Creationist Ice Core/isotope claim - a little help

UnrepentantSinner · 23rd June 2012, 07:03 AM

Do we we have any atomospheric scientists here, or people familiar enough with ice cores to discern the scientific facts about isotopes from Creationist BS? Here's snippets of a discussion from Facebook link to group - must join to participate.

Quote:

Ice core dating assumes one year per layer, and a layer defined as a change in chemical signatures such as oxygen ratio. But the same thing happens when you compare snow/ice deposits close to open water and inland: you get the same change in ratios. Therefore, if there was a big storm which left the ocean close to the shore covered for a few days or longer, the storm that left that snow would show a change in ratios. Therefore each layer could well be the marker for a storm, and since multiple storms per year are not unheard of even today, it is illogical and dogmatic to claim these markers must be annual indicators.

My request for evidence resulted in 3 sources, two Crationist and one scholarly.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...housands-years

Quote:

Since the creationist model postulates an annual layer thickness significantly thicker, say 12 inches (30 cm) as an example, the uniformitarians have taken more measurements than needed and are, therefore, measuring multiple cycles of oxygen isotopes within one year. This is how the number of annual layers becomes greatly exaggerated.6

Footnote 6 takes you to an ICR article availible here:
http://www.icr.org/article/are-polar...500-years-old/

Quote:

These sub-annual signatures may be the result of individual storms, or they could be cycles of sunny, mild weather alternating with cool, stormy weather. These sub-annual layers can mimic annual layers in the measured variables. For instance, enough variability exists in the precipitation from some mid-latitude storms to account for the annual amplitude of the oxygen isotope ratio.10

Footnote 10 then takes us to this scholarly article that primarily discusses hydrogen/deuterium ratios in snow/rain fall in the mid-lattitudes rather than snowfall in artic lattitudes, but does mention the O16/O18 ratios a few times.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...P%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Can anyone help me out with this?

DC · 23rd June 2012, 07:16 AM

ice cores get comapred to ice cores from other loacations to rule out local influences that might confuse the interpretation of layers.

MG1962 · 23rd June 2012, 07:24 AM

Yeah they just don't go around pointing at things saying...oh this is this and that. They have to be calibrated, then the calibration is peer reviewed. I am only guessing but I would suggest someone thought about how 'big storms' could affect the results

UnrepentantSinner · 23rd June 2012, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by DC

ice cores get comapred to ice cores from other loacations to rule out local influences that might confuse the interpretation of layers.

Originally Posted by MG1962

Yeah they just don't go around pointing at things saying...oh this is this and that. They have to be calibrated, then the calibration is peer reviewed. I am only guessing but I would suggest someone thought about how 'big storms' could affect the results

I know guys, I know. I'm looking for something specific that gets to the heart of the paper in the last link and relates it back to the "claims" in the ICR and AiG page though.

MG1962 · 23rd June 2012, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

I know guys, I know. I'm looking for something specific that gets to the heart of the paper in the last link and relates it back to the "claims" in the ICR and AiG page though.

Okay well I am having dinner tonight or tomorrow with some who has just completed a similar project, measuring snow depth from space using radar. I will ask about the calibration process

UnrepentantSinner · 23rd June 2012, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Okay well I am having dinner tonight or tomorrow with some who has just completed a similar project, measuring snow depth from space using radar. I will ask about the calibration process

Thank you sir.

MG1962 · 23rd June 2012, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Thank you sir.

Well with the radar survey I know they spent two years with people running all over Alaska measuring their results to make sure they were calibrated before they even started taking serious measurements.

With the cores. I can only imagine how long that all took to get right.

MG1962 · 24th June 2012, 07:18 PM

Okay here is how it works. They use the same concept as geological strata. They take cores from various areas and look for common reference points. This means that if one core shows indications of unusual thickness or not matching the other cores this data is rejected

The point is, if a storm affected an area as the creationists suggest, it not likely that all ice cores over hundreds of miles will have been affected by the same storm.

Finally he mentioned that when researchers can not calibrate the ice core they say so in their research and introduce possible dating errors based on compression rates etc

Ladewig · 24th June 2012, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

The point is, if a storm affected an area as the creationists suggest, it not likely that all ice cores over hundreds of miles will have been affected by the same storm.

But that's only true if you reject the theory of global storms and Creationists have not rejected the idea of global storms.

________________________

Antarctic ice cores go back 740,000 years. So the Creations believe that there were 128 storms a year for the past 6000 years. And somehow Noah's Flood didn't show up anywhere in the young-earth ice cores. That must have been one magical flood.

Ladewig · 24th June 2012, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Do we we have any atomospheric scientists here, or people familiar enough with ice cores to discern the scientific facts about isotopes from Creationist BS? Here's snippets of a discussion from Facebook link to group - must join to participate.

My request for evidence resulted in 3 sources, two Crationist and one scholarly.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...housands-years

Footnote 6 takes you to an ICR article availible here:
http://www.icr.org/article/are-polar...500-years-old/

Footnote 10 then takes us to this scholarly article that primarily discusses hydrogen/deuterium ratios in snow/rain fall in the mid-lattitudes rather than snowfall in artic lattitudes, but does mention the O16/O18 ratios a few times.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...P%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Can anyone help me out with this?

Does this page help?
http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com...-of-earth.html

jasonpatterson · 25th June 2012, 09:20 AM

The layers in an ice core are also easily visible in some cases. The layers aren't determined (exclusively anyway) by isotopes. If you look at the ice core wiki there is a photo of a core with very clear layers.

quarky · 25th June 2012, 04:56 PM

Is it possible that Adam and Eve went skating?

UnrepentantSinner · 26th June 2012, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Okay here is how it works. They use the same concept as geological strata. They take cores from various areas and look for common reference points. This means that if one core shows indications of unusual thickness or not matching the other cores this data is rejected

The point is, if a storm affected an area as the creationists suggest, it not likely that all ice cores over hundreds of miles will have been affected by the same storm.

Finally he mentioned that when researchers can not calibrate the ice core they say so in their research and introduce possible dating errors based on compression rates etc

Awesome. The folks in that thread didn't seem to want to respond after I actually took a look at the article and made my observations that it primarily dealt with hydrogen/deuterium ratios and how it didn't specifically address O16/18 ratios in artic environments. I'll keep his comments in mind should I see someone offering up that AiG/ICR propaganda in the future.

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Does this page help?
http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com...-of-earth.html

Sure did. I actually found that earlier in the night of the OP when I was responding to Lost Squadron claims. That's a great article full of lots of debunking for Creationists nonsense.

23rd June 2012, 07:03 AM	#1
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,353	Creationist Ice Core/isotope claim - a little help Do we we have any atomospheric scientists here, or people familiar enough with ice cores to discern the scientific facts about isotopes from Creationist BS? Here's snippets of a discussion from Facebook link to group - must join to participate. Quote: Ice core dating assumes one year per layer, and a layer defined as a change in chemical signatures such as oxygen ratio. But the same thing happens when you compare snow/ice deposits close to open water and inland: you get the same change in ratios. Therefore, if there was a big storm which left the ocean close to the shore covered for a few days or longer, the storm that left that snow would show a change in ratios. Therefore each layer could well be the marker for a storm, and since multiple storms per year are not unheard of even today, it is illogical and dogmatic to claim these markers must be annual indicators. My request for evidence resulted in 3 sources, two Crationist and one scholarly. http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...housands-years Quote: Since the creationist model postulates an annual layer thickness significantly thicker, say 12 inches (30 cm) as an example, the uniformitarians have taken more measurements than needed and are, therefore, measuring multiple cycles of oxygen isotopes within one year. This is how the number of annual layers becomes greatly exaggerated.6 Footnote 6 takes you to an ICR article availible here: http://www.icr.org/article/are-polar...500-years-old/ Quote: These sub-annual signatures may be the result of individual storms, or they could be cycles of sunny, mild weather alternating with cool, stormy weather. These sub-annual layers can mimic annual layers in the measured variables. For instance, enough variability exists in the precipitation from some mid-latitude storms to account for the annual amplitude of the oxygen isotope ratio.10 Footnote 10 then takes us to this scholarly article that primarily discusses hydrogen/deuterium ratios in snow/rain fall in the mid-lattitudes rather than snowfall in artic lattitudes, but does mention the O16/O18 ratios a few times. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...P%3E2.0.CO%3B2 Can anyone help me out with this?
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

23rd June 2012, 07:16 AM	#2
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,646	ice cores get comapred to ice cores from other loacations to rule out local influences that might confuse the interpretation of layers.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

23rd June 2012, 07:32 AM	#4
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,353	Originally Posted by DC ice cores get comapred to ice cores from other loacations to rule out local influences that might confuse the interpretation of layers. Originally Posted by MG1962 Yeah they just don't go around pointing at things saying...oh this is this and that. They have to be calibrated, then the calibration is peer reviewed. I am only guessing but I would suggest someone thought about how 'big storms' could affect the results I know guys, I know. I'm looking for something specific that gets to the heart of the paper in the last link and relates it back to the "claims" in the ICR and AiG page though.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

23rd June 2012, 08:08 AM	#6
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,353	Originally Posted by MG1962 Okay well I am having dinner tonight or tomorrow with some who has just completed a similar project, measuring snow depth from space using radar. I will ask about the calibration process Thank you sir.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

24th June 2012, 07:24 PM	#9
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,797	Originally Posted by MG1962 The point is, if a storm affected an area as the creationists suggest, it not likely that all ice cores over hundreds of miles will have been affected by the same storm. But that's only true if you reject the theory of global storms and Creationists have not rejected the idea of global storms. ________________________ Antarctic ice cores go back 740,000 years. So the Creations believe that there were 128 storms a year for the past 6000 years. And somehow Noah's Flood didn't show up anywhere in the young-earth ice cores. That must have been one magical flood.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board. Last edited by Ladewig; 24th June 2012 at 07:32 PM.

23rd June 2012, 07:24 AM	#3
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Yeah they just don't go around pointing at things saying...oh this is this and that. They have to be calibrated, then the calibration is peer reviewed. I am only guessing but I would suggest someone thought about how 'big storms' could affect the results

23rd June 2012, 08:00 AM	#5
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner I know guys, I know. I'm looking for something specific that gets to the heart of the paper in the last link and relates it back to the "claims" in the ICR and AiG page though. Okay well I am having dinner tonight or tomorrow with some who has just completed a similar project, measuring snow depth from space using radar. I will ask about the calibration process

23rd June 2012, 08:24 AM	#7
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner Thank you sir. Well with the radar survey I know they spent two years with people running all over Alaska measuring their results to make sure they were calibrated before they even started taking serious measurements. With the cores. I can only imagine how long that all took to get right.

24th June 2012, 07:18 PM	#8
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Okay here is how it works. They use the same concept as geological strata. They take cores from various areas and look for common reference points. This means that if one core shows indications of unusual thickness or not matching the other cores this data is rejected The point is, if a storm affected an area as the creationists suggest, it not likely that all ice cores over hundreds of miles will have been affected by the same storm. Finally he mentioned that when researchers can not calibrate the ice core they say so in their research and introduce possible dating errors based on compression rates etc

24th June 2012, 07:27 PM	#10
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,797	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner Do we we have any atomospheric scientists here, or people familiar enough with ice cores to discern the scientific facts about isotopes from Creationist BS? Here's snippets of a discussion from Facebook link to group - must join to participate. My request for evidence resulted in 3 sources, two Crationist and one scholarly. http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...housands-years Footnote 6 takes you to an ICR article availible here: http://www.icr.org/article/are-polar...500-years-old/ Footnote 10 then takes us to this scholarly article that primarily discusses hydrogen/deuterium ratios in snow/rain fall in the mid-lattitudes rather than snowfall in artic lattitudes, but does mention the O16/O18 ratios a few times. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...P%3E2.0.CO%3B2 Can anyone help me out with this? Does this page help? http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com...-of-earth.html
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

25th June 2012, 09:20 AM	#11
jasonpatterson Philanthropic Misanthrope Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Space, The Final Frontier Posts: 2,180	The layers in an ice core are also easily visible in some cases. The layers aren't determined (exclusively anyway) by isotopes. If you look at the ice core wiki there is a photo of a core with very clear layers.
	__________________ Sandra's seen a leprechaun, Eddie touched a troll, Laurie danced with witches once, Charlie found some goblins' gold. Donald heard a mermaid sing, Susie spied an elf, But all the magic I have known I've had to make myself. - Shel Silverstein

25th June 2012, 04:56 PM	#12
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	Is it possible that Adam and Eve went skating?
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

26th June 2012, 09:11 PM	#13
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,353	Originally Posted by MG1962 Okay here is how it works. They use the same concept as geological strata. They take cores from various areas and look for common reference points. This means that if one core shows indications of unusual thickness or not matching the other cores this data is rejected The point is, if a storm affected an area as the creationists suggest, it not likely that all ice cores over hundreds of miles will have been affected by the same storm. Finally he mentioned that when researchers can not calibrate the ice core they say so in their research and introduce possible dating errors based on compression rates etc Awesome. The folks in that thread didn't seem to want to respond after I actually took a look at the article and made my observations that it primarily dealt with hydrogen/deuterium ratios and how it didn't specifically address O16/18 ratios in artic environments. I'll keep his comments in mind should I see someone offering up that AiG/ICR propaganda in the future. Originally Posted by Ladewig Does this page help? http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com...-of-earth.html Sure did. I actually found that earlier in the night of the OP when I was responding to Lost Squadron claims. That's a great article full of lots of debunking for Creationists nonsense.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.