PDA

View Full Version : Ice core samples and Creationist lies



HMS_Beagle
07-06-2014, 09:42 AM
The board's blustering blunderer recently tried to argue by weblink and provided several YEC sources supposedly "refuting" the dates from counting annual ice layers in core samples. Here is one of them

Do Ice Cores Disprove Recent Creation? (http://www.icr.org/article/8026/)

The particular sample they are arguing against is from the The Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) core samples taken in 1997.

Here are the actual GISP2 results


The Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 depth‐age scale: Methods and results (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/97JC00269/pdf)
Meese et al
Journal of Geophysical Research. 102 (C12): 26411–26423 Nov 1997

Abstract: The Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) depth-age scale is presented based on a multiparameter continuous count approach, to a depth of 2800 m, using a systematic combination of parameters that have never been used to this extent before. The ice at 2800 m is dated at 110,000 years B.P. with an estimated error ranging from 1 to 10% in the top 2500 m of the core and averaging 20% between 2500 and 2800 m. Parameters used to date the core include visual stratigraphy, oxygen isotopic ratios of the ice, electrical conductivity measurements, laser-light scattering from dust, volcanic signals, and major ion chemistry. GISP2 ages for major climatic events agree with independent ages based on varve chronologies, calibrated radiocarbon dates, and other techniques within the combined uncertainties. Good agreement also is obtained with Greenland Ice Core Project ice core dates and with the SPECMAP marine timescale after correlation through the δ18O of O2. Although the core is deformed below 2800 m and the continuity of the record is unclear, we attempted to date this section of the core on the basis of the laser-light scattering of dust in the ice

Notice that each annual layer is determined by at least three and more where applicable of six independent methods.

What do the liars at ICR have to say? First they start bellyaching about indistinct signal the very bottom of the core at 2800m and completely ignore the data with <2% error above 39,850 YPB.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5539/14608459943_1ecc37aeb8.jpg

Second they start bellyaching that each annual layer could really be dozens of layer produced by multiple dust storms. This completely ignores that the layer were cross correlated with known volcanic eruptions (besides the other 5 counting methods) providing independent confirmation that the layers are indeed annual.

There you have YEC "science" at its finest. Ignore the actual data, make up lies about the rest, PRAISE JESUS! the world must be really young. :ahem:

For a great laugh I highly recommend you read the actual GISP2 paper then look at the spin the YECs tried to put on it.

rogue06
07-06-2014, 12:06 PM
One of the most frequently encountered YEC criticisms of ice core evidence centers around the so-called "Lost Squadron" from WWII up in Greenland. Typically, they leave out a whole slew of awkward details along the way.

First, that they got buried in this manner is hardly surprising. If you park some planes on an active glacier in an area that averages over 6’ of snow per year in Greenland and wait a few decades and nobody should be shocked that they got buried like that[1]

Not only were they buried but the planes have actually moved roughly 2km (1 mile) since landing as well. This is a major reason nobody does ice core dating on a glacier.

What seems to get missed is it matters not how deep they got but under how many annual layers. And depth doesn’t determine how many layers there are (although due to compression the lower, oldest layers are far thinner than the upper ones). And it’s layers that determine the age.

And IIRC there were, for instance, over 40 different tests with corroborating results were used to determine the age of GISP2 core in Greenland. And the cores taken from Greenland and also Antarctic are taken from the interior where there is far less precipitation than near the coast (where the planes were).

The interior of Greenland and especially Antarctica receive virtually no snowfall. Enormous regions of Antarctica are some of the most arid regions of the planet with just 2” of precipitation a year. Like the center of most continents, there are few if any moisture sources for much precipitation.

But getting back to the planes, one other thing to keep in mind is that the planes would have settled into the snow or ice simply through heat transmission. You can see this effect for yourself by simply putting an object on top of a block of ice and leaving alone for a while. The object will melt the surrounding ice and begin settling into the ice.







1. If it took 48 years to get buried 268’ then that ends up 5.583’ per year.

Omniskeptical
07-06-2014, 12:58 PM
If you ignore the ice age, it's 6 feet per year. There is no way to peel layers of ice. And the layers can be faked. You have to measure and assume a mostly unvariable rate.

Cow Poke
07-06-2014, 02:55 PM
The board's blustering blunderer

Is this the "fresh start"? :brood:


I changed my handle when the new board opened to have a fresh start and avoid the rancor that had built up over the years on the old one.

klaus54
07-06-2014, 04:05 PM
Is this the "fresh start"? :brood:

It was a null hypothesis, but one which was quickly falsified by testing using Jorge-data with a vanishing p-value.

:wink:

K54

HMS_Beagle
07-06-2014, 04:44 PM
Is this the "fresh start"? :brood:

Remember this exchange three weeks ago?



I'll be happy to turn flame knob way down if you guys start deleting all the content free drive-by insults from a certain TWebber. It would be great if this was just a science forum again.

Deal?

Report him if you see it. Rogue and I will be glad to deal with it.

I kept my part of the bargain until I saw zero response from your side. What did you guys do for your part?

Cow Poke
07-06-2014, 05:42 PM
It was a null hypothesis, but one which was quickly falsified by testing using Jorge-data with a vanishing p-value.

:wink:

K54

I'm still marveling at the jargon. :smile:

Cow Poke
07-06-2014, 05:42 PM
Remember this exchange three weeks ago?



I kept my part of the bargain until I saw zero response from your side. What did you guys do for your part?

MY side? :huh:

HMS_Beagle
07-06-2014, 05:44 PM
MY side? :huh:

Aren't you part of the mod team?

Cow Poke
07-06-2014, 05:50 PM
Aren't you part of the mod team?

Just recently, but I wasn't commenting as a mod. It was our previous interaction. But mods are volunteers, and not always "present"... sometimes it takes a while to consult with each other and come up with a response.

And, actually, when I responded to you, I forgot I was a mod again. :smile:

HMS_Beagle
07-06-2014, 05:57 PM
Just recently, but I wasn't commenting as a mod. It was our previous interaction. But mods are volunteers, and not always "present"... sometimes it takes a while to consult with each other and come up with a response.

And, actually, when I responded to you, I forgot I was a mod again. :smile:

OK, no worries.

I'd still love for this to be an insult free actual science forum. I'm willing to try again but it can't be just me making the effort. We both know there's one individual whose behavior is the catalyst for 99% of the poo that gets flung around here and his initials are JF. :ahem:

Cow Poke
07-06-2014, 06:00 PM
OK, no worries.

I'd still love for this to be an insult free actual science forum. I'm willing to try again but it can't be just me making the effort.

SURE it can. It's a choice.


We both know there's one individual whose behavior is the catalyst for 99% of the poo that gets flung around here and his initials are JF. :ahem:

So don't play! :shrug:

HMS_Beagle
07-06-2014, 06:06 PM
SURE it can. It's a choice.

So don't play! :shrug:

Doesn't work to suggest me or Klaus or LPOT to stop when even if we do we still get daily drive-by one liner insults from you know who. Cease fires only work if both sides cease.

Cow Poke
07-06-2014, 06:08 PM
Doesn't work to suggest me or Klaus or LPOT to stop when even if we do we still get daily drive-by one liner insults from you know who. Cease fires only work if both sides cease.

I hereby cease. :shrug:

klaus54
07-06-2014, 06:13 PM
I'm still marveling at the jargon. :smile:

Standard jargon. I teach Sadistics, err... Statistics.

K54

HMS_Beagle
07-06-2014, 06:18 PM
I hereby cease. :shrug:

Thanks but your behavior isn't the problem.

phank
07-15-2014, 02:46 PM
It's probably worth noting that when the notorious JF isn't around, this room usually becomes moribund.

klaus54
07-15-2014, 03:40 PM
It's probably worth noting that when the notorious JF isn't around, this room usually becomes moribund.

That's cuz JF is the only YEC with the cojones to dive into these scientific issues for which they have no ammunition. JF has no ammo either, but he makes enough racket that he hopes to scare us away like raccoons under the porch.

The YEC/Deep Time and Deep History is so anachronistic, sort of like debating the value of bloodletting to treat inflammatory quinsy.

It IS interesting to see if the YEC can come up with SOMETHING.

Since their theological view of creation is based on an inerrant, infallible reading of the Genesis stories ueber Alles, I would at least like to see one try to give an unambiguous, direct, plain, simple, straightforward, literal reading of the Genesis stories.

But so far no one has come forward. I mean if that Genesis reading trumps all of the science, shouldn't it at least by expounded someplace?

K54