can something that small be abundant? Even from a photo I saw it looks like the nanodiamonds are abundant even by our scale. Not just on their level.

Abundance is relative. Don't make it something it's not.

 

[dad]

1. Visual Layers. Visual stratigraphy in ice cores does not count individual layers of snowfall; it utilizes annual layers which have specific properties completely different from individual snowfalls. In the high latitudes where there are six months of sunlight and six months of darkness an annual "firn" is created. Regardless of the number of snowfalls during the time of continuous sunlight, ice crystals become enlarged. Conversely, during winter (no sunlight) they do not enlarge and become more compacted. That is why a "visual" annual layer consists of one dark and one light layer.

".. Deeper into the core the layers thin out due to ice flow and high pressure and eventually individual years cannot be distinguished.."

Ice core - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"
Dating is a difficult task. Five different dating methods have been used for Vostok cores, with differences such as 300 years at 100 m depth, 600yr at 200 m, 7000yr at 400 m, 5000yr at 800 m, 6000yr at 1600 m, and 5000yr at 1934 m.[24]
Different dating methods makes comparison and interpretation difficult. Matching peaks by visual examination of Moulton and Vostok ice cores suggests a time difference of about 10,000 years but proper interpretation requires knowing the reasons for the differences.." same link

2. Electrical Conductivity. Nitric acid is produced in the atmosphere from the reaction of nitrogen, water vapor and UV irradiation during the summer months. This process is absent during the winter months due to the absence of sunlight. Therefore, summer snowfall is much more acidic than winter snowfall. Needless to say, this is an extremely robust method for identifying annual layers. Not only can extreme variations electrical conductivity be measured but pH as well.

"Measurements of electrical conductivity are also made on the ice cores - these are closely linked to the acidity of the ice. Conductivity shows an annual cycle and is higher in the summer snow than the winter snow. This is probably because of chemical reactions in the atmosphere involving dimethyl sulphide (a chemical produced in greater quantities during the summer months by marine algae and phytoplankton), which result in production of low concentrations of sulphuric acid which is then distributed over the ice sheet."

Antarctic Ice Cores and Environmental Change

Rapid reproduction was the way things were in the different state past. If we assume that most of the ice was laid down pre present state, then one merely looks at the algae and any reactions that went on in a new light. It need not be tucked into your same state past belief system!

3. Dust. Another annual marker is the amount of dust which is measured with laser light scattering. During late winter and early spring there is significantly more dust in the atmosphere than during other months.

Dust is not unique to this state!


etc..

 

[Cromulent]

Dad,

Explain why in this imaginary different state of yours, everything still corresponds with each other, so C14 dating with agree with ice core dating, will agree with stratigraphy, will agree with analyses of sediment.

 

[RickG]

".. Deeper into the core the layers thin out due to ice flow and high pressure and eventually individual years cannot be distinguished.."

Actually they become more compacted due to increased mass above, it's not really a limiting factor. As for ice flow, core samples are not taken on flowing glaciers, rather stable cratons.

Dating is a difficult task. Five different dating methods have been used for Vostok cores, with differences such as 300 years at 100 m depth, 600yr at 200 m, 7000yr at 400 m, 5000yr at 800 m, 6000yr at 1600 m, and 5000yr at 1934 m.[24] Different dating methods makes comparison and interpretation difficult. Matching peaks by visual examination of Moulton and Vostok ice cores suggests a time difference of about 10,000 years but proper interpretation requires knowing the reasons for the differences.." same link

I put in bold the part you may not understand. Also note that that is in specific reference to the visual method which has its limits if used not compared and calibrated with other methods. One particular method that works that works well in conjunction with visual layers is the correlation with speleothems, which works extremely well. For instance, look at this paper examining difficulties in ice core chronology. Note the graph on page 52 which demonstrates this method up to 60,000 years.

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

"Measurements of electrical conductivity are also made on the ice cores - these are closely linked to the acidity of the ice. Conductivity shows an annual cycle and is higher in the summer snow than the winter snow. This is probably because of chemical reactions in the atmosphere involving dimethyl sulphide (a chemical produced in greater quantities during the summer months by marine algae and phytoplankton), which result in production of low concentrations of sulphuric acid which is then distributed over the ice sheet."

Here, both conductivity and acidity can be measured separately. Especially in the conductivity method there are a number of different ions that can be used such as Na, NH4, SO4, and NO3. So we are actually talking about methods within methods that are cross referenced in detail to iron out any dependencies that may occur.

Rapid reproduction was the way things were in the different state past. If we assume that most of the ice was laid down pre present state, then one merely looks at the algae and any reactions that went on in a new light. It need not be tucked into your same state past belief system!

Until you can show irrefutable scientific evidence that the way snow was laid down in the past is any different than it is presently, you are just blowing smoke. Conversely, ice cores are a perfect example that the way snow fell and ice accumulated has never changed. Your assertion is baseless and utterly ridiculous.

Dust is not unique to this state!

It so happens that dust levels in the atmosphere vary seasonally. It has nothing to do with any specific level, only the differences from season to season. It is just another useful method that verifies all the other methods.

 

[dad]

Dad,

Explain why in this imaginary different state of yours, everything still corresponds with each other, so C14 dating with agree with ice core dating, will agree with stratigraphy, will agree with analyses of sediment.

OK. All science has done is use the present state laws as the basis for models. That state is imaginary. Go ahead, tell us how c14 dating in the deepest ice cores agree with anything!? Ho hum.

 

[dad]

Actually they become more compacted due to increased mass above, it's not really a limiting factor.

Limiting factor as to...what? You claim that the lowest part of the deepest ice cores provide the same visuals as the top parts?? Be clear as ice.

As for ice flow, core samples are not taken on flowing glaciers, rather stable cratons.

Right. So?

I put in bold the part you may not understand. Also note that that is in specific reference to the visual method which has its limits if used not compared and calibrated with other methods.

Ah..so they cannot stand. OK. They need a same state belief crutch...calibrations! Hilarious.

One particular method that works that works well in conjunction with visual layers is the correlation with speleothems, which works extremely well. For instance, look at this paper examining difficulties in ice core chronology. Note the graph on page 52 which demonstrates this method up to 60,000 years.

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

Cut to the chase...what in that long document do you wish to try to promote and defend? Show us the speleothem near the lowest part of an old core sample?? You seem to think that vague hoohurah, and cheer leading attempts are all that is needed, rather than details and an ability to make a cohesive case.

Here, both conductivity and acidity can be measured separately. Especially in the conductivity method there are a number of different ions that can be used such as Na, NH4, SO4, and NO3. So we are actually talking about methods within methods that are cross referenced in detail to iron out any dependencies that may occur.

How would different ions help you?? What you need is proof that present state laws did the trick, and are responsible for all ions that we see. Give it up.

Until you can show irrefutable scientific evidence that the way snow was laid down in the past is any different than it is presently, you are just blowing smoke.

Absurd. Until you can prove that ice was laid down in our state, you are wasting our time.

Conversely, ice cores are a perfect example that the way snow fell and ice accumulated has never changed. Your assertion is baseless and utterly ridiculous.

We shall see. You have yet to pony up here.

It so happens that dust levels in the atmosphere vary seasonally. It has nothing to do with any specific level, only the differences from season to season. It is just another useful method that verifies all the other methods.

Well if the ice was rapidly laid down, and got some dust in the process, then your claim of present state seasons as a cause is foolishness. Proof? You really have no meat, just gas.

 

[Cromulent]

OK. All science has done is use the present state laws as the basis for models. That state is imaginary. Go ahead, tell us how c14 dating in the deepest ice cores agree with anything!? Ho hum.

Iridium layers from meteor impacts in ice cores line up with iridium layers from meteor impacts in sediment. How does your imaginary "different state" explain this? Coincidence?

 

[Naraoia]

Oh no, thread got dadjacked.

 

[RickG]

Limiting factor as to...what? You claim that the lowest part of the deepest ice cores provide the same visuals as the top parts?? Be clear as ice.

That is ridiculous and I made no such claim.

Right. So?

So your assertion that cores are taken from flowing ice is false, that's what is so.

Ah..so they cannot stand. OK. They need a same state belief crutch...calibrations! Hilarious.

Calibrating creates a baseline which is necessary for accuracy, I would hardly call that a crutch.

Cut to the chase...what in that long document do you wish to try to promote and defend? Show us the speleothem near the lowest part of an old core sample?? You seem to think that vague hoohurah, and cheer leading attempts are all that is needed, rather than details and an ability to make a cohesive case.

. Speleothems are not in ice cores, they are in cave stalagmites. They match up with all annual layer methods. If you would take the time source the papers to which I link, you might learn something. The paper I linked is specifically about ice core dating problems and how they are overcome.

How would different ions help you?? What you need is proof that present state laws did the trick, and are responsible for all ions that we see. Give it up.

They represent several independent sources of verification instead of just one. No matter how much you want it to be the laws of physics do not change.

Absurd. Until you can prove that ice was laid down in our state, you are wasting our time.

We shall see. You have yet to pony up here.

Well if the ice was rapidly laid down, and got some dust in the process, then your claim of present state seasons as a cause is foolishness. Proof? You really have no meat, just gas.

Then suppose you demonstrate why and how snow does not fall and accumulate now as it has in the past.

 

[dad]

Iridium layers from meteor impacts in ice cores line up with iridium layers from meteor impacts in sediment. How does your imaginary "different state" explain this? Coincidence?

Iridium can come from the interior of the earth, or space. So having some there is no issue. If you have an example of a 'meteor' in an ice core that lines up with something, show us.

 

[dad]

That is ridiculous and I made no such claim.

You claimed some limiting factor. I assume it has to do with the visual thing under discussion.

So your assertion that cores are taken from flowing ice is false, that's what is so.

You seem to have misunderstood something.

Calibrating creates a baseline which is necessary for accuracy, I would hardly call that a crutch.

If the calibration is all present state based, and they lean on that, of course it is a crutch.

. Speleothems are not in ice cores, they are in cave stalagmites. They match up with all annual layer methods. If you would take the time source the papers to which I link, you might learn something. The paper I linked is specifically about ice core dating problems and how they are overcome.

I think I did get speleothems from your link. No? If they are not relevant to ice cores, then try to pick out what is relevant before spamming some link.

They represent several independent sources of verification instead of just one. No matter how much you want it to be the laws of physics do not change.

Says you who have no clue and were not there.

Then suppose you demonstrate why and how snow does not fall and accumulate now as it has in the past.

What the issue is is ice. Layers. If it was rapidly laid down in another state, then why would we even consider present state snowfall? If we had water and chemicals coming up from under the earth, for example, one could envision a lot of layers forming real fast. Some chemicals are real cold you know. There are all sorts of possibilities to make a lot of ice.