Facebook Sheeple

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

What's particularly disappointing is the fact that Justice Frangipane doesn't seem to realise that his idea about days being mistaken for years is easily disproved.

The paper he cited dates to 2000.

If the ice layers are yearly, we should find only 13 layers since then.

If daily - as he argues - there should be 13 x the number of days it's snowed each year in East Antarctica.

That should be a pretty obvious difference - yet he seems to think that the scientists wouldn't have noticed. :facepalm:

From the paper, it's obvious that the layers are yearly: sections 3 and 4 explain this, figure 2 and table 1 show this.

To take one example, Krakatoa (1883) created a layer at around the corresponding ice layer - as have the other volcanic events - that supports a yearly ice layer explanation.

If this were a daily occurrence, then we're looking for a major volcanic event corresponding to 117 days prior to the ice core being sampled. As if this wasn't enough, we'd have to find corresponding daily volcanic events for all occurrences of inclusions in the ice.

There simply aren't such corresponding events to explain a daily ice layer explanation - the only explanation that corresponds with the data is a yearly creation of ice layers.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Gnug215]

Justice...

You seriously think they can't tell the difference between snow that's been laying there for days, and years? Don't you think they've been able to directly study "day layers" and "year layers" by now, and discerned the differences?

You're basically saying that the vast, vast majority of scientists are bloody morons - or perhaps worse, that it's all a big conspiracy.

This is so clearly a case of you having a pre-conceived bias, a pre-formed belief, and then trying everything to bend reality in order for it to fit your belief. It's mind-boggling that this isn't obvious to you.

I can't prevent you from doing that, of course, but please, for the love of everything that is green, STOP it with all the Hovind canards. It's such a massive case of "been there, done that" that it downright annoys me to see.
Go look up EVERY claim or argument that Hovind has ever made in his feeble case for creationism and then cross EACH and EVERY one of those off the list of arguments that you want to use in here.

It will save everyone a lot of time and facepalming. I have sinuitis right now, so facepalming hurts a lot.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

This is so clearly a case of you having a pre-conceived bias, a pre-formed belief, and then trying everything to bend reality in order for it to fit your belief. It's mind-boggling that this isn't obvious to you.

If Justice Frangipane sticks around long enough, his doublethink will slowly become cognitive dissonance and his mind will start to open up to new ideas.

 

[Justice Frangipane]

Busy week and weekend for me so just a couple quick things.

I realize that snow and ice are different things. I also realize that when snow falls, that the snow is what turns into ice. It has to be warmer to rain ice. Not that it doesn't happen, but I doubt that Antarctica gets much ice rain these days.

There are a couple big assumptions here. But lets talk about what we agree on first.
I think we would all agree that we are assuming that the north pole and Antarctica could have had different climates in that past.
In fact I think we would all agree that tropical plants have been found buried in the ice.
I would also state that if it were warmer at the poles in the past (I don't believe this is in question but feel free to disagree) that the likelihood of Colorado like weather being present at the poles is not just a possibility but a probability.

As far as compression goes, what I'm referring to and perhaps I am using the wrong way to explain it but here is what I mean. If you have 10 cm of ice with a compressed of 200% it would 50% as thick. So 5 cm. That is what I mean but perhaps there is a better less confusing way to explain this. This would put a layer near the bottom at a compression rate in the 10 of thousands of % making 10 cm of ice thinner BY FAR then what I think is measurable of water/ice.

So here is the BIG QUESTION, and I don't know if anyone here is going to really be able to answer this question. But here we go.

How exactly and specifically, do you definitely tell the difference between layers of ice created by annual snowfall verse individual snowfall? Previous answers of, "the experts know how so we don't need to know" is not a good answer. =)

I don't think that this is a clear cut, the experts are clearly right and there is NO problems with the ice core theory. I do think that there are some significant issues with the theory, at least as I understand it.

Second big question. When volcanic ash is found, what is actually found? Can they "fingerprint" the volcanic ash to its origin, or is it just ash? This is a big question and the bigger problem of the two as far as I'm concerned with my interpretation of the data.

 

[ldmitruk]

Second big question. When volcanic ash is found, what is actually found? Can they "fingerprint" the volcanic ash to its origin, or is it just ash? This is a big question and the bigger problem of the two as far as I'm concerned with my interpretation of the data.

It's been few decades since I completed my degree in physical geography and I don't work in the field itself. However if I remember correctly the ash is usually comprised of particles of minerals and glass formed during an eruption. Based on the composition of the ash they can trace the origin of the event, which in some cases can cover vast areas. When I learning about sedimentation one of the ash falls used quite a bit in Alberta was the Mazama ash layer the result of the eruption that created Crater Lake. It was very distictive layer that allowed one to determine when the sediment was deposi a technique called tephrochronology. Hey I learned a new word. A more modern layer would be ash from the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.

Another dating technique they might use is palynology the study of fossil pollens. It comes down to scientists using multiple techniques to verify what they find. Dating ice cores is more than counting layers.

Cheers!

 

[Inferno]

I realize that snow and ice are different things. I also realize that when snow falls, that the snow is what turns into ice. It has to be warmer to rain ice. Not that it doesn't happen, but I doubt that Antarctica gets much ice rain these days.

I'm sorry, what? This is complete drivel, absolute shit.
Snow is formed when supercooled droplets (~10Mm in diameter) freeze.
Hail is formed when large supercooled droplets (>5mm) freeze. However, the formation process is vastly different, with the still liquid exterior being able to pick up other hail pellets and so on.
Then you've got "freezing rain", which needs to be warm (above 0°C) and then drop into colder regions (below 0°C). Freezing rain is liquid.
Finally we've got ice pellets. They form when the last layer (below 0°C) is large enough. Basically, ice pellets are frozen "freezing rain".

So for ice to form, it can be extremely cold at the surface and above 0°C a bit higher up. For snow, it need merely be just below 0°C for a fair distance.

I think we would all agree that we are assuming that the north pole and Antarctica could have had different climates in that past.
In fact I think we would all agree that tropical plants have been found buried in the ice.
I would also state that if it were warmer at the poles in the past (I don't believe this is in question but feel free to disagree) that the likelihood of Colorado like weather being present at the poles is not just a possibility but a probability.

I agree. Not only that, it might have had tropical climate there.
Remember that this was at lest a few tens of millions of years ago. In fact, I think the earliest date I've seen was 50 million years ago, with the average being at 100mya.

How exactly and specifically, do you definitely tell the difference between layers of ice created by annual snowfall verse individual snowfall? Previous answers of, "the experts know how so we don't need to know" is not a good answer. =)

I already said that I'd wait for my climatology professor to reply, you need to have some patience. The short and fairly uneducated answer is that summer snow has a completely different morphology than winter snow, for various reasons I don't properly understand myself. In short, summer snow is more translucent than winter snow. That's what you can see on the ice cores: translucent, then darker markings.

However, you're completely missing an important point here: There are more ways of dating ice cores than by simply counting them. We can date various gases and so on. Someone already linked you to the TalkOrigins site, I'm not going to repeat it.

I don't think that this is a clear cut, the experts are clearly right and there is NO problems with the ice core theory. I do think that there are some significant issues with the theory, at least as I understand it.

I'll repeat myself, but: I'm sorry, what?
In the first part of the sentence, you claim that "this" is not "a clear cut", by which I take it you mean "not clear-cut" aka not clear and obvious. Then in the second part of the sentence, you claim that the scientists are correct and that there are no problems. In the second sentence, you again claim that there are "significant issues with the theory". So which is it? Are there problems or not?

Good heavens, form a clear sentence without contradicting yourself every couple of words.

When volcanic ash is found, what is actually found?

What do you mean? You've answered your own question: They found volcanic ash!

Can they "fingerprint" the volcanic ash to its origin, or is it just ash?

Well it's not cigarette ash, I can tell you that. Can you formulate a question to which we can actually give an answer? What exactly are you looking for? Can you clearly explain your question instead of just popping one down and leaving it there?

This is a big question and the bigger problem of the two as far as I'm concerned with my interpretation of the data.

Nonsense. You don't specifically need volcanic eruptions to date ice cores. If you've got them, it's handy. If you don't... there are other ways.
But just how does it change the interpretation of the data? By the way, your interpretation is wrong. You clearly have no education on the subject and I'd suggest, as always, that you take at least a community college's course on the topic. Thought I'd mention that.

 

[Inferno]

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The short reply to you, Justice Frangipane, is that you really need to read the papers you're citing - and by that I mean take in what's been said and implied.

Busy week and weekend for me so just a couple quick things.

I realize that snow and ice are different things. I also realize that when snow falls, that the snow is what turns into ice.

Agreed.

It has to be warmer to rain ice. Not that it doesn't happen, but I doubt that Antarctica gets much ice rain these days.

As Inferno noted and explained, this is nonsense.

There are a couple big assumptions here. But lets talk about what we agree on first.
I think we would all agree that we are assuming that the north pole and Antarctica could have had different climates in that past.
In fact I think we would all agree that tropical plants have been found buried in the ice.
I would also state that if it were warmer at the poles in the past (I don't believe this is in question but feel free to disagree) that the likelihood of Colorado like weather being present at the poles is not just a possibility but a probability.

Here's a article on climate change; past and future in relation to the Antarctic.

As far as compression goes, what I'm referring to and perhaps I am using the wrong way to explain it but here is what I mean. If you have 10 cm of ice with a compressed of 200% it would 50% as thick. So 5 cm. That is what I mean but perhaps there is a better less confusing way to explain this. This would put a layer near the bottom at a compression rate in the 10 of thousands of % making 10 cm of ice thinner BY FAR then what I think is measurable of water/ice.

So here is the BIG QUESTION, and I don't know if anyone here is going to really be able to answer this question. But here we go.

How exactly and specifically, do you definitely tell the difference between layers of ice created by annual snowfall verse individual snowfall?

As I said earlier, you need to read and take in what the papers you cite actually say.

I've been looking for anything that might make this - that the layers are yearly rather than daily - clearer to you.

Diffusion: The limit to δ18O-based ice core dating notes:

Snow is slowly compressed into ice in the upper 80 meters of an ice sheet (read more about the process here). During this process, water vapour can move relative to the ice in the open pores between the snow grains, thereby smoothing the annual δ18O cycles. This diffusion process smoothes the δ18O signal and even erases the annual signal if the annual layers are thinner than 15-20 cm. In ice cores from sites with less than 15 cm of precipitation (measured in equivalents of compacted ice, not snow) per year, the annual cycle in δ18O will be obliterated, and dating based on annual δ18O oscillations is therefore not possible. This is the case for areas in north-eastern Greenland where the annual precipitation rate is significantly lower than 20 cm. For ice cores drilled in areas with about or slightly more than 20 cm of precipitation, diffusion will also blur the annual cycles, but it is possible to retrieve the annual cycle using diffusion correction techniques.

It is clear from this that we're talking about annual, rather than daily, layers.

In Ice Cores and Climate Change, the article notes:

In 2000, a team of scientists from Ohio State scaled Mount Kalamajaro [sic] to retrieved 214 meters of ices. Using a chlorine-36 marker, they were able to correlate a section of the ice with the 1951-1952 atomic bomb testing.

This is yet another example of how layers are identifiable as annual rather than daily occurrences.

Previous answers of, "the experts know how so we don't need to know" is not a good answer. =)

I don't think that this is a clear cut, the experts are clearly right and there is NO problems with the ice core theory. I do think that there are some significant issues with the theory, at least as I understand it.

Again you equate the opinion of the uninformed with the informed.

The only problems with this - and any other - theory is explained by your last words: "at least as I understand it".

Second big question. When volcanic ash is found, what is actually found? Can they "fingerprint" the volcanic ash to its origin, or is it just ash?

As I mentioned earlier, read the paper you cited on volcanic inclusions.

This is a big question and the bigger problem of the two as far as I'm concerned with my interpretation of the data.

Again, it's your interpretation of the data that is wanting - not the scientists.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I will just tie up what I see as a few loose ends.

In fact I think we would all agree that tropical plants have been found buried in the ice.

No. there are no tropical plants found buried in the ice in the arctic. There are tropical plants buried in sedimentary layers below the ice in the arctic. This is not just a nit-picking point.

Second big question. When volcanic ash is found, what is actually found? Can they "fingerprint" the volcanic ash to its origin, or is it just ash? This is a big question and the bigger problem of the two as far as I'm concerned with my interpretation of the data.

As ldmitruk said, volcanic ash is made up of distinctive crystals and minerals that can be traced back to certain volcanoes, which produce those crystals and minerals. It appears from your question that you do not realize that ash is made up of testable material. Volcanic ash is also unique enough that scientists are able to tell it apart from ash produced by forest fires. However, not all volcanic ash can be traced back to a certain volcano because there are still many undiscovered extinct volcanoes on earth. If any of those produced an ash layer in the arctic, we would not be able to trace it to any particular volcano.

Nevertheless, by virtue of it being volcanic ash, scientists are able to date the ash layers without having to know where it came from. Remember how ash is made up of different minerals and crystals, some of those minerals and crystals can be used in radiometric dating to tell us the age of the ash. Thus, just because an ash layer cannot be traced back to any given volcano or eruption, does not mean we do not know the date of the eruption. In addition, as almost everyone else has pointed out thus far, those dates confirm the dating of just counting the annual layers of ice. How do you explain this coincidence?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Justice Frangipane (if he ever does return), please watch this video. It explains the point I have been trying to make about consensuses in science far better than I ever could.

​

 

[Engelbert]

Very good video :!:


Hi Justice. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on things, if you're still about.

Cheers.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Just to add to the "age of the Earth" argument, here's a list of the Top 10 World’s Oldest Trees.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[DutchLiam84]

Sooooo........ :roll:

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Sooooo........ :roll:

The end to another discussion it seems...

Kindest regards,

James

 

[DutchLiam84]

People invest time and effort in this person and then he decides to bugger off without notice. I hope nothing bad happened, otherwise it's just bad manners.