Earth's Surface Formed Recently

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Swiss Glaciers

Unread postby Bomb20 » Tue Aug 12, 2014 9:40 am

Great information, thank you very much!
User avatar
Bomb20
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

What, if anything, do ice-core records tell us?

Unread postby rkm » Sun Sep 21, 2014 4:01 pm

Ice core records have been criticized, on at least 9 different grounds, to the effect that they do not present an accurate time record of temperature variation. Both the timescale, and the correlation of the isotope measurements to temperature, have been challenged.

I have no basis for questioning these critiques, and I accept that the ice-core records need to be interpreted with due caution. At the same time, the ice core record, as traditionally interpreted, does happen to conform, at least on parts of the graphs, with what we know from other sources. The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age show up right on schedule. The end of the last ice age shows up on schedule, with a suitably high rise, and the north and south rise together, though at different rates. There seems to be time-scale synchronicity, between the northern and southern records, and there seems to be correlation with real time as well, at least at certain points on the graph.

Even if the methodology is noisy, we somehow seem to end up with a graph that bears some relationship to the actual climate record. I'm hoping some of you experts around here might be able to shed some light on this question, of whether we can make some kind of cautious use of the ice-core record. For my own research, I only need to be able to assume that the basic shape of the graph is representative of the climate change pattern. The scale could be off and it wouldn't matter.
User avatar
rkm
Site Admin
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Wexford, Ireland

Re: What, if anything, do ice-core records tell us?

Unread postby Metryq » Sun Sep 21, 2014 4:59 pm

I'm no expert on the ice core record, but you said that the north and south ice records match. Do they both match other records? I recall reading something about a World War II bomber being stuck in the ice. When found, it had been under for something like 50 years, yet the snow-ice record of layers showed that it had been under for some ridiculously longer period, like 10,000 years—all because of an assumption that one layer of snow-ice equalled one year.

I may be way off on that, or mis-remembering what I had read. Again, I'm no expert, but the question remains: even if north and south agree, do they agree with non-ice records?
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: What, if anything, do ice-core records tell us?

Unread postby nick c » Sun Sep 21, 2014 7:08 pm

The Lost Squadron.
ICE MODELING VS. REALITY

The entire validity of ice cores as archives of past climates is based
on the assumption that the rate of snow buildup and burial and
compaction to ice occurs at a rate that is measured today and thus
retrocalculated into the past. This, too, is similar to eclipse data
based on similar uniformitarian assumptions.

The upper snow and firn layers and the upper few hundred feet of solid
ice layers on the Greenland ice sheet are the most accessible for
study and therefore should directly reflect the glaciologist's model
of how the great ice sheet flows, but much more importantly, when the
dated layers in the ice actually formed. Both the flow patterns the
layering age depth patterns should conform with the glaciologist's
model and expectations they attribute to the ice if their model is
realistic. If this model of ice flow pattern and the ice's age based
on depth should prove to be directly contradicted by clear-cut,
objective evidence found in the Greenland ice sheet then the validity
of the entire model becomes doubtful. The theoretical ice model
predictions meticulously worked out by the glaciologists must stand up
to fundamental artifacts found directly in the ice or the model is
baseless and all that it presumes to explain is brought into question.
The experiment that fully determined the validity of theoretical ice
model was carried out between July 1942 and 1989-1990 by the recovery
of an American P-38 war plane from the Greenland ice cap.

On July 15, 1942 a squadron of six P-38 Lightnings with two B-17
Flying Fortress bombers ran into a blizzard as it flew from Greenland
to Iceland. The storm was so violent that the commander of the
squadron ordered the planes to return to their Greenland base. When
they arrived at Greenland the airfield was experiencing blizzard
conditions and landing there was simply too dangerous to attempt.
Running out of fuel, the bombers and fighter planes all crash-landed
on the ice cap 13.4 miles from the edge of the ice sheet. The
difficulty and cost of getting these war machines off the ice cap was
just too expensive and the planes were therefore deserted to be
covered over year by year with snow. Thus, the evidence of the flow
patterns and age-depth pattern expected by the glaciologist's model of
the ice cap could be fully examined and tested.

Based on this model, the glaciologists made very specific predictions
about how far the planes would be carried toward the Greenland coast
and how deeply they would be buried in the ice cap. As Pat Epp's
leader of the final expeditions that removed a plane informed me on
December 23, 1998 over the telephone, the glaciologist's predictions
were an utter disaster, greater than the one that befell this
squadron. Both the glaciologist's ice flow model and age-depth
expectation were firmly and conclusively destroyed by what was
ultimately found when these plans were finally and correctly located.

A retelling of these events is found in David Hayes', The Lost
Squadron, (Toronto Canada 1994). However, the glaciologist's model and
predictions will be attested to below. Let us begin.

According to Burt Avedon, who was on some of these expeditions which
searched for and found the location of the squadron, an actual test
was unwittingly conducted which told just how rapid the rate of ice
flow was. He informs us that for the 1983 expedition, "When the money
ran out and weather closed in, the group erected a 25-foot metal tower
over the site of the relocated B-17 and abandoned the operation."(43)

Based on ice modeling of Greenland's continental glacier when the
party returned two years later to attempt a recovery, they had
expected that the tower, which marked the squadron's position, to have
moved only slightly. However, its position did not conform with the
ice flow model because when they checked the "latitude and longitude
measurements [it] said it couldn't be. The site was 410 feet from
where the tower was sunk. Mountain glaciers might possibly drift that
much, but not continental ones." (44) The rate of drift was 205 feet
(61.5m) per year. Avedon, using the glaciologists flow pattern model
in fact showed that the ice flow rate was actually greater than that
of the tower because he pointed out that "We know the planes must have
drifted in their snow-bound tomb over two miles in 42 years."(45) At
that rate the squadron was moving about 251 feet per year in the ice.
This was still a greater distance than the ice flow model allowed for
a continental glacier. He went on to say "At that [251 foot per year]
rate in another 240 years an iceberg would calve off the glacier into
the sea with a B-17 or a P-38 on top for a hood ornament or bow-
spit."(46)

Since 251 feet per year over 240 years is 60,240 feet or 11.4 miles,
with 2 miles covered by 42 previous years of flow and we know the
squadron landed about 13.4 miles from the edge of the ice cap. Thus,
the flow rate model stated the ice moved much less than 205 feet per
year but the planes carried in the ice and the tower indicated that
the ice was flowing much more rapidly than the model allowed.

But much more significant for our purposes is the question of
depth-age modeling. Remember the glaciologists maintain that their
counts of layers much like that of tree rings give a fairly precise
count of years into the past. Therefore, how deeply should the planes
have been buried beneath the succeeding 40-plus years of ice and snow
based on the model employed by glaciologists. On one of the
expeditions "almost 30 experts spent months on the ice-cap to locate
the planes."(47) According to Avedon:

"Glaciologists using ice scopes from the University of Iceland at
Reykjavik tried to calculate the depth of the mass [of metal found in
the ice]

"Men were lowered into crevasses to confirm the ice scope findings on
the annual snowfall melt and buildup. Using long-wave equipment rather
than short waves (that won't go through water) the group again
confirmed the positive magnetic reading but were unable to determine
the depth.

"The expedition of 1983 picked up from there. After spending a week
trying to relocate the aircraft, they drilled down to 80 feet [24m],
which was the median depth [for the planes] forecast by the
glaciologists." (Emphasis added)(48)

The glaciologists had, based on their model of depth-age, claimed that
in about 40 years the planes would be buried beneath 80 feet (24m) of
snow and ice. As Avedon states elsewhere "THE GLACIOLOGIST SAID THAT
THE PLANES WERE AT 80 FEET." (Capitalization added)(49)

In no uncertain terms, Avedon reports that the glaciologists who came
along on the earlier expeditions using their models of the rate of
snow accumulation and ice build up were convinced that at most the
planes lay some 80 feet below the surface. This was the basis for
seeking them at that depth. The glaciologists told the rescuers this.
They had put their model to a test.

According to B. Fristrup ice buildup averages 15 centimeters about six
inches in the far north of Greenland, which receive very little
snowfall, and 90 centimeters 36 inches or three feet per year in the
southern most part of the island, which receives much more snow. (50)
With the planes a few hundred miles north of the southern tip of the
island the glaciologist's model required that the snow ice
accumulation was 67.5 centimeters, about two feet per year. Thus the
correct extrapolation from their model after about 40 years, at two
feet per year placed the planes at 80 feet below the surface.

The planes were indeed located a few years after these extrapolations
by the glaciologists were made. One P-38 warplane was removed but not
at about 80 to 90 feet depth. Even if we use a 90 centimeter, three
foot per year buildup of ice and snow accumulation after 46 years when
contact was finally made, the planes would be at a depth of 138 feet.

Therefore, it is quite clear that the ice modeling of the Greenland
ice cap indicated a depth of 80 feet for the planes but this analysis
failed to even come near the actual depth at which the squadron was
ultimately located. According to David Hayes who wrote about the
various expeditions, William Thuma, a geophysicist, in September 1985
who after the 80 foot level was reached failed to reveal the planes,
using magnetic signals, and

"having had time to run his data through computers and review the
findings patiently, Thuma was able to draw a tentative conclusion
about what they called site number four, the B-17 tower, which put the
plane at a far greater depth than any one [glaciologists] had
imagined. In the report he submitted... Thuma wrote 'it seems
plausible that the aircraft at site #4 is at a depth of 258' (feet)
(78.6m).'" (51)

This was an immense departure from what was expected. Using a steam
probe to melt the snow and ice

"At 10:30 p.m. on Saturday, July 2, [1988] Thuma was operating the
probe when he made contact with something at 250 feet. Two more
contacts were made that night within a radius of ten feet. Two days
later, having marked several more hits with flags, the approximate
outline of an airplane wing took shape...

"The Icelanders, using the first site as a reference point, located
seven more objects with the ice scope. With mounting excitement [Pat]
Epps and [Richard] Taylor compared the Icelanders' markers with the
configuration of the squadron. They matched. 'They might not be the
planes', Taylor pointed out, sounding uncharacteristically cautious.
'They might be behemoths [mammoths], for all we know. But if so, the
behemoths died in a pattern that corresponds to how the planes landed
in '42'"(52)

In 1990, two years later, the salvage job was attempted and on June 6,
they again made contact with their probe. At "256 feet," (53) which
turned out to be a piece of the plane that was brought to the surface.

In May 1992, two years later, at below 257 feet the P-38 was
struck(54) and removed from the ice in sections over that summer. The
planes were at a median depth of about 260 feet (78m) below the
surface while the glaciologists earlier had maintained they would be
found at a depth of only 80 feet ten years later at 100 feet. They
were over two and one half times deeper than their ice age-depth model
predicted!

Thus, it becomes rather obvious that the modeling assumption of the
glaciologists respecting the flow rate model and the depth-age
correlation in the Greenland ice cap is contradicted by evidence of
these direct measurements. Neither the distance the war planes and the
iron tower moved fit their extrapolations from the model, but more
significantly the depth-age correlation expected from their model was
off by two and one half times. If the depth-age model is in such
flagrant contradiction to the real depth-age then on what basis can
anyone trust the rest of the readings regarding depth-ages which are
promulgated as disproof of Velikovsky vis a vis Greenland ice cores.
The model has simply failed this most crucial test of its validity.

Of course, post hoc ergo propter hoc models can be substituted to make
these contradictions fit the glaciologists' ice model, but such
reevaluations to save the paradigm are merely exercises in wishful
thinking especially in view of all the foregoing evidence that
contradicts their model.



And ice cores from different locations do not necessarily agree with each other:
CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT ICE CORES

Baillie pointed out above that the acid signal supposedly associated
with the Thera eruption found in one ice core was missing altogether
in a core drilled parallel to it. Thus we encounter a significant
contradiction between cores which as we have seen Mewhinney did not
answer. However, in my "ICE" paper I presented yet another much larger
contradiction between ice cores, explained to me by Winograd (personal
communication) where I showed temperature swings found in pre-Holocene
ice cores were contradicted by another one, I stated:

"The most disturbing problem... is that for the last Interglacial
period, climate swings were found in one core and were missing in
another, a fundamental contradiction to the accuracy of the cores.

"In order to explain away these temperature swings a three day
conference was held by the European and American ice core teams to
present papers that these swings may not have existed during the last
interglacial Although this could not be proven definitively, one can
see that the desire to remove this major contradiction to the
uniformitarian interpretation of the ice core and climate is quite
strong."(55)

Here again Mewhinney had yet another chance to deal with this
contradiction. Again, he simply omitted any discussion of this
material from "Ice Cores and Idealogy" work.
Both quotes from:
http://saturniancosmology.org/files/hol ... v-no.4.txt
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: What, if anything, do ice-core records tell us?

Unread postby 4realScience » Sun Sep 21, 2014 8:24 pm

@ RKM,

I was like you until a friend pointed out to me the error in 'The Lost Squadron' evidence. Nick C. has replied at length on this. Let me sum up: Ice Layers do not determine years and are off by factor of 100 as in 'Lost Squadron'. We KNOW when these planes were grounded (and ice began to cover them). It was in World War 2 and about 60 AND NOT a thousand years ago, as ice layers would indicate.
4realScience
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:20 pm

Re: What, if anything, do ice-core records tell us?

Unread postby Metryq » Mon Sep 22, 2014 2:43 am

Maybe glaciers are really comets?
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: What, if anything, do ice-core records tell us?

Unread postby rkm » Mon Sep 22, 2014 7:42 am

So far that's two arguments, the bomber and the core inconsistencies.

The core inconsistencies don't put me off ice cores. Some gaps in the record are to be expected, and if they don't distort the overall pattern, they're close enough for my purposes.

The bomber is a curious case. It would seem to refute everything about ice cores all in one go. Was it, however, a real test of the kind of methods used at the ice-core stations? Don't they have some marker for annual cycles, rather than depending on ice layers per se? I would expect markers, when you have 6 months of dark followed by 6 months of light. I don't find the incident decisive, given what I know so far.

But mainly, I still point to the congruence between the record, as traditionally interpreted, with what we know from other sources about the climate record. It couldn't be as far off as the bomber-logic indicates, and have that much conformance.
User avatar
rkm
Site Admin
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Wexford, Ireland

Re: What, if anything, do ice-core records tell us?

Unread postby nick c » Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:04 am

The bottom line is that if the Earth suffered global catastrophes (as a result of electrical interactions with celestial bodies) in the recent past, then the currently accepted assumption of geological uniformity is not realistic when applied as a chronological tool. Ice cores are the quintessential uniformitarian tool.

I originally, thought that ice cores could be accurate for post catastrophic times but apparently the method is flawed at a fundamental level. The people involved in the recovery of the Lost Squadron had no horse in this race, their motivations were practical ones, they consulted glaciologists in order to locate the ice encased airplanes so that they could recover valuable vintage aircraft. The expedition leader lamented on how wrong were the experts! He only wanted to find the aircraft. The precise date and location of the landing was known. The experts were wrong in their estimates of how far the aircraft drifted horizontally as well as their depth in the ice. The original estimate had the aircraft at between 80 to 90 ft deep. When the expedition did not find the aircraft at that depth the glaciologists revised their estimates to 130 feet. As it turned out the aircraft were actually at a depth of 250 to 260 feet! Here was a fortuitous opportunity to test the model. The result is that the model failed miserably in a practical test.

Isotope layering assumes that gases remain in place within the glacial column, this is clearly not the case. The assumption that layers in a core equals years is at best an over simplification and at worst just plain wrong. See Fred Hall, AEON Vol. II #1, p. 119:
Fred Hall wrote:I refer the reader, for example to the December 23, 1988 issue of Science and the article "Gravitational Separation of Gases and Isotopes in Polar Ice Caps", by H. Craig, Y. Horibe and T. Sowers, pp 1675 ff.

What will be absolutely clear to the objective reader of this article is that the atmospheric gases left in deposited layers do not remain in those layers. Rather, due to gravity, they are diffused downward, tending to accumulate on top of more dense layers, or ice, below.

"The accumulating firn [ice-snow granules] acts like a giant columnar sieve through which the gravitational enrichment can be maintained by molecular diffusion." At a given borehole, the time between the fresh fall of new snow and its conversion to nascent ice is roughly the height of the firn layers in [meters] divided by the annual accumulation of new ice in meters per year. This results in conversion times of centuries for firn layers just inside the Arctic and Antarctic circles, and millennia for those well inside [the] same. 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


The paper:
Gravitational Separation of Gases and Isotopes In Polar Ice Caps



Furthermore, ice melts and water flows and may even refreeze within the glacier.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41869926/ns/u ... vironment/
To put it in non-scientific terms, lead scientist Robin Bell told msnbc.com, the study redefines "how squishy" the base of ice sheets can be. "This matters to how fast ice will flow and how fast ice sheets will change."

"It also means that ice sheet models are not correct,"she said....
Highlight added
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: What, if anything, do ice-core records tell us?

Unread postby rkm » Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:01 pm

Thanks Nick. I really appreciate the information. But the matter is still not settled in my mind, because of the conformance of the graph with known climate history. It's like you could prove to me beyond any doubt that heavier-than-air flight is impossible, but then when a plane flies, something is wrong with the argument, even if we don't know what the error is.

Presumably, when they started working with ice-core samples, they settled on a feature related to time, and another related to temperature, and then they made a raw graph based on their readings of those features. Given known parts of the climate record, such as the end of the last ice age, and historical climate changes, that gives them a way to calibrate their raw graph, to make a timescale and to interpret the amplitudes in terms of temperatures.

Let's consider the critique that you get different results, if you drill different distances from the pole. Since the ice-core samples are all taken from the same places, that particular critique is irrelevant. The calibration process adjusts for the polar-distance bias.

Also irrelevant, it seems to me, is the fact that glaciologists got it wrong about the location and depth of the plane. That seems to be an ad hominem argument – if glaciologists get some things wrong they must get everything wrong.

The most important critique, I think, is that about diffusion of gas bubbles. We need to know more about what distortion this introduces. If the bubbles collect on certain ice layers, how far apart are those layers? How many years might this throw off the calibration by? Does the distortion get lost in the noise, on a scale of say a thousand years?

As regards electrical catastrophe events, I see the ice-core record as reflecting those events. The end of ice ages are electrical catastrophe events, and they are shown as major spikes in the long-term graph from Vostok.

There is no indication of a change of suns in the 400,000 year record, and I think that may be a big reason why EU folks are eager to reject ice core data. If the ice cores are right, the Saturn-capture event must have been much further in the past than Dave Talbot imagines, and the petroglyphs are more likely to be about an end-of-ice-age event, rather than a sun-change event.

I hope we can discuss these issues in greater detail.
User avatar
rkm
Site Admin
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Wexford, Ireland

Re: What, if anything, do ice-core records tell us?

Unread postby nick c » Mon Sep 22, 2014 8:06 pm

because of the conformance of the graph with known climate history. It's like you could prove to me beyond any doubt that heavier-than-air flight is impossible, but then when a plane flies, something is wrong with the argument, even if we don't know what the error is.
By virtue of your analogy one is led to believe that the "conformance of the graph with known climate history" is as simple as whether an airplane can fly or not. Unlike airplane flight this is a matter of interpretation of the data. To what climate events do you refer? It cannot be volcanic eruptions, because there has been much dispute among ice core experts as to coordination between known volcanic eruptions and their record in ice cores. Dr. Baillie, one of the foremost mainstream experts and supporter of ice cores, admitted so much.

Let's consider the critique that you get different results, if you drill different distances from the pole. Since the ice-core samples are all taken from the same places, that particular critique is irrelevant. The calibration process adjusts for the polar-distance bias.
It is not irrelevant! It is essential. The fact is that parallel ice cores do not always yield the same correlations to climatic events. This totally negates your assertion that there is a conformance with known climate history! The attempt to explain it away by invoking a "magical" calibration process merely accentuates how preconceived assumptions color the interpretation of the data. The fact of the matter is that there are instances of supposed correlations to climatic events linked to one core sample that are not detected in another parallel sample.
Why do they need to calibrate the ice cores? The fact that ice cores need to be calibrated by another chronological method is indicative that all is not well with ice cores. Should it not be a simple matter of counting layers? Should it not be able to stand on its' own?

Also irrelevant, it seems to me, is the fact that glaciologists got it wrong about the location and depth of the plane. That seems to be an ad hominem argument – if glaciologists get some things wrong they must get everything wrong.
Ad hominem? Not in the least, I merely stated the facts of the matter. The glaciologists were presented with an opportunity to put a practical application of their model to work, and they failed miserably. Surely we have to admit that there was no subjective interpretations involved as the exact date and location of the crash landings was known. It is not a question of if they get one thing wrong then they must get everything wrong, it is a question of the validity of the basic assumption, the underpinning of the model.

There is no indication of a change of suns in the 400,000 year record, and I think that may be a big reason why EU folks are eager to reject ice core data.
Ice core data is not being rejected, it is the uniformitarian interpretation of the data that is being rejected.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: What, if anything, do ice-core records tell us?

Unread postby rkm » Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:28 am

Just to clarify...

re/ conformance to climate history: You ask "To what climate events do you refer?"
I'm referring to the end of the last ice age, and to the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Those events show up in the right place in the ice-core model. And the Greenland & Vostok records are aligned with one another, in their ascent from the last ice age. Does the level of conformance require an explanation?

re/ counting layers: It sounds like at the bomber scene, they were counting every snowfall as a 'layer'. In any case, it isn't clear from the material just what they were counting. With alternating six months of sun and no sun, one would expect alternating layers that are clearly different, one darker or whatever. It would be those layers they would be counting. Don't we need clarification on these points, in order to interpret the meaning of the bomber episode?

re/ calibration: I don't think anyone is capable of doing the physics, to translate ion-counts in bubbles into a temperature value. You start with an analysis that shows the two are related, and then you compare the ion-counts to actual temperatures in order to determine the relationship. Doesn't that make sense?

You say: "Ice core data is not being rejected, it is the uniformitarian interpretation of the data that is being rejected." Please say more. In what way is the ice core data not being rejected? What from it is being accepted?

Also, I want to raise a question re/'uniformitarian'. I'm not sure what your point is. My guess is that you see no electrical cataclysms in the ice-core record, and this contradicts our understanding that electrical cataclysms happened relatively recently. My claim is that an end of ice age event is an electrical cataclysm. For over a thousand years a voltage spike is rising steadily. It's like when a comet swings in, and discharges due to rapidly changing potentials in its environment. The solar system is being exposed to a steadily changing potential, and this results in a steadily changing potential between the Sun and the planets. This could lead to interplanetary discharges, the Thunderbolts of the Gods.
User avatar
rkm
Site Admin
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Wexford, Ireland

Re: What, if anything, do ice-core records tell us?

Unread postby nick c » Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:09 am

hi rkm,
I'm referring to the end of the last ice age, and to the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Those events show up in the right place in the ice-core model. And the Greenland & Vostok records are aligned with one another,

This statement implies that ice cores provide a precise measurement tool. However, glaciologists are interpreting raw data in the context of an accepted chronological framework. The level of precision is subject to interpretation within the context of the models, it is not a precise measurement. Assumptions are made and there is disagreement among glaciologists about the interpretation of the raw data.
From a 2013 paper:
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/8/C323 ... -print.pdf
The paper presents a new timescale, AICC2012, and applies it to four Antarctic ice
cores (Vostok, EPICA Dome C, EPICA Dronning Maud Land, Talos Dome) and one
Greenland core (NGRIP) over the period 0–120 ka BP. The timescale is developed using
inverse methods (the Bayseian tool ‘Datice’). The Datice tool was previously used
in Lemieux-Dudon et al., Quat. Sci. Rev. [2010] to revise yet earlier timescales for
the Vostok, EDC and EDML cores. The major new contributions of the paper are (i)
the availability of new dating tie points to synchronise the records and (ii), improved
estimates of the age difference between ice and gas phase signals in the ice cores.
[...]
Due mainly to the improved age estimates
there is a systematic reduction in the ice ages of the Antarctic records compared to
earlier chronologies, e.g. by around 500 years in the timing of the Antarctic Isotope
Maxima throughout MIS 3.
There authors provide some discussion of the differences
between the AICC2012 timescale and previous timescales and also some very brief
discussion of the implications of the timescale for our understanding of climate dynamics
and the bipolar seesaw theory.
[.....]
It would help the wider palaeoclimate community if a clear statement was included (I’d suggest
in the abstract) about whether the AICC2012 timescale is intended to replace
all previous timescales as the state-of-the-art for these cores (including NGRIP)
highlight added

The point of this is that it is not a cut and dried measurement or a simple matter of counting layers. It involves assumptions and interpretations of raw data. In the paper quoted above the glaciologist is disputing the chronology of another model by a difference of half a millennium!
Is that the precision to which you refer? Why should we accept any of these interpretations when it has been shown that gases diffuse downward in the ice column?
It looks to me like the data/models are made to fit a preconceived chronology.

But wait, there are other problems with ice core dating......
-inconsistencies between different ice cores with the dating of known volcanic eruptions
-inconsistencies between ice cores and varves
-liquid water flowing within the glacial column
-the existence of several ancient maps showing an ice free Antarctica

Time permitting, perhaps I can post some of this material.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: What, if anything, do ice-core records tell us?

Unread postby rkm » Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:02 am

Again, Nick, I really appreciate your help with this. I'm thinking that when you saw my article starting off with ice-core charts, you probably didn't see any reason to read further. It turns out that there's only one thing I'm using from the charts: the indication that the earth temperature record is spiky, with spikes occurring with irregular frequencies, over a wide range of frequencies and amplitudes. I don't even need ice cores, if a similar conclusion can be drawn from other sources.

If the record is spiky in this way, then I make the case that variations in the Birkeland current to the Sun can explain climate variation. As we know from the EU model, many stars are strung along such currents. A discharge event anywhere in such a current will send spikes up and down the current. Discharge events end to be cyclic and they occur over a wide range of amplitudes.

I think this is an important hypothesis, re/ the EU model and climate, and I'm hoping we can untangle it from the ice-core issues.
User avatar
rkm
Site Admin
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Wexford, Ireland

Re: What, if anything, do ice-core records tell us?

Unread postby nick c » Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:31 am

hi rkm,
I do appreciate your efforts!
I am only expressing a cautionary note on the reliance of ice cores as a chronological technique. Looking for evidence of a catastrophic past in a technique that is rooted in uniformitarian assumptions may be a dead end.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: What, if anything, do ice-core records tell us?

Unread postby rkm » Sun Sep 28, 2014 3:09 am

Thanks Nick, I guess we've exhausted this thread for now. I'll start a new topc re/ electric climate, without reference to the ice-core records.
User avatar
rkm
Site Admin
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Wexford, Ireland

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest