Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Asked and answered.Thread is about the apparent age of the earth, how about getting off evolution and getting back on topic. What problem is there with Vostok? Ice core chronologies go back 800 Ka.
Well then you should know all about it if that is your degree.
Wouldn't it be your responsibility to make sure that your degree with complete?If you are not spouting hogwash, perhaps you would like to complete that aspect of my mathematics education, which the University of Leeds so carelessly left out.
Not quite, it has just been overshadowed by another theory.
Wouldn't it be your responsibility to make sure that your degree with complete?
Wouldn't it be your responsibility to make sure that your degree with complete?
It has been falsified, in countless different ways.
Why are you so reluctant to actually share the basis of your claims? You keep throwing out claims - "Vostok ice cores are flawed" "Math proves evolution wrong" - and yet when people ask you what you mean, you refuse to answer. Why is that? In the past, whenever I've seen such behavior, it's been because the person making the claims knew that the claims were baseless and just felt like wasting everyone's time. Is that what you're doing? Either way, let's all just not respond to StanJ until he shows us that this isn't what he's doing.
Don't ask me, it's your credentials you're talking about.Where do you suggest I should look? Complex Variable Analysis? Banach Space Theory? Differential Geometry? Point Set Topology? Measure Theory?
I don't acknowledge any issues with Vostok because there are none. You said there were, now what are they?You also claim to be a scientist who did research on all these issues. Why is it you now refuse to acknowledge the issues with Vostok?
Not surprisingly, considering the known variability in ice preservation, measured carbon dioxide concentrations in the trapped gases of many cores older than about 300 years hold remarkably constant over the last 7-8000 years of ice accumulation. This constancy is incompatible with other data, including that from other ice cores and from preserved Ginkgo leaf stomata, both indicating significant variation during that period. Stomata are pores through which a plant takes in carbon dioxide. They vary in size depending on the carbon dioxide concentration in the air, and preserved stomata suggest that carbon dioxide levels ranged between 270 and 326ppm over the last 7-8000 years.
I'm not even trying hard and I can find snippets of stuff like this.
That's exactly my point... Why is it still a germ Theory when it's been proven, and why is evolution considered factual when it is still called a theory and hasn't been proven?
Quite convenient for the scientists that formulated their own theories. Maybe those of you who push evolution and take a tip from Albert Einstein, when he wrote; "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Why pursue and believe in something that can never be proven right? There are just so many inconsistencies in this area.
Asked and answered.
What does carbon dioxide in ice cores have to with ice core chronology? I'll save you the trouble, nothing. Perhaps you need to try harder.Not surprisingly, considering the known variability in ice preservation, measured carbon dioxide concentrations in the trapped gases of many cores older than about 300 years hold remarkably constant over the last 7-8000 years of ice accumulation. This constancy is incompatible with other data, including that from other ice cores and from preserved Ginkgo leaf stomata, both indicating significant variation during that period. Stomata are pores through which a plant takes in carbon dioxide. They vary in size depending on the carbon dioxide concentration in the air, and preserved stomata suggest that carbon dioxide levels ranged between 270 and 326ppm over the last 7-8000 years.
I'm not even trying hard and I can find snippets of stuff like this.
Now maybe I'm missing something, but just what has the usefulness of ice cores in monitoring climate change, got to do with their usefulness in demonstrating the Earth to be older than a few thousand years?
It is like saying that, because an pneumatic drill has limited usefulness in repairing a computer, it must also have limited usefulness in digging up a road.
Not surprisingly, considering the known variability in ice preservation, measured carbon dioxide concentrations in the trapped gases of many cores older than about 300 years hold remarkably constant over the last 7-8000 years of ice accumulation. This constancy is incompatible with other data, including that from other ice cores and from preserved Ginkgo leaf stomata, both indicating significant variation during that period. Stomata are pores through which a plant takes in carbon dioxide. They vary in size depending on the carbon dioxide concentration in the air, and preserved stomata suggest that carbon dioxide levels ranged between 270 and 326ppm over the last 7-8000 years.
I'm not even trying hard and I can find snippets of stuff like this.
What!!?? You are bad mouthing SEPP now? I am sure that they are a fair and unbiased source. They would not have any reason to do this except for the goodness of their own hearts. Right?Ah. Googling this sourced it to SEPP, here:
http://www.sepp.org/science-editorials.cfm?whichcat=Global Warming&whichsubcat=Ice Cores
While it is slightly above my pay grade, I would be very surprised if the claims therein held up to scrutiny. SePP is not a reliable source for information about climate change.
But that's all completely irrelevant, because nothing therein disputes the use of ice cores as a time proxy, and nothing therein supports your point. Y'wanna try again?
The article was by Dr. Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, who was an astronaut and geologist. He is also known for his denial that CO2 is mostly responsible of the current global warming. He is nothing more than an appeal to authority, having no background whatsoever in climate science, much less the use of ice cores in the field of paleoclimatology, and even less ice ages, which was my specialized area in my M.S. in Earth Science. Furthermore, the article has nothing to do with disputing ice core chronology as you mentioned. The site is climate change denial site.Ah. Googling this sourced it to SEPP, here:
http://www.sepp.org/science-editorials.cfm?whichcat=Global Warming&whichsubcat=Ice Cores
While it is slightly above my pay grade, I would be very surprised if the claims therein held up to scrutiny. SePP is not a reliable source for information about climate change.
But that's all completely irrelevant, because nothing therein disputes the use of ice cores as a time proxy, and nothing therein supports your point. Y'wanna try again?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?