The Ice Ages

[RickG]

In another thread there has been some discussion as to the validity of what we know about the ice ages or even if they occurred. One poster stated that there is no way to know what happened in the past. Here is the question I posed to them in response to that comment: "So the ice ages didn't happen? Speculation to you"?

And here is their response.

Speculation period.

The stories ring true, nice and and are fun.It is said that my backyard was under 1 mile of ice at one time. Sand pits, gravel pits, the great lakes, bolder piles...all make for impressive stories. But somebody could come along tomorrow afternoon with a better story and everything I now believe about glaciers might be chucked out the window if I decide it fits the facts better.​

Thus, in this thread I want to discuss with other CF patrons what their views are on the ice ages, and in particular how we know what we know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thus, in this thread I want to discuss with other CF patrons what their views are on the ice ages, and in particular how we know what we know.

I'm just going to say this, then I am going to bow out, as I seem to end up dominating other people's threads at times, and I'd rather not see this one ruined.

In any event, if there were ice ages (plural) in the past, they were all done w/i a 6000-year timeframe.

But, IMO, the ice ages taught in higher academia are nothing more than phoney-baloney misrepresentations of evidence to give validity to deep time.

I wonder how many times they had to force-fit these ice ages (plural) into their software until something convincing came out?

 

[RickG]

In any event, if there were ice ages (plural) in the past, they were all done w/i a 6000-year timeframe.

Beliefs of a 6,000 year old earth are off topic in this thread.

But, IMO, the ice ages taught in higher academia are nothing more than phoney-baloney misrepresentations of evidence to give validity to deep time.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. What evidence do you have to claim misrepresentation of evidence concerning timelines with respect to glacial periods of digression and regression? Please be specific and stick to the subject.

I wonder how many times they had to force-fit these ice ages (plural) into their software until something convincing came out?

Please provide evidence for such a demeaning comment concerning the scientific community, or retract it.

 

[Steve Petersen]

IMO, ice ages have occurred over the course of millions of years and is supported by physical evidence.

 

[RickG]

IMO, ice ages have occurred over the course of millions of years and is supported by physical evidence.

The consensus of the mainstream scientific community has the same opinion. One thing I would like to discuss in this thread includes just what that evidence is and how we obtain it.

 

[Steve Petersen]

The consensus of the mainstream scientific community has the same opinion. One thing I would like to discuss in this thread includes just what that evidence is and how we obtain it.

glacial till

Loess deposits and sand dunes

chemical evidence

and the fossil record.

 

[AV1611VET]

An ice age destroyed the Spanish Armada.

Frankenstein was written by Mary Shelly during an ice age.

The painting WASHINGTON CROSSING THE DELAWARE shows an ice age in progress.

Psalm 147:17 He casteth forth his ice like morsels: who can stand before his cold?

 

[Steve Petersen]

An ice age destroyed the Spanish Armada.

Frankenstein was written by Mary Shelly during an ice age.

The painting WASHING CROSSING THE DELAWARE shows an ice age in progress.

Psalm 147:17 He casteth forth his ice like morsels: who can stand before his cold?

This is popularly know as a 'little ice age' and is orders of magnitude less significant than actual ice ages that created continent-sized glaciers, thousands of feet high.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is popularly know as a 'little ice age' and is orders of magnitude less significant than actual ice ages that created continent-sized glaciers, thousands of feet high.

Yes ... I'm familiar with the rhetoric.

 

[RickG]

An ice age destroyed the Spanish Armada.

Frankenstein was written by Mary Shelly during an ice age.

The painting WASHING CROSSING THE DELAWARE shows an ice age in progress.

Psalm 147:17 He casteth forth his ice like morsels: who can stand before his cold?

AV, if you have any questions that are specific about scientific information concerning the ice ages, I will be glad to answer them to the best of my knowledge. However, if that is all you care to post in this thread, then I remind you of your opening comment in this thread.

Originally posted by AV1611VET: I'm just going to say this, then I am going to bow out, as I seem to end up dominating other people's threads at times, and I'd rather not see this one ruined.

Bold emphasis is mine. So, do you have a contributing question or comment pertaining to the scientific nature of ice ages, glacial digressions, regressions, sea level digressions and regressions, ice volume, chemical proxy's, etc.?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, do you have a contributing question or comment pertaining to the scientific nature of ice ages, glacial digressions, regressions, sea level digressions and regressions, ice volume, chemical proxy's, etc.?

No, sir, I don't.

(Leaving for good this time.)

 

[RickG]

Yes ... I'm familiar with the rhetoric.

AV, I was going to send you a private message, but you seem that have that function disabled. Therefore I will post it here.

If you continue with the derogatory comments, I will report them to the moderators.

 

[RickG]

Okay, here are a few crumbs I'll throw out to hopefully generate some interest and questions.

The study of past climates is Paleoclimatology. There are a number of tools that are used in determining past climates. One of which I wish to discuss is by the use of "Proxy's". Obviously we can't go back in time take and take instrumental measurements, but we can come very close with proxy's that are unique to climatic conditions regardless of when they occurred. Proxy's are the physical residuals left behind (deposited) that occur under specific conditions in climate.

Sources for these proxy's are as follows:

Continental:

Lake Sediments
Loess
Ground water
Paleosols
Peats
Speleothems
Packrat middens
Tree rings
Geomorphological features

Oceans:

Seafloor sediments
Corals
Mollusks
Marine peats
Ice sheets, glaciers

The above are proxy sources, not the proxy's specific, I'll get into that later. And I'm sure some of you are wondering why I put Ice sheets and glaciers under the Oceans category. It is due to oceanic and atmospheric conditions with respect to temperature and fractination.

 

[RickG]

From the above proxy sources, there are three categories; Paleontological, Sedimentological, and Geochemical. Within these the most useful are stable isotope ratios. The principal being they have a direct relationship to sea surface temp., atmospheric temp., salinity, ice volume, and moisture source. Most useful of these are Oxygen, Carbon, Deuterium, Nitrogen, Magnesium, Strontium, Cadmium,, Barium, andBeryllium.

I know I'm making some long lists, but one point I wish to convey is that there is a lot of solid science that goes into finding information about the past. If anyone has any questions, do not hesitate to ask.

 

[SkyWriting]

So, do you have a contributing question or comment pertaining to the scientific nature of ice ages, glacial digressions, regressions, sea level digressions and regressions, ice volume, chemical proxy's, etc.?

Because the scientific method is unable to reproduce the original
event, all historical accounts are taken on faith and faith alone.

"The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its standard form because it does not work for past events. Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally. The forensic scientific method is a modified form of the scientific method that compares anamnestic evidence obtained by investigators with observable physical findings discovered at the crime scene, in the crime laboratory, or in the autopsy suite. This comparison verifies if witnesses or suspects are telling the truth about what they witnessed. The method is a powerful technique for determining the truth of past events. Unfortunately, a confused reliance on the standard scientific method for past events can lead to mistaken conclusions. The Shaken Baby Syndrome or Shaken Infant Syndrome hypothesis is one notable and regrettable example."
Heartland Forensic Pathology: Forensic Science and the Scientific Method

 

[SkyWriting]

From the above proxy sources, there are three categories; Paleontological, Sedimentological, and Geochemical. Within these the most useful are stable isotope ratios. The principal being they have a direct relationship to sea surface temp., atmospheric temp., salinity, ice volume, and moisture source. Most useful of these are Oxygen, Carbon, Deuterium, Nitrogen, Magnesium, Strontium, Cadmium,, Barium, andBeryllium.

I know I'm making some long lists, but one point I wish to convey is that there is a lot of solid science that goes into finding information about the past. If anyone has any questions, do not hesitate to ask.

Good science fiction has a platform of solid science that grounds it's
fictional characters and outcomes to engage the reader in the fantasy.

What If · Isaac Asimov
The Ultimate Catalyst · Eric Temple Bell
The Gostak and the Doshes · Miles J. Breuer
Summertime on Icarus · Arthur C. Clarke
The Neutrino Bomb · Ralph S. Cooper
Last Year's Grave Undug · Chan Davis
The Gold Makers · J. B. S. Haldane
The Tissue Culture King · Julian Huxley
A Martian Adventure · Willy Ley
Learning Theory · James McConnell
The Mother of Necessity · Chad Oliver
John Sze's Future · John R. Pierce
Kid Anderson · Robert S. Richardson
Pilot Lights of the Apocalypse · Dr Louis N. Ridenour
Grand Central Terminal · Leo Szilard
The Brain · Norbert Wiener

 

[RickG]

Because the scientific method is unable to reproduce the original
event, all historical accounts are taken on faith and faith alone.

You seem to be confusing historical actions for past fully physical events. There is no comparison.

"The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its standard form because it does not work for past events. Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally. The forensic scientific method is a modified form of the scientific method that compares anamnestic evidence obtained by investigators with observable physical findings discovered at the crime scene, in the crime laboratory, or in the autopsy suite. This comparison verifies if witnesses or suspects are telling the truth about what they witnessed. The method is a powerful technique for determining the truth of past events. Unfortunately, a confused reliance on the standard scientific method for past events can lead to mistaken conclusions. The Shaken Baby Syndrome or Shaken Infant Syndrome hypothesis is one notable and regrettable example."
Heartland Forensic Pathology: Forensic Science and the Scientific Method

Another non sequitur comparison. That analogy is like comparing weather and climate, they are not one in the same. Weather and forensic pathology are a short-term process, while climate is a long term process from which data is derived.

You mentioned in another thread that you have experience in polymer chemistry. With that in mind, you should be quite familiar with fractionation, which is temperature dependent.

Water of course is made up from one atom of Oxygen (O) and two of Hydrogen (H), therefore, H2O. But here's the difference. That (H) is composed of two different isotopes, 1-H and 2-H (deuterium). As well Oxygen in air, water, or whatever compound is also composed of 2 isotopes, 16-O and 18-O. The ratio of those heavy to light isotopes is dependent upon temperature which is a function of fractionation . Thus the ratios of the isotopes provide temperature markers in the proxy's in which they are contained. The ratio of 12C to 13C also has a similar function.

Here's a paper describing the process.

https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/cl...and-paleotemperature/more/Urey-et-al-1951.pdf

 

[CabVet]

Because the scientific method is unable to reproduce the original
event, all historical accounts are taken on faith and faith alone.

"The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its standard form because it does not work for past events. Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally. The forensic scientific method is a modified form of the scientific method that compares anamnestic evidence obtained by investigators with observable physical findings discovered at the crime scene, in the crime laboratory, or in the autopsy suite. This comparison verifies if witnesses or suspects are telling the truth about what they witnessed. The method is a powerful technique for determining the truth of past events. Unfortunately, a confused reliance on the standard scientific method for past events can lead to mistaken conclusions. The Shaken Baby Syndrome or Shaken Infant Syndrome hypothesis is one notable and regrettable example."
Heartland Forensic Pathology: Forensic Science and the Scientific Method

"Forensic pathology", really? You have no idea what the scientific method is, or science for that matter.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because the scientific method is unable to reproduce the original
event, all historical accounts are taken on faith and faith alone.

"The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its standard form because it does not work for past events. Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally. The forensic scientific method is a modified form of the scientific method that compares anamnestic evidence obtained by investigators with observable physical findings discovered at the crime scene, in the crime laboratory, or in the autopsy suite. This comparison verifies if witnesses or suspects are telling the truth about what they witnessed. The method is a powerful technique for determining the truth of past events. Unfortunately, a confused reliance on the standard scientific method for past events can lead to mistaken conclusions. The Shaken Baby Syndrome or Shaken Infant Syndrome hypothesis is one notable and regrettable example."
Heartland Forensic Pathology: Forensic Science and the Scientific Method

That is not a scientific source, which has been explained to you mutliple times.

 

[Split Rock]

Good science fiction has a platform of solid science that grounds it's
fictional characters and outcomes to engage the reader in the fantasy.

What If · Isaac Asimov
The Ultimate Catalyst · Eric Temple Bell
The Gostak and the Doshes · Miles J. Breuer
Summertime on Icarus · Arthur C. Clarke
The Neutrino Bomb · Ralph S. Cooper
Last Year's Grave Undug · Chan Davis
The Gold Makers · J. B. S. Haldane
The Tissue Culture King · Julian Huxley
A Martian Adventure · Willy Ley
Learning Theory · James McConnell
The Mother of Necessity · Chad Oliver
John Sze's Future · John R. Pierce
Kid Anderson · Robert S. Richardson
Pilot Lights of the Apocalypse · Dr Louis N. Ridenour
Grand Central Terminal · Leo Szilard
The Brain · Norbert Wiener

It seems that you are the one having trouble distinguishing between science and science-fiction.