My Ice Core Chronology Challenge

[RickG]

Okay Young Earthers. Let's see your reasons why you think ice core chronology doesn't work.

 

[46AND2]

Okay Young Earthers. Let's see your reasons why you think ice core chronology doesn't work.

I can grow 50 years worth of ice on my car during the wintertime.







I've actually had that argument given to me before.

 

[RickG]

I can grow 50 years worth of ice on my car during the wintertime.



I've actually had that argument given to me before.

He he, me too.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay Young Earthers. Let's see your reasons why you think ice core chronology doesn't work.

I'm not a 'young earther,' but I'm under the assumption from what you told me, that ice core chronology doesn't work on the outer edges of the field in question ... (or is it in the center where it doesn't work)?

For the record though, I can't remember why you told me it doesn't work.

So why are you asking this, when you yourself said it doesn't work?

 

[RickG]

I'm not a 'young earther,' but I'm under the assumption from what you told me, that ice core chronology doesn't work on the outer edges of the field in question ... (or is it in the center where it doesn't work)?

For the record though, I can't remember why you told me it doesn't work.

So why are you asking this, when you yourself said it doesn't work?

I think you have a misunderstanding. It works, but not in the way that you perceive it. There are several things that come into play. If I recall, what you are referring to is the "lots squadron", that is a squadron of P-38's that had to ditch over Greenland. One of the young earth claims there is that the planes were found 40 or 50 years later covered in over 200 feet of snow & ice. Their reasoning is that if they were buried that deep in so few years, ice cores would have to be hundreds of miles thick to represent the hundreds of thousands of years they ice core chronologies give. That of course is pure rubbish on several levels. (1) An annual layer has nothing to do with thickness. (2) The planes went down near the coast where large amounts of snow accumulates, unlike that of interior Greenland where snow fall is much less. (3) And I think this is the one you are specifically talking about AV, is that ice cores are generally not obtained for dating purposes from such locations because of the constant flow of ice. Rather, cores that are useful in obtaining paleoclimate data and dating are obtained from stable interior areas where ice flow is little if any.

Does that answer your question?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you have a misunderstanding. It works, but not in the way that you perceive it. There are several things that come into play. If I recall, what you are referring to is the "lots squadron", that is a squadron of P-38's that had to ditch over Greenland. One of the young earth claims there is that the planes were found 40 or 50 years later covered in over 200 feet of snow & ice. Their reasoning is that if they were buried that deep in so few years, ice cores would have to be hundreds of miles thick to represent the hundreds of thousands of years they ice core chronologies give. That of course is pure rubbish on several levels. (1) An annual layer has nothing to do with thickness. (2) The planes went down near the coast where large amounts of snow accumulates, unlike that of interior Greenland where snow fall is much less. (3) And I think this is the one you are specifically talking about AV, is that ice cores are generally not obtained for dating purposes from such locations because of the constant flow of ice. Rather, cores that are useful in obtaining paleoclimate data and dating are obtained from stable interior areas where ice flow is little if any.

Does that answer your question?

QV please ... my apologies, I should have dug this up sooner:
Ice Core Rings - YouTube

 

[RickG]

QV please ... my apologies, I should have dug this up sooner:
Ice Core Rings - YouTube

Hi AV, sorry I haven't responded earlier, the first part of the week usually pretty busy for me. Anyway, I finally got around to reviewing the video. So, here's my review.

For starters, Hovind can't seems to have trouble getting the name of places he claims to have visited and "set the scientists straight" correct. He calls it the "national ice core lab". Well, that's a description but not the name of the facility, which is the "National Snow and Ice Data Center" (NSIDC), in Boulder Colorado, which is associated with the University of Colorado. Having an academic background in paleoclimatology, am quite familiar with the NSIDC. I find it rather curious that right off the bat he states they said they have 10 ice cores. Really, just 10? I think they have a bit more than that. Well anyway AV, let's go over a few of his shannagons.
1. Hovind does correctly describe summer and winter layers as being dark and light, but from there goes on to mislead his audience. First he creates a" bait and switch" scenario where he says they told him they have an ice core 10K feet with 135K annual layers. That's the bait. Next, he represents the 135K annual layers as 135K layers. Notice the designation of annual is now omitted and he is describing light and dark again as if they were individual annual layers rather than a dark and light layer (two layers) being only one annual ring. Keep that in mind.
2. Here he brings up the lost squadron by saying, "Well, I guess they never heard of the lost squadron". Really, what does that have to do with ice chronology? Actually not a single thing, he is just using this historical oddity to add more bait to be switched.
3. Hovind then proceeds to give a completely bogus scenario association with the number of annual layers and the 10K ft. ice core previously mentioned with completely irrelevant math. He mentions that the lost squadron is found 263 feet below the snow after 48 years. Doing his math he comes up with 1.5 ft./yr. for an annual layer. Well there are a number of things wrong with that. He is tricking his audience into believing that each annual layer of an ice core is 1.5 feet thick. He also excludes the fact that most of that 263 feet is actually snow, not ice and in an area of Greenland near the southeastern coast where annual snow accumulation exceeds 10ft., but more on that later. So, after that bit of bait, he then switches to the 10K ice core and applies his 1.5 ft./yr. annual layer to that with more funny math claiming that the 10K ice core only amounts to 1,824 years. Do you see the deception there AV? He's comparing apples and oranges. Actually not even that close.

4. Next he tries to make the comparison of the bogus annual layer size he calculated with the ice at the north and south poles suggesting they should be much thicker to have an ice core that is really 135K years old. And this is a man who claims to have taught high school science for 15 years.
5. Hovind then claims to have asked the guy who financed the excavation how many layers did he see , and according to Hovind it was hundreds. Well assuming that is true, how many layers were actually light and dark ice and how many were just layers of snowfall? All we have is what Hovind stated, which is not in agreement at all with ice core chronology.
6. The next thing Hovind does is to utterly, and very unprofessionally, call the scientists at NISDC either ignorant or stupid, stating ignorant can be fixed, but stupid cannot. AV, do you truly think that the scientists at NISDC are really ignorant or stupid? We are talking about professionals, most of which have PhD's in the area and are well published in the relevant peer review literature. And then there is Kent Hovind who has been caught in more lies than Carter has little liver pills, and has absolutely no scientific background whatsoever, much less any background ice core chronology. Now really, who is ignorant or stupid?
Oh! One last thing. At the end of the video Hovind mentioned a guy who works with Eskimos who said he got 15 layers of snow on his car in 8 hrs., and there was a picture of it. The picture displayed a windshield of a car where a layer of snow which obviously had slid down the windshield showing ripples, which we are to assume are the 15 layers.
Truly AV, do you really trust what Kent Hovind says in that video?

 

[AV1611VET]

Truly AV, do you really trust what Kent Hovind says in that video?

After reading your reply in its entirety, I'll acquiesce to your expertise.

 

[RickG]

After reading your reply in its entirety, I'll acquiesce to your expertise.

One thing I haven't even touched upon are the techniques used in obtaining data and chronology. They don't count visible layers anymore. Here's a teaser for you. CFA

 

[AV1611VET]

One thing I haven't even touched upon are the techniques used in obtaining data and chronology. They don't count visible layers anymore. Here's a teaser for you. CFA

Adding salt to the wound now?

 

[RickG]

Adding salt to the wound now?

No, I just want folks to understand that there are several ways in which chronologies and paleo data are obtained and that those methods are so robust that even seasons can be distinguished.

More to the teaser AV. CFA = continuous flow analysis.

 

[Jamin4422]

Okay Young Earthers. Let's see your reasons why you think ice core chronology doesn't work.

Now your an expert on ice cores? I think the argument is that one layer represents one snow storm, not a whole season. This is the same discussion we have on the trees that are suppose to be 6,000 years old.

 

[Jamin4422]

Truly AV, do you really trust what Kent Hovind says in that video?

The question is do we trust the so called experts. What reason do we have to trust them?

 

[Elendur]

Now your an expert on ice cores? I think the argument is that one layer represents one snow storm, not a whole season. This is the same discussion we have on the trees that are suppose to be 6,000 years old.

It's you're.

Could you explain your comparison to old trees a bit more explicitly?

 

[Jamin4422]

Could you explain your comparison to old trees a bit more explicitly?

This is a reference to the ancient bristlecone pine.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now your an expert on ice cores? I think the argument is that one layer represents one snow storm, not a whole season. This is the same discussion we have on the trees that are suppose to be 6,000 years old.

A snow storm does not produce an oscilation of oxygen isotopes as seen in the layers for both the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores. This requires an annual change in temperatures. Also, they have used known volcanic eruptions to verify that the layers are correct. They find the right volcanic ash in the right layers, and they correlate between the Antarctic and Greenland ice cores.

 

[Elendur]

This is a reference to the ancient bristlecone pine.
...

I'm sorry, I asked you to be more explicit.

Could you explain your comparison to old trees a bit more explicitly?

 

[Jamin4422]

A snow storm does not produce an oscilation of oxygen isotopes as seen in the layers for both the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores. This requires an annual change in temperatures. Also, they have used known volcanic eruptions to verify that the layers are correct. They find the right volcanic ash in the right layers, and they correlate between the Antarctic and Greenland ice cores.

Answers in genesis seems to deal with all of that. So what is the problem?


Do Greenland Ice Cores Show over One Hundred Thousand Years of Annual Layers? - Answers in Genesis

Where do they find the Nanodiamond layer?

 

[Jamin4422]

I'm sorry, I asked you to be more explicit.

More explicit about what? The trees in Colorada that have winter and summer only live to be 1500 years. Then all of a sudden in California where there is no winter and summer they live to be 6,000 years? The argument is that a tree ring does not represent a full year. That in some cases you may have two or three rings in a year because the tree will stop growing because the conditions are so dry.

 

[Elendur]

More explicit about what? The trees in Colorada that have winter and summer only live to be 1500 years. Then all of a sudden in California where there is no winter and summer they live to be 6,000 years? The argument is that a tree ring does not represent a full year. That in some cases you may have two or three rings in a year because the tree will stop growing because the conditions are so dry.

That was a more explicit answer. Thank you.