Young Earth Creationist dynamics.

[Zaius137]

I cannot believe we are still discussing this "discrepancy" between how long Antarctica has been frozen and how old the ice cores are. Zaius, I have a question for you, human skin cells do not live more than 50 days, does that mean that all humans in this planet are no older than 50 days?

Despite what other participants have claimed the ice under Vostok would not melt from pressure of upper ice because of its excessive low temperature…

“The mean annual temperature at the South Pole is -48°C and in the interior of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet at Vostok it is about -55°C. For comparison Northern Hemisphere winter temperatures are rarely much below -30°C at the North Pole, and inside your freezer at home it is only about -18°C!

What little precipitation there is mostly falls as snow, averaging less than 50mm a year (water equivalent) across much of the interior.

The presence of so much ice despite such low precipitation is simply due to the fact that low temperatures cause even less ablation than accumulation (see Sections 1.2 and 1.4 for an account of the build up of the Antarctic Ice Sheet).”


Discovering Antarctica - A-level - Key factors behind Antarctica's climate


I will give you time here to retract your previous assertion about the ice sheet melting under its own weight… not true in light of the evidence.

 

[RickG]

Despite what other participants have claimed the ice under Vostok would not melt from pressure of upper ice because of its excessive low temperature…

As pressure increases the melt temperature decreases. Thermodynamics 101.

There is a lake under Vostok and more than 200 other lakes are known to exist under the Antarctic ice sheets because seismographs show that they are there.

Oh! One other thing. A team of Russian scientists did in fact drill completely through the Vostok ice sheet into Lake Vostok, just one month ago.

Russians Drill Into Subglacial Antarctic Lake Vostok - ScienceInsider

 

[RickG]

Ice cores can not be 400 thousand years old at Vostok the evidence points to a very young age.

By the current assumptions…

To date ice cores have been extracted from a depth of 3623 meters and were dated to 420,000 years.

That accumulation for 420 thousand years would suggest a precipitation rate of about .0086 meters a year or 8.6 mm of accumulation a year. The annual accumulation at Vostok is 21.5 mm year. Ablation of the lower ice can not account for the 12.9 mm difference between the two figures.

What you seem to be forgetting is that successive snow falls build and increase pressure as they accumulate. Increased pressure compresses. Because of this compression annual layers will be successively thinner. You seem to be assuming incorrectly that all layers are of equal thickness, they are not.

You are also dismissing the fact that annual layers are recognizable by several independent means such as visual, δ electrical conductivity, δ acidity, δ18O, δ2H, δ dust and δ pollen; all of which not only distinguish annual layers but seasons within those annual layers.

 

[Valkhorn]

Despite what other participants have claimed the ice under Vostok would not melt from pressure of upper ice because of its excessive low temperature…

“The mean annual temperature at the South Pole is -48°C and in the interior of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet at Vostok it is about -55°C. For comparison Northern Hemisphere winter temperatures are rarely much below -30°C at the North Pole, and inside your freezer at home it is only about -18°C!

What little precipitation there is mostly falls as snow, averaging less than 50mm a year (water equivalent) across much of the interior.

The presence of so much ice despite such low precipitation is simply due to the fact that low temperatures cause even less ablation than accumulation (see Sections 1.2 and 1.4 for an account of the build up of the Antarctic Ice Sheet).”


Discovering Antarctica - A-level - Key factors behind Antarctica's climate


I will give you time here to retract your previous assertion about the ice sheet melting under its own weight… not true in light of the evidence.

The temperature at the surface of the ice is not the average temperature beneath the ice.

This is at least twice that you've confused the top of the ice sheet with the bottom of it. Liquid water exists in small quantities beneath the ice sheet in spots. Lake Vostok is an example.

If you keep having these fundamental problems with basic comprehension of facts, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Zaius137]

The temperature at the surface of the ice is not the average temperature beneath the ice.

This is at least twice that you've confused the top of the ice sheet with the bottom of it. Liquid water exists in small quantities beneath the ice sheet in spots. Lake Vostok is an example.

If you keep having these fundamental problems with basic comprehension of facts, I don't know what to tell you.

I think it is all said in the citation…

“the fact that low temperatures cause even less ablation than accumulation”

You need to present reality and not fantasy….

 

[Zaius137]

What you seem to be forgetting is that successive snow falls build and increase pressure as they accumulate. Increased pressure compresses. Because of this compression annual layers will be successively thinner. You seem to be assuming incorrectly that all layers are of equal thickness, they are not.

You are also dismissing the fact that annual layers are recognizable by several independent means such as visual, δ electrical conductivity, δ acidity, δ18O, δ2H, δ dust and δ pollen; all of which not only distinguish annual layers but seasons within those annual layers.

Lakes exist not because pressure produced them (no one claims that, except you) but because of trapped heat or an underground thermal source. The freezing point is only held off by the extreme pressure (I believe they said about 300 atmospheres).

How can you buy into a mass balance when there is no evidence for it? There is no reason to assume a mass balance with the current observed parameters. The mechanisms would have to be so finely tuned as to be unstable and defiantly no for 14 million years.

My question remains valid… Where did all the old ice go if not by ablation?

 

[CabVet]

Despite what other participants have claimed the ice under Vostok would not melt from pressure of upper ice because of its excessive low temperature…

“The mean annual temperature at the South Pole is -48°C and in the interior of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet at Vostok it is about -55°C. For comparison Northern Hemisphere winter temperatures are rarely much below -30°C at the North Pole, and inside your freezer at home it is only about -18°C!

What little precipitation there is mostly falls as snow, averaging less than 50mm a year (water equivalent) across much of the interior.

The presence of so much ice despite such low precipitation is simply due to the fact that low temperatures cause even less ablation than accumulation (see Sections 1.2 and 1.4 for an account of the build up of the Antarctic Ice Sheet).”


Discovering Antarctica - A-level - Key factors behind Antarctica's climate


I will give you time here to retract your previous assertion about the ice sheet melting under its own weight… not true in light of the evidence.

Have you ever heard of an igloo? The temperature just a few feet below the surface of the icesheet is much lower than the outside temperature that you post. But of course you knew that, I am now convinced you are just muddying the waters.

 

[CabVet]

By the way, here is a link with a real scientific paper for you:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...80YuV1u_-KhZOa6-w&sig2=BgDJVEpsXYQdbnar5lVo9Q

And a quote from the article above:

At a continental scale, the locations of Antarctic subglacial lakes match the modeled distribution of pressure melting at the ice-sheet bed.

 

[RickG]

Originally Posted by RickG

What you seem to be forgetting is that successive snow falls build and increase pressure as they accumulate. Increased pressure compresses. Because of this compression annual layers will be successively thinner. You seem to be assuming incorrectly that all layers are of equal thickness, they are not.

You are also dismissing the fact that annual layers are recognizable by several independent means such as visual, δ electrical conductivity, δ acidity, δ18O, δ2H, δ dust and δ pollen; all of which not only distinguish annual layers but seasons within those annual layers.​

Zaius: Lakes exist not because pressure produced them (no one claims that, except you) but because of trapped heat or an underground thermal source. The freezing point is only held off by the extreme pressure (I believe they said about 300 atmospheres).

How can you buy into a mass balance when there is no evidence for it? There is no reason to assume a mass balance with the current observed parameters. The mechanisms would have to be so finely tuned as to be unstable and defiantly no for 14 million years. My question remains valid… Where did all the old ice go if not by ablation?

Your comments do not address what you quoted.

 

[Zaius137]

By the way, here is a link with a real scientific paper for you:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cts=1331400462476&ved=0CDsQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geos.ed.ac.uk%2Fhomes%2Fmsiegert%2Fpdf2.pdf&ei=y45bT8bUKqWGiQKX1ZifCw&usg=AFQjCNF6SJpVx-RBb80YuV1u_-KhZOa6-w&sig2=BgDJVEpsXYQdbnar5lVo9Q

And a quote from the article above:

Here is what is meant by the terms used… you used the quote out of context… further in the paper it is stated:

The results indicate that pressure melting
conditions occur across two distinct zones beneath
the ice sheet. The first is around the centre of the ice
sheet, where ice is generally thickest and acts to
insulate the ice-sheet base, kept warm by geothermal
heat, from the cold conditions at the ice surface.

http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/msiegert/pdf2.pdf

Pressure has never been used as the primary melting mechanism in the ice sheet; as far as I have read. It only suspends the freezing point at those pressures and temperatures (from other sources). So far you are still wrong… keep trying.

 

[Zaius137]

Your comments do not address what you quoted.

The current ice core dating system is simply wrong. Dates arriving at 420 thousand years are impossible. You are making little headway in bridging the gap between the accepted date of 14 million years and the ice core dates of 400 thousand years. I point out a problem that prevents me from accepting your ice core dating paradigm; namely where all the old ice is and what about the observed mass balance for east Antarctica. As for the moment I am seeking a comprehensive scientific explanation for the old ice disappearance not more of the faulty understanding of ice core dating.

 

[RickG]

The current ice core dating system is simply wrong. Dates arriving at 420 thousand years are impossible. You are making little headway in bridging the gap between the accepted date of 14 million years and the ice core dates of 400 thousand years. I point out a problem that prevents me from accepting your ice core dating paradigm; namely where all the old ice is and what about the observed mass balance for east Antarctica. As for the moment I am seeking a comprehensive scientific explanation for the old ice disappearance not more of the faulty understanding of ice core dating.

I have explained to you many times how ice cores are dated in very simple layman's terms. If you like I can get very technical and provide an enormous amount of data. However, you keep making claims that it is wrong without even the slightest bit of any supporting evidence to back your claim. Would you please provide the evidence showing your belief that ice core dating is wrong.

And once again, I will address your misunderstanding between ice core dates and that 14 million year date you keep throwing out.

1. Dating of ice cores is performed by a combination of several methods I have already outlined. This is done in most part by annual layers. One thing I have not addressed is that organic material such as pollen can be dated in excess of 40,000 years as well as volcanic ash layers (tephrostratigraphy) that are datable much further than that.

2. No ice cores have been dated to any million year plus dates.

3. The million year plus dates are obtained from sea sediment cores.


There are a number of well known markers in marine sediments that reveal much information about past climates. These include specific isotopes contained in formainifera, diatoms and other constituents that indicate past temperatures, sea levels, presence of glacial ice and thickness and time of depositions. This is one of the sources of the million years plus dates for glaciation on Antarctica. The current glaciation which begin approximately 34 million years ago is not the only glacial period known to have existed in Antarctica. Antarctica also contained continental glaciation during the Permo-Carboniferous period. That is the permian-carboniferous period boundary. In fact Antarctica was glaciated during much of the Carboniferous period some 300 million years ago. And please don't get the idea that I or anyone is suggesting 300 million year old ice in any of the current Antarctic ice sheets.

 

[Zaius137]

I have explained to you many times how ice cores are dated in very simple layman's terms. If you like I can get very technical and provide an enormous amount of data. However, you keep making claims that it is wrong without even the slightest bit of any supporting evidence to back your claim. Would you please provide the evidence showing your belief that ice core dating is wrong.

And once again, I will address your misunderstanding between ice core dates and that 14 million year date you keep throwing out.

1. Dating of ice cores is performed by a combination of several methods I have already outlined. This is done in most part by annual layers. One thing I have not addressed is that organic material such as pollen can be dated in excess of 40,000 years as well as volcanic ash layers (tephrostratigraphy) that are datable much further than that.

2. No ice cores have been dated to any million year plus dates.

3. The million year plus dates are obtained from sea sediment cores.


There are a number of well known markers in marine sediments that reveal much information about past climates. These include specific isotopes contained in formainifera, diatoms and other constituents that indicate past temperatures, sea levels, presence of glacial ice and thickness and time of depositions. This is one of the sources of the million years plus dates for glaciation on Antarctica. The current glaciation which begin approximately 34 million years ago is not the only glacial period known to have existed in Antarctica. Antarctica also contained continental glaciation during the Permo-Carboniferous period. That is the permian-carboniferous period boundary. In fact Antarctica was glaciated during much of the Carboniferous period some 300 million years ago. And please don't get the idea that I or anyone is suggesting 300 million year old ice in any of the current Antarctic ice sheets.

Data must be processed and interconnected under basic assumptions…. Given your assumptions that the snow layers were laid down annually does not correspond to my assumptions that the layers only represent individual snow storms. That again is only old earth verses creationism. The problem I have with ice core dating, as I mentioned time and time again, is that they do not line up with a 14 million year accretion time postulated by the old earth dogma.

Personally I don’t see how you can go threw the data without tainting the conclusions with your preconceptions of an old age (but not old enough). If you feel so inclined knock yourself out. Now if you could claim that ice cores collected in areas of minimal ablation actually showed a concordance with the old age doctrine it would impress me a lot further

As for ocean sediments they should actually be a lot thicker than the data is showing assuming millions of years of accumulation. Just another one of those inconsistencies with the old earth paradigm and I view your ice core dating assumptions as just stretching the data to fit scientific materialism.

Creating massive minutiae of evidence will never lead to the correct conclusions if your basic assumptions are incorrect.

 

[CabVet]

Data must be processed and interconnected under basic assumptions…. Given your assumptions that the snow layers were laid down annually does not correspond to my assumptions that the layers only represent individual snow storms. That again is only old earth verses creationism. The problem I have with ice core dating, as I mentioned time and time again, is that they do not line up with a 14 million year accretion time postulated by the old earth dogma.

Personally I don’t see how you can go threw the data without tainting the conclusions with your preconceptions of an old age (but not old enough). If you feel so inclined knock yourself out. Now if you could claim that ice cores collected in areas of minimal ablation actually showed a concordance with the old age doctrine it would impress me a lot further

As for ocean sediments they should actually be a lot thicker than the data is showing assuming millions of years of accumulation. Just another one of those inconsistencies with the old earth paradigm and I view your ice core dating assumptions as just stretching the data to fit scientific materialism.

Creating massive minutiae of evidence will never lead to the correct conclusions if your basic assumptions are incorrect.

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

 

[RickG]

Data must be processed and interconnected under basic assumptions…. Given your assumptions that the snow layers were laid down annually does not correspond to my assumptions that the layers only represent individual snow storms. That again is only old earth verses creationism. The problem I have with ice core dating, as I mentioned time and time again, is that they do not line up with a 14 million year accretion time postulated by the old earth dogma.

Okey! I want to address two points here. One is your continued misunderstanding between ice core chronology and marine sediment core chronology. The second one is one we have not discussed, how ice core core chronology works.

First topic:

Please understand that the chronology of Vostok ice cores and those of Antarctic marine sediment cores do not represent the same thing. The two chronologies cannot be compared. I have also shown you that your accretion time is erroneous. Snow and ice compress. Upper layers are going to be thicker than lower layers. At one point annual layers will not even be distinguishable. No ice cores have been retrieved with million plus year dates. The dates of the marine sediment cores show that there was glaciation 14 million years ago, in fact more than twice that time ago. There is no conflict, your idea compares apples and oranges. They are both fruits but they are not the same.

Second Topic:

This is the one I have been trying to get you to discuss all along, so let's get to it.

As I have mentioned before, there are several different methods used. What is unique about them is they all utilize simple basic chemistry, fractionation.

I know the basic assumption is that there are multiple snow falls each winter and that they could easily be mistaken for annual events rather than individual snow falls. But that is not how it works. So let's look at the basic chemistry of fractionation. Fractionation is a process by which molecules, or more specifically, isotopes, precipitate out of solution due to temperature. In this case the solution is the mixture of gases in the atmosphere. Each chemical element has more than one isotope. The main isotopes used in the ice core chronology process are those of oxygen and hydrogen, and what is the chemical formula for snow? Frozen water (H2O).

With Oxygen there are two stable isotopes 16-O and 18-O. Because of their different weights, 18-O being heavier precipitates out of the atmosphere more readily than 16-O. So as temperatures become cooler more 18-O out of the atmosphere than 16-O much as the same principle that different liquids freeze at different temperatures. So, because of significant temperature differences, even above the Arctic and Antarctic Circles, during winter and summer the ratios of 16-O and 18-O differ significantly. Thus, it doesn't matter how many snow fall accumulations there have been during any year. We are not looking at individual snow falls, we are looking at the isotope accumulation ratios. By the same process Hydrogen isotopes (1-H and 2-H) behave in the same manner. So, not only are annual layers easy to see due to fractionation, but also winter and summer seasons can be seen within each annual layer.

But that's not all, there are other ions in the atmosphere that behave in the same manner, they are sodium (Na+), chlorine (Cl-), nitrate (NO3-) and sulfate (SO4=). Their ratios can measured through techniques measuring acidity and/or electrical conductivity.

Pollen is another annual marker. During the spring and early summer there is significantly more pollen in the atmosphere than fall and winter. Those ratio differences also give a clear annual signal. Additionally, there is a significant difference of dust in the atmosphere between summer and winter.

Visual layers are due to the difference in ice crystal size between winter and summer. Remember, during the summer there is 24 hr sun and during the winter there is 24 hr darkness. This has a significance influence one ice crystal size which is visible to the eye.

All of the above methods are completely independent of one another. The fact that all can be measured and show the same ratio oscillations clearly supports the validity that annual layer measurement of ice cores is extremely robust.

The distance between peaks or valleys represents an annual layer. The changing ratios show the changing seasons.

 

[Valkhorn]

Okey! I want to address two points here. One is your continued misunderstanding between ice core chronology and marine sediment core chronology. The second one is one we have not discussed, how ice core core chronology works.

First topic:

Please understand that the chronology of Vostok ice cores and those of Antarctic marine sediment cores do not represent the same thing. The two chronologies cannot be compared. I have also shown you that your accretion time is erroneous. Snow and ice compress. Upper layers are going to be thicker than lower layers. At one point annual layers will not even be distinguishable. No ice cores have been retrieved with million plus year dates. The dates of the marine sediment cores show that there was glaciation 14 million years ago, in fact more than twice that time ago. There is no conflict, your idea compares apples and oranges. They are both fruits but they are not the same.

Second Topic:

This is the one I have been trying to get you to discuss all along, so let's get to it.

As I have mentioned before, there are several different methods used. What is unique about them is they all utilize simple basic chemistry, fractionation.

I know the basic assumption is that there are multiple snow falls each winter and that they could easily be mistaken for annual events rather than individual snow falls. But that is not how it works. So let's look at the basic chemistry of fractionation. Fractionation is a process by which molecules, or more specifically, isotopes, precipitate out of solution due to temperature. In this case the solution is the mixture of gases in the atmosphere. Each chemical element has more than one isotope. The main isotopes used in the ice core chronology process are those of oxygen and hydrogen, and what is the chemical formula for snow? Frozen water (H2O).

With Oxygen there are two stable isotopes 16-O and 18-O. Because of their different weights, 18-O being heavier precipitates out of the atmosphere more readily than 16-O. So as temperatures become cooler more 18-O out of the atmosphere than 16-O much as the same principle that different liquids freeze at different temperatures. So, because of significant temperature differences, even above the Arctic and Antarctic Circles, during winter and summer the ratios of 16-O and 18-O differ significantly. Thus, it doesn't matter how many snow fall accumulations there have been during any year. We are not looking at individual snow falls, we are looking at the isotope accumulation ratios. By the same process Hydrogen isotopes (1-H and 2-H) behave in the same manner. So, not only are annual layers easy to see due to fractionation, but also winter and summer seasons can be seen within each annual layer.

But that's not all, there are other ions in the atmosphere that behave in the same manner, they are sodium (Na+), chlorine (Cl-), nitrate (NO3-) and sulfate (SO4=). Their ratios can measured through techniques measuring acidity and/or electrical conductivity.

Pollen is another annual marker. During the spring and early summer there is significantly more pollen in the atmosphere than fall and winter. Those ratio differences also give a clear annual signal. Additionally, there is a significant difference of dust in the atmosphere between summer and winter.

Visual layers are due to the difference in ice crystal size between winter and summer. Remember, during the summer there is 24 hr sun and during the winter there is 24 hr darkness. This has a significance influence one ice crystal size which is visible to the eye.

All of the above methods are completely independent of one another. The fact that all can be measured and show the same ratio oscillations clearly supports the validity that annual layer measurement of ice cores is extremely robust.

The distance between peaks or valleys represents an annual layer. The changing ratios show the changing seasons.

Wonderful explanation. Unfortunately Zaius is of the following philosophy:

• The bible is literally true
• If any evidence contradicts the bible, it must be dismissed

Until he lets go of point 1, there is no reason rationally discussing anything with him as far as I'm concerned. He mistakenly thinks that logical arguments start with a conclusion, and mistakenly thinks that those who side with an old earth started with some conclusion - when in fact they kept modifiying the conclusion to fit the evidence to the point where current known evidence matches our current conclusion of geology and how old the Earth is.

It's illogical to start with any assumption or start with any conclusion. Fortunately, when scientists started letting go of starting points and just let the evidence speak for itself, we got the answer of a 4.55 billion year old Earth and modern Geology - and understanding the theory of Evolution.

Starting with a conclusion/assumption leads to ignorance. Staring with "I don't know, so let's find out" leads to wisdom.

 

[Jazer]

• The bible is literally true
• If any evidence contradicts the bible, it must be dismissed

There is no evidence that contradicts the Bible. The evidence challenges some of the traditional ways to interpret the Bible. New evidence in science helps us to better understand our Bible and the message that God has for us today.

 

[Valkhorn]

There is no evidence that contradicts the Bible. The evidence challenges some of the traditional ways to interpret the Bible. New evidence in science helps us to better understand our Bible and the message that God has for us today.

You really didn't help your case there with what you wrote. You also proved my point.

Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. (See also Deut. 14:11, 18)

Bats aren't birds. They are mammals.

There also is no evidence of a global flood. Ever.

Here's a novel thought. Forget about the bible when it comes to what actually happened in the past. Look at the actual evidence that exists that wasn't touched by man's interpretation of literature or translation/copy errors. Start from the premise "I don't know", and then look at the evidence and try to see where reality stands. If you believe in a god, why not remove the middle man (man's translation of what he thought god said to him) and look at what you believe is god's actual 'creation'?

There will be three basic outcomes:

• The evidence you find matches a literal bible
• The evidence you find only partially matches a 'literal' bible
• The evidence you find doesn't match a literal bible at all

The evidence should be given more weight than a book written by man - just as the evidence is given more weight than peer-reviewed literature. The evidence exists with or without man to discover it. We then have to stitch the evidence together to come up with an explanation that best explains and fits the evidence. Therefore it stands to reason that we will gradually change our conclusions to ensure that we end up as correct as possible - and that new evidence will change the conclusion.

Don't think evolution is falsifiable? All you have to do is find rabbit fossils in pre-cambrian strata and it would completely shake the entire theory. You would still need to explain the evidence that already exists, though, so it would not make the whole thing untrue. The theory would just have to be changed.

Don't think an ancient earth is falsifiable? Then you have to come up with logical and rational explanations for all of the strata we see and how all of the large meteor impacts could have happened in such a short period of time all while humans being able to survive. Even if you could explain that, you'd not be able to explain away the overwhelming evidence of radiometric dating of terrestrial and extraterrestrial rocks that point to a specific age of the solar system, the ratio of helium to hydrogen in the sun that points to a specific age that matches, and all of the other evidence that points to an old (and specifically old) Earth.

As far as the global flood - something that big would leave some evidence. Yet, there is no evidence for one ever happening. Something that big supposedly so recent ago would have left a huge amount of evidence, but it did not. A six mile wide rock hitting the Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago left a thin layer of iridium all over the planet. A global flood is much greater than that - yet it left no trace. We can find the crater for Chuxulub, yet we find no layer or strata that points to a global flood - and the entire geologic column shows that one never happened.

What good is faith if it simply ignores evidence in favor of fantasy?

 

[Zaius137]

Second Topic:

This is the one I have been trying to get you to discuss all along, so let's get to it.

As I have mentioned before, there are several different methods used. What is unique about them is they all utilize simple basic chemistry, fractionation.

I know the basic assumption is that there are multiple snow falls each winter and that they could easily be mistaken for annual events rather than individual snow falls. But that is not how it works. So let's look at the basic chemistry of fractionation. Fractionation is a process by which molecules, or more specifically, isotopes, precipitate out of solution due to temperature. In this case the solution is the mixture of gases in the atmosphere. Each chemical element has more than one isotope. The main isotopes used in the ice core chronology process are those of oxygen and hydrogen, and what is the chemical formula for snow? Frozen water (H2O).

With Oxygen there are two stable isotopes 16-O and 18-O. Because of their different weights, 18-O being heavier precipitates out of the atmosphere more readily than 16-O. So as temperatures become cooler more 18-O out of the atmosphere than 16-O much as the same principle that different liquids freeze at different temperatures. So, because of significant temperature differences, even above the Arctic and Antarctic Circles, during winter and summer the ratios of 16-O and 18-O differ significantly. Thus, it doesn't matter how many snow fall accumulations there have been during any year. We are not looking at individual snow falls, we are looking at the isotope accumulation ratios. By the same process Hydrogen isotopes (1-H and 2-H) behave in the same manner. So, not only are annual layers easy to see due to fractionation, but also winter and summer seasons can be seen within each annual layer.

But that's not all, there are other ions in the atmosphere that behave in the same manner, they are sodium (Na+), chlorine (Cl-), nitrate (NO3-) and sulfate (SO4=). Their ratios can measured through techniques measuring acidity and/or electrical conductivity.

Pollen is another annual marker. During the spring and early summer there is significantly more pollen in the atmosphere than fall and winter. Those ratio differences also give a clear annual signal. Additionally, there is a significant difference of dust in the atmosphere between summer and winter.

Visual layers are due to the difference in ice crystal size between winter and summer. Remember, during the summer there is 24 hr sun and during the winter there is 24 hr darkness. This has a significance influence one ice crystal size which is visible to the eye.

All of the above methods are completely independent of one another. The fact that all can be measured and show the same ratio oscillations clearly supports the validity that annual layer measurement of ice cores is extremely robust.

The distance between peaks or valleys represents an annual layer. The changing ratios show the changing seasons.

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 papers.


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

“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

 

[Zaius137]

Okey! I want to address two points here. One is your continued misunderstanding between ice core chronology and marine sediment core chronology. The second one is one we have not discussed, how ice core core chronology works.

First topic:

Please understand that the chronology of Vostok ice cores and those of Antarctic marine sediment cores do not represent the same thing. The two chronologies cannot be compared. I have also shown you that your accretion time is erroneous. Snow and ice compress. Upper layers are going to be thicker than lower layers. At one point annual layers will not even be distinguishable. No ice cores have been retrieved with million plus year dates. The dates of the marine sediment cores show that there was glaciation 14 million years ago, in fact more than twice that time ago. There is no conflict, your idea compares apples and oranges. They are both fruits but they are not the same.

Quick question… Why is the deeper Antarctica ice cores (Vostok) dated to half the age of shallower cores around 800 k years? Isn’t that counter intuitive?

By the way you have never shown that my accretion times erroneous (your exaggeration). The problem still stands… lack of ablation should yield very old ice strata.

So snow layers compress… then the people dating the ice cores should be intellectually honest and not apply nonsense dates.

“At one point annual layers will not even be distinguishable.”

Good point.

“No ice cores have been retrieved with million plus year dates.”

In support of my point.

“There is no conflict, your idea compares apples and oranges. They are both fruits but they are not the same.”


My view that these two data sources are roads to the same destination not apples and oranges (those are creationists and evolutionists). Unfortunately the two roads are parallel never to converge to the same dogma.