Young Earth Creationist dynamics.

[Zaius137]

Please notice where it is claimed that the oldest cores are matched up to Vostok cores…

That means they matched cores 3626 meters to 3200 meters (that seems very exact considering ice core dating assumptions).

 

[Zaius137]

Water melts under pressure. Red arrow represents excess melt water flow and icesheet movement. What is so hard to understand about this?

Wrong...Ice is too cold and pressure too low.

 

[Valkhorn]

Wrong...Ice is too cold and pressure too low.

So you're saying Lake Vostok doesn't exist now? Are you also saying that the temperature of ice at the surface is the temperature of liquid water at the bottom?

You've painted yourself into such a tiny corner that you're standing on tip-toe, and here you are asking for more paint.

 

[Zaius137]

So you're saying Lake Vostok doesn't exist now? Are you also saying that the temperature of ice at the surface is the temperature of liquid water at the bottom?

You've painted yourself into such a tiny corner that you're standing on tip-toe, and here you are asking for more paint.

Your funny….

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Your funny….

His funny what?

 

[CabVet]

Wrong...Ice is too cold and pressure too low.

Yes, the ice is so cold and the pressure so low that the lake (and the thin layer of water beneath the ice sheet as well as many other lakes) are still there, and that is an observable fact, not an age calculation. Maybe the laws of physics should be changed to fit your views, along with the confirmed presence of liquid water beneath the ice sheet.

P.S.: That is why people freeze inside igloos too, right? Oh wait, they do not.

 

[RickG]

This is to address the first part of your second topic. The second ad-ins of Ions and pollen don’t seem as important in defining annual layers as they too could be particular to individual events rather than yearly ones.

You have probably read enough scientific papers that you know criticism is easily obtained, not that the criticism disproves any of the papers but it is an essential process of science. I am a layman to Paleoenvironmental reconstruction so I have chosen to follow basic criticisms patterned from other papersquote

Yes, I know you are a layman. Conversely I am not as I have posted my credentials in several other threads I know you have frequented including my "Ice Core Chronology" and "Ask a Climatologist" threads. In case you missed it I have a Master of Science degree from the Univ. of Memphis with a Major in Physical Earth Science concentrating in paleoclimatology. My thesis was on the causes of continental glaciation.

One example problem that has been observed is that of gravitational diffusion.

If that is in reference to fractionation, the precipitating factor is temperature, not gravity.

“One of the evidences given for the reality of this phenomenon is the significant oxygen isotope enrichment (verses present day atmospheric oxygen ratios) found in 2,000 year-old-ice from

CampCentury, Greenland”.

Ancient Ice

“The maximum enrichments observed follow patterns predicted for gravitational equilibrium at the base of the firn layer, as calculated from the depth to the transition layer and the temperature in the firn.”

Craig H., Horibe Y., Sowers T., “Gravitational Separation of Gases and Isotopes in Polar Ice Caps”, Science, 242(4885), 1675-1678, Dec. 23, 1988.


“Which is to say--during these long spans of time, a continuing gas-filtering process is going on, eliminating any possibility of using the presence of such gases to count annual layers over thousands of years.”

Hall, Fred. “Ice Cores Not That Simple”, AEON II: 1, 1989:199

I believe the following comment came from problems with the Vostok core dating.

Lorius et al., in a 1985 Nature article, agreed commenting that, “Further detailed isotope studies showed that seasonal delta 18O variations are rapidly smoothed by diffusion indicating that reliable dating cannot be obtained from isotope stratigraphy”.

Ancient Ice

Lorius C., Jouzel J., Ritz C., Merlivat L., Barkov N. I., Korotkevitch Y. S. and Kotlyakov V. M., “A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice”, Nature, 316, 1985, 591-596.


Furthermore sunny and overcast days affect the firn that has already been deposited changing the isotropic concentrations…


“Important isotopic changes were found experimentally in firn (partially compacted granular snow that forms the glacier surface) exposed to even 10 times lower thermal gradients. Such changes, which may occur several times a year, reflecting sunny and overcast periods, would lead to false age estimates of ice. It is not possible to synchronize the events in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, such as, for example, CO2 concentrations in Antarctic and Greenland ice. This is, in part the result of ascribing short-term stable isotope peaks of hydrogen and oxygen to annual summer/winter layering of ice. and using them for dating. . .”

Also from…

Lorius et al., in a 1985 Nature article, agreed commenting that, “Further detailed isotope studies showed that seasonal delta 18O variations are rapidly smoothed by diffusion indicating that reliable dating cannot be obtained from isotope stratigraphy”.29 Jaworowski (work discussed further below in "Biased Data" section) also notes the following:

Ancient Ice

I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you on that one, your source is from the intelligent design cite, Ancient Ice.

I gather this is where you have been getting all of your misleading information. By that I mean that the actual scientific literature references they give do not support what they are saying. Let's look at one in particular, one you mentioned as well. "Lorius et al., in a 1985 Nature article"

The claim you posted from "detectdesign.com" claims the article says 18-O isotope is unreliable. The fact is, the article claims just the opposite and shows how they dated a Vostok ice core to 150,000 years using that method.

Furthermore, a more recent article by Lorius et al, in a Nature article in 1999 date another Vostok ice core using the same method to 420,000 years. Here, see for yourself:

http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf <---- 1999 article
A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice <---- 1985 article

 

[Valkhorn]

Yes, I know you are a layman. Conversely I am not as I have posted my credentials in several other threads I know you have frequented including my "Ice Core Chronology" and "Ask a Climatologist" threads. In case you missed it I have a Master of Science degree from the Univ. of Memphis with a Major in Physical Earth Science concentrating in paleoclimatology. My thesis was on the causes of continental glaciation.

If that is in reference to fractionation, the precipitating factor is temperature, not gravity.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you on that one, your source is from the intelligent design cite, Ancient Ice.

I gather this is where you have been getting all of your misleading information. By that I mean that the actual scientific literature references they give do not support what they are saying. Let's look at one in particular, one you mentioned as well. "Lorius et al., in a 1985 Nature article"

The claim you posted from "detectdesign.com" claims the article says 18-O isotope is unreliable. The fact is, the article claims just the opposite and shows how they dated a Vostok ice core to 150,000 years using that method.

Furthermore, a more recent article by Lorius et al, in a Nature article in 1999 date another Vostok ice core using the same method to 420,000 years. Here, see for yourself:

http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf <---- 1999 article
A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice <---- 1985 article

I find it rather amusing (and dishonest) that ID proponents don't publicly wish to be called creationists - yet proponents of ID have no problem with supporting and pushing creationism - or being supported by creationism.

I guess that whole 'thou shall not bear false witness' commandment has a few hidden loopholes.

 

[RickG]

For anyone who wishes to learn more about the many methods of how ice cores are dated, I recommend following the link below to a paper published in the Journal of Glaciology. In my opinion, I think it's rather layman friendly. There are also some methods discussed that I haven't even mentioned yet. Enjoy.

http://soap.siteturbine.com/faculty/faculty_files/publications/1086/avk815.pdf

 

[Zaius137]

Yes, I know you are a layman. Conversely I am not as I have posted my credentials in several other threads I know you have frequented including my "Ice Core Chronology" and "Ask a Climatologist" threads. In case you missed it I have a Master of Science degree from the Univ. of Memphis with a Major in Physical Earth Science concentrating in paleoclimatology. My thesis was on the causes of continental glaciation.

If that is in reference to fractionation, the precipitating factor is temperature, not gravity.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you on that one, your source is from the intelligent design cite, Ancient Ice.

I gather this is where you have been getting all of your misleading information. By that I mean that the actual scientific literature references they give do not support what they are saying. Let's look at one in particular, one you mentioned as well. "Lorius et al., in a 1985 Nature article"

The claim you posted from "detectdesign.com" claims the article says 18-O isotope is unreliable. The fact is, the article claims just the opposite and shows how they dated a Vostok ice core to 150,000 years using that method.

Furthermore, a more recent article by Lorius et al, in a Nature article in 1999 date another Vostok ice core using the same method to 420,000 years. Here, see for yourself:

http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf <---- 1999 article
A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice <---- 1985 article

“The claim you posted from "detectdesign.com" claims the article says 18-O isotope is unreliable. The fact is, the article claims just the opposite and shows how they dated a Vostok ice core to 150,000 years using that method.”

I can’t quite relate your criticism to references in the detectingdesign article. For instance searching the detectingdesign for the word “unreliable” finds a quote that was linked to a web reference that is unavailable. Did you find it or are you mixed up here? The broken link is “http://www.aber.ac.uk/iges/cti-g/volcano/lecture2.html - July 2000”.

Furthermore, a more recent article by Lorius et al, in a Nature article in 1999 date another Vostok ice core using the same method to 420,000 years. Here, see for yourself:

Yes it is the older article that claims the problems but that does not nullify the other paper as I pointed out… “criticism is not proof”

 

[Zaius137]

For anyone who wishes to learn more about the many methods of how ice cores are dated, I recommend following the link below to a paper published in the Journal of Glaciology. In my opinion, I think it's rather layman friendly. There are also some methods discussed that I haven't even mentioned yet. Enjoy.

http://soap.siteturbine.com/faculty/faculty_files/publications/1086/avk815.pdf

There are simple too many assumptions in this article which go back to the basic question are they annual layers or deposited in separate storms. You get two completely divergent opinions from these two separate assumptions.

 

[Zaius137]

There is a great deal of speculation in Paleoenvironmental reconstruction. Here is an article poking fun at air bubbles trapped in ice and how it doesn&#8217;t stay put.

Little Bubbles part 2 &#8211; Firn; The Great Equalizer | Watts Up With That?

 

[Zaius137]

For anyone who wishes to learn more about the many methods of how ice cores are dated, I recommend following the link below to a paper published in the Journal of Glaciology. In my opinion, I think it's rather layman friendly. There are also some methods discussed that I haven't even mentioned yet. Enjoy.

http://soap.siteturbine.com/faculty/faculty_files/publications/1086/avk815.pdf

I did read part of your article you cited and found this one excerpt amusing.


These groups occasionally discussed interpretation of the visible
layers, but did not try for a single interpretation, choosing
instead to use the degree of agreement as an indication of
the reproducibility of the interpretations. Additional checks
were also made, including having two stratigraphers from
one group independently interpret selected core sections,
and re-examination of selected core sections. Overall, these
tests indicated the manual interpretation of the visual observations
was reproducible to about 5% in Holocene ice.

http://soap.siteturbine.com/faculty/faculty_files/publications/1086/avk815.pdf

Funny….

 

[Zaius137]

For anyone who wishes to learn more about the many methods of how ice cores are dated, I recommend following the link below to a paper published in the Journal of Glaciology. In my opinion, I think it's rather layman friendly. There are also some methods discussed that I haven't even mentioned yet. Enjoy.

http://soap.siteturbine.com/faculty/faculty_files/publications/1086/avk815.pdf

The 10Be age^depth control points are accurate to approximately 3%, and themethane age^depth control points to approximately 6%. Comparison of the algorithm interpretation of the electrical conductivity and complex conductivity data suggests that the algorithm interpretation is accurate to approximately 3%.

http://soap.siteturbine.com/faculty/faculty_files/publications/1086/avk815.pdf

Do I see confidence levels of 3%, 6%... Just funny.

 

[Blayz]

The 10Be age^depth control points are accurate to approximately 3%, and themethane age^depth control points to approximately 6%. Comparison of the algorithm interpretation of the electrical conductivity and complex conductivity data suggests that the algorithm interpretation is accurate to approximately 3%.

http://soap.siteturbine.com/faculty/faculty_files/publications/1086/avk815.pdf

Do I see confidence levels of 3%, 6%... Just funny.

Why is that funny? 94-97% accuracy sounds pretty good to me.

Oh, wait, you don't understand what "accurate to approximately" means.

No surprise there. But you are correct, your proud quote mine which actually destroys your argument because of your lack if even basic statistics is indeed very amusing.

 

[Zaius137]

Why is that funny? 94-97% accuracy sounds pretty good to me.

Oh, wait, you don't understand what "accurate to approximately" means.

No surprise there. But you are correct, your proud quote mine which actually destroys your argument because of your lack if even basic statistics is indeed very amusing.

What about this one above…

reproducible to about 5%

That means not reproducible 95% of the time…

I don’t believe they are saying that they expect a “94-97% accuracy” level…. And no when they say there confidence level is with 3% or 6%.

What if a doctor tells you they have a 3% confidence level you will live?

 

[Blayz]

What about this one above&#8230;

reproducible to about 5%

That means not reproducible 95% of the time&#8230;

No Z, it really doesn't. It means that each time they reproduced it, the results were within 5% of each other. Even if it didn't mean that, you'd still be wrong, and it would mean that the results were within 95% of each other. A value of 100 that is between 5 and 195 has a 95% interval... and it still doesn't mean "not reproducible 95% of the time"

I don&#8217;t believe they are saying that they expect a &#8220;94-97% accuracy&#8221; level&#8230;. And no when they say there confidence level is with 3% or 6%.

Confidence levels are measures of error. That's how we work in science, we give a value together with it's error.

What if a doctor tells you they have a 3% confidence level you will live?

You don't assign confidence levels to discrete outcomes. However, if a doctor told me I had 100 days to live with a confidence level of 3%, then it would mean that the likely range of my dying is 97 to 103 days.


Have a look at table 1 from the paper, "Methane age-depth control points" The first line has a kyr BP of 8.61 and an age uncertainty of 0.55.

If you divide 0.55/8.61 you get 0.0638, which is ~ 6%, which is the 6% that you have been talking about.

Finally, if we look at the 5% quote in context:
"We estimate the accuracy
of the final interpretation is approximately 5% in the depth
interval 0^230m where 10Be data provide a close tie to the
14C dendrochronology record. From 230 to 514m, there are
no age^depth control points, and we estimate the uncertainty
may be as high as 10% in the middle of this depth"

For the deeper depths there are no control points, so the uncertainty rises to 10% from the initial 5%.

 

[RickG]

The 10Be age^depth control points are accurate to approximately 3%, and themethane age^depth control points to approximately 6%. Comparison of the algorithm interpretation of the electrical conductivity and complex conductivity data suggests that the algorithm interpretation is accurate to approximately 3%.

http://soap.siteturbine.com/faculty/faculty_files/publications/1086/avk815.pdf

Do I see confidence levels of 3%, 6%... Just funny.

What is funny is your interpretation of it. That means the error bars are 3% & 6%. Just the opposite of what you are suggesting.

 

[RickG]

I did read part of your article you cited and found this one excerpt amusing.


These groups occasionally discussed interpretation of the visible
layers, but did not try for a single interpretation, choosing
instead to use the degree of agreement as an indication of
the reproducibility of the interpretations. Additional checks
were also made, including having two stratigraphers from
one group independently interpret selected core sections,
and re-examination of selected core sections. Overall, these
tests indicated the manual interpretation of the visual observations
was reproducible to about 5% in Holocene ice.

http://soap.siteturbine.com/faculty/faculty_files/publications/1086/avk815.pdf

Funny….

Facepalm!

 

[Blayz]

Hey Rick, this isn't my field so I only jumped in when I saw Z getting statistics wrong (again), but I do have a question, what is the measure of error for this field? Are they talking standard deviation, standard error, 95%CI, or something else? Also in biology we give the absolute values rather than relative.

I can understand how a layman could get confused the way they jump between accuracy, error and uncertainty.