My Lost Squadron Challenge

[lasthero]

Dating is a difficult task.

But not impossible.

Different dating methods makes comparison and interpretation difficult.

But not impossible.

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

So...what's your point here? The quote says that you can properly interpret the results with the appropriate context. It can be explained.

If you're saying that dating the cores is hard, you'll get no argument from me or anyone, I'd bet. But 'hard' isn't the same thing as 'impossible'. It's difficult to put a man on the moon, but we did it.

And you're still not answering the question:why do the different methods agree if they're, as you claim, unreliable? If we find 8,000 year old ash in 8,000 years worth of layers, isn't that a strong indication that the ash and the layers are 8,000 years old?

 

[EternalDragon]

But not impossible.

But not impossible.

So...what's your point here? The quote says that you can properly interpret the results with the appropriate context. It can be explained.

If you're saying that dating the cores is hard, you'll get no argument from me or anyone, I'd bet. But 'hard' isn't the same thing as 'impossible'. It's difficult to put a man on the moon, but we did it.

And you're still not answering the question:why do the different methods agree if they're, as you claim, unreliable? If we find 8,000 year old ash in 8,000 years worth of layers, isn't that a strong indication that the ash and the layers are 8,000 years old?

Did they find 8000 year old ash in 8000 layers of ice? What is a layer?
Why use several different dating methods if you say just one matches
"perfectly" with the others? What is the appropriate context? That the
earth is old so the results that show that are the ones to be accepted?

You are putting your faith in the wrong person.

As an aside, ever read the book of Job? Give it a chance sometime.

 

[lasthero]

Did they find 8000 year old ash in 8000 layers of ice? What is a layer?

Yes. I don't have the time to look it up right now, but if you do a search for 'ice core correlations', you'll likely come across them. Try Google Scholar.

Why use several different dating methods if you say just one matches
"perfectly" with the others?

To ensure accuracy.

What is the appropriate context?

I'm pretty sure that link you cited has citations that you can read up on.

That the
earth is old so the results that show that are the ones to be accepted?

If you're saying that scientists just reject ice core sample results that show the Earth is young, I'd ask you to provide evidence of specific instances where this has happened.

Also, I'd like to point out that you're doing what I said creationists always do when faced with correlation - accuse scientists of falsifying results, with no evidence to support the accusation. When all else fails, the conspiracy theories come out.

You are putting your faith in the wrong person.

It's not faith.

As an aside, ever read the book of Job? Give it a chance sometime.

Not sure what that has to do with anything, but yes, I have read Job. It's one of my favorite books, maybe my top. Very well written. What about it?

 

[RickG]

It is not like that at all which shows you just take man's word over
God's word.

Dating is a difficult task. Five different dating methods have been used for Vostok cores, with differences such as 300 years per meter at 100 m depth, 600yr/m at 200 m, 7000yr/m at 400 m, 5000yr/m at 800 m, 6000yr/m at 1600 m, and 5000yr/m at 1934 m.

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.

Ice core - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is something of vital importance I wish to point out ED. It is one you mentioned in "your" copy/paste from wiki, though that is quite acceptable since you did provide a reference/link.

It is, "but proper interpretation requires knowing the reasons for the differences.

Checking the source (always good to go to original sources) of the wiki citation for that statement, I find that it comes from a NOAA data page on Vostok ice core time scales. of which the following is listed:

• Ruddiman and Raymo 2003 "RR03", Quaternary Science Reviews, 22, 141-155
• Parrenin et al. 2004 VK-FGT1 ice flow simulation
• Petit et al. 1999 "GT4", Nature, 399, 429-436
• Jouzel et al. 1996
• Lemieux-Dudon et al. 2010 Antarctic & Greenland Synchronised Deglacial Time Scales
• Lorius et al. 1985
• Lorius et al. 1985 Extended Glaciological Timescale
• Sowers et al. 1985

Thus, the reason for the wiki statement, :proper interpretation requires knowing the reasons for the differences".

Generally I'm pretty confident with wiki information concerning science. However here, misconceptions can make a great difference. For one thing these differences are not from the same core, thus differences are expected. Also, some of the differences reported are synchronizations between antarctic & Greenland cores of which the greater differences are. Additionally, three of the time scales are 30 years old, therefore, lacking in up-to-date more accurate techniques, many of which did not exist then.

As for your beginning comment, "It is not like that at all which shows you just take man's word over God's word"; I believe you have gotten it backwards. You are ignoring God's evidence. Note my signature below.

 

[lasthero]

One more thing before I go, though.

If, like you seem to suggest, scientists just throw away results that disagree with the Earth being old, what's stopping someone, like, say, Ken Ham from doing his own tests and returning young ages? He has the money. He has the time. He could easily get a group of creationists out there, measure layers, and show that there's no correlation at al and that the whole process is faulty. No one is stopping him.

Instead, he builds theme parks with dinosaurs that have saddles on their backs.

 

[RickG]

Did they find 8000 year old ash in 8000 layers of ice? What is a layer?

It is one way of quantifying and correlating different cores. Generally with dates a layer is an annual layer, however, as mentioned previously in many cases, seasonal layers can be seen within annual layers as well. Also, when you source the actual scientific literature, dates are always reported with a plus/minus margin of error and statistical reliability of that error.

Why use several different dating methods if you say just one matches" perfectly" with the others? What is the appropriate context? That the earth is old so the results that show that are the ones to be accepted?

Dating of ice cores is not perfect, as I said there are margins of error and reliability reported. The methods are just there because it correlates with seasonal climatic conditions. For example: stable oxygen and/or hydrogen isotope ratios show the difference between winter and summer. Dust particles and Calcium are indicative of spring, as that is when their concentration peaks. In contrast Sodium peaks in winter, while the concentrations of Nitrate and Ammonium peak in summer. Thus, any of those can be used for layer dating, but more importantly, they are used in determining paleoclimates.[/quote]

 

[RickG]

Revisiting the OP

My Lost Squadron Challenge Carl Wieland wrote an article about a squadron of planes that were forced to land on the Greenland ice cap during WWII. They were subsequently over the years covered by snow and ice until they were found some 50 years later at a depth of some 158 ft.

Geologist, Glaciologists, and climatologists use ice cores to determine past climates. Of course in doing this ice cores also provide a means for dating the ice based on accumulated annual layers. Within these layers are a number of constituents which can be used to determine age, temperature, season, climate, drought, etc..

In his article uses the depth at which the planes were located to be a reason why ice core chronologies are false. He also goes off on several tangents that have nothing to do with ice core chronology.

I have read through the article several times and have been unable to find anything that describes any of the methods for dating ice cores.

I have posted a link below to the article and would like to have some serious discussion on just how this article discredits ice core chronology.

The lost squadron - creation.com

 

[RickG]

Yes Creation Science supporters, I have revived one of my old threads that reaks with Creation Science nonsense by a person who demonstrates he knows absolutely nothing about the science he criticizes.

 

[RickG]

Well CF YEC supporters, do you or do you not support Carl Wielands "Lost Squadron" scenario? And it might be nice explain why you do or do not support the scenario?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV = "Phil"?

Did I read that right on page one?

Affirmative.

 

[USincognito]

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EGO STROKING THREAD RESURRECTION. THE OP HAS BEEN HERE IN A YEAR AND EGO DRIVEN BUMP WAS TO SOMEONE WHO HASN'T BEEN HERE IN THREE YEARS.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Carl Wieland wrote an article about a squadron of planes that were forced to land on the Greenland ice cap during WWII. They were subsequently over the years covered by snow and ice until they were found some 50 years later at a depth of some 158 ft.

Geologist, Glaciologists, and climatologists use ice cores to determine past climates. Of course in doing this ice cores also provide a means for dating the ice based on accumulated annual layers. Within these layers are a number of constituents which can be used to determine age, temperature, season, climate, drought, etc..

In his article uses the depth at which the planes were located to be a reason why ice core chronologies are false. He also goes off on several tangents that have nothing to do with ice core chronology.

I have read through the article several times and have been unable to find anything that describes any of the methods for dating ice cores.

I have posted a link below to the article and would like to have some serious discussion on just how this article discredits ice core chronology.

The lost squadron - creation.com

So at 5 feet of snow accumulation per year averaged (during, cough, global warming) drifting an average of 3 miles and Greenland's ice sheet thickness 6,000 to 9,000 feet.....

One doesn't see the problem with claims of hundreds of thousands of years? Really????

 

[AV1611VET]

So at 5 feet of snow accumulation per year averaged (during, cough, global warming) drifting an average of 3 miles and Greenland's ice sheet thickness 6,000 to 9,000 feet.....

One doesn't see the problem with claims of hundreds of thousands of years? Really????

Here's Mr. Hovind's explanation of ice cores:

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Here's Mr. Hovind's explanation of ice cores:

Oh yes, I am quite aware of their annual layers while ignoring multiple storms every year......

“Dating of an ice core is prerequisite for proper interpretation of a data series. A number of dating methods have been developed on the basis of ice flow models, and analyses of isotopes, volcanic debris and continental dust in ice cores. Most accurate are the stratigraphical methods, that is, detection and counting of the individual annual layers downwards from the surface. In areas with high accumulation (>25 cm ice year-1) and no melting, these methods allow absolute dating to within a few years per thousand if the ice core is in perfect physical condition. This accuracy is required when high-frequency components of the time series are to be compared with similar features in other time series. For example, the acidity of annual layers could be reconciled with historical records of volcanic eruptions within the past millenium only because each layer was dated back to near the correct year of deposition. So far, no ice core has been absolute-dated beyond AD 553.” [emphasis added] W. Dansggaard, “Ice Core Studies: Dating the Past to Find the Future,” Nature, Vol. 290, 2 April 1981, p. 360.

 

[46AND2]

“Dating of an ice core is prerequisite for proper interpretation of a data series. A number of dating methods have been developed on the basis of ice flow models, and analyses of isotopes, volcanic debris and continental dust in ice cores. Most accurate are the stratigraphical methods, that is, detection and counting of the individual annual layers downwards from the surface. In areas with high accumulation (>25 cm ice year-1) and no melting, these methods allow absolute dating to within a few years per thousand if the ice core is in perfect physical condition. This accuracy is required when high-frequency components of the time series are to be compared with similar features in other time series. For example, the acidity of annual layers could be reconciled with historical records of volcanic eruptions within the past millenium only because each layer was dated back to near the correct year of deposition. So far, no ice core has been absolute-dated beyond AD 553.” [emphasis added] W. Dansggaard, “Ice Core Studies: Dating the Past to Find the Future,” Nature, Vol. 290, 2 April 1981, p. 360.

1981.



And you added emphasis to the part which said "So far..."



oh man. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Shemjaza]

Here's Mr. Hovind's explanation of ice cores:

Well at least you used the more honest title of Mr. Hovind.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

1981.



And you added emphasis to the part which said "So far..."



oh man. Thanks for the laugh.

And yet you could provide no argument against that part.......

 

[46AND2]

And yet you could provide no argument against that part.......

At the time, it was probably true. What should I bring forth as argument? It's nearly 4 decades old. What relevance does it have?

Without even going back to look, I'm quite certain more recent data was given in this thread.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

At the time, it was probably true. What should I bring forth as argument? It's nearly 4 decades old. What relevance does it have?

Without even going back to look, I'm quite certain more recent data was given in this thread.

No, just the standard claims of hundreds of thousands of years, but that 4 decades old research still stands as the only proven comparison between ages......

I'll ask again:

So at 5 feet of snow accumulation per year averaged (during, cough, global warming) drifting an average of 3 miles and Greenland's ice sheet thickness 6,000 to 9,000 feet.....

One doesn't see the problem with claims of hundreds of thousands of years? Really????

Even 9,000 divided by 5 ft a year only adds to 1,800 years.... And this was when? During, cough, global warming..... You don't think it snowed more than 5 feet a year before global warming started affecting snowfall rates and glacier rates????

So with compression we can conclude 4,400 years approximately.... The flood caused glaciers....

 

[46AND2]

No, just the standard claims of hundreds of thousands of years, but that 4 decades old research still stands as the only proven comparison between ages......

I'll ask again:

So at 5 feet of snow accumulation per year averaged (during, cough, global warming) drifting an average of 3 miles and Greenland's ice sheet thickness 6,000 to 9,000 feet.....

One doesn't see the problem with claims of hundreds of thousands of years? Really????

Even 9,000 divided by 5 ft a year only adds to 1,800 years.... And this was when? During, cough, global warming..... You don't think it snowed more than 5 feet a year before global warming started affecting snowfall rates and glacier rates????

The simple, obvious answer (that was already given in this thread) is that the lost squadron and the ice cores are located in different climates. Even the article abstract you quoted talked about CENTIMETERS per year being HIGH accumulation at ice core sites. Ice cores are done at relatively dry locations.

I mean, c'mon. Why isn't this obvious? Even different ice core locations with comparable thicknesses yield very different results due to high or low accumulation of precipitation:

1. The Byrd ice core in West Antarctica was drilled to the bedrock at about 3400 meters deep. It produced 62,000 annual layers. About 2.1 INCHES per year on average (ignoring compression).

2. The Dome C ice core site in East Antarctica reached the bedrock at about 3250 meters, and produced about 800,000 annual layers. About ONE SIXTH of an inch per year.

https://www.clim-past.net/9/2525/2013/cp-9-2525-2013.pdf

Notice that the TOTAL accumulation for either site (since both were drilled to the bedrock) shows that the areas were accumulating for very different lengths of time.

So, IF the 9,000 feet at the site of the lost squadron were to be cored and counted, it would show that this particular area has been accumulating for FAR fewer years than even the Byrd ice core...not hundreds of thousands of years that you falsely claim science states.

So with compression we can conclude 4,400 years approximately.... The flood caused glaciers....

No...we can't. For several reasons:

1. That area has not been cored and counted, so any conclusion about how long it has been accumulating is wild speculation.

2. Floods don't form glaciers.

3. Science doesn't conclude things by arbitrarily adding a bunch of years "for compression" to fit an a priori assumption like the earth being 6000 years old, and the flood happening 4400 years ago. They actually count the layers....then compare them with results from other independent (and often unrelated; radiometric dating of volcanic eruptions, for example) tests to confirm it.