Maybe, just maybe, the ice cores offer some evidence that the polar ice caps are only 10,000 years old? As opposed to the age of the planet.

Just thinking there may be some common ground here.

Nonfactor on May 2, 2007 at 11:53 AM

Frankly I don’t know enough about Ice Core Dating to have an opinion on it’s accuracy. The only comment I made…. which was true at the time… was that I had never seen an article that spoke of an Ice Cores dating back more than 10,000 years.

I am very suspicious and very skeptical of any dating claim that is older than ten-thousand years, ice core, carbon dating or otherwise, primarily because of my Biblical worldview, but there is quite a bit of science that supports a “young-earth” theory, as it is often called. I’m really not trying to avoid you on this topic, but to go into it deeper is way beyond the scope of this particular thread. I don’t want to incur the wrath of Bryan or be accused of trying to hijack the thread, which surely was not my intention when I made the original comment.

I’m sure there will be a thread in the future where we can go into this at length. Or we can take discussion to the “open thread” that is currently posted and I’ll be happy to discuss it, if you really want to pursue it. Up to you. I will check the open thread later, and if you post there on this subject, I will reply.

Maxx on May 2, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Do you not believe in ice core dating as well? What makes you think the Earth is only 10,000 years old?

Nonfactor on May 2, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Now your putting words in my mouth. Where did I say I believed it ? And why all the snide ? I’ve been very civil with you. And you started this with the “revelation” thing.

Maxx on May 2, 2007 at 9:32 AM

The difference between ice cores and dating isotope half-lifes is that it is very hard to find continuous ice cores, and to find one older than 200,000 years you need to go more than 2000 meters deep–not an easy task.

Carbon dating isn’t the only type of isotope dating. Carbon dating will only go back a little bit considering the half-life of carbon 14 is 5,000+ years, whereas Uranium 210s half-life is around 1.4 billion years.

I find it hillarious that rocks tell you that the age of the Earth and our solar system is ~4.5 billion years old and you disregard the information, but ice cores tell you the age of the earth is 110,000 years old and you believe it. Selective, much?

Nonfactor on May 2, 2007 at 12:59 AM

Yep… I admit, I think carbon dating is bunk. But I really would have been interested in any article talking to ice cores more than ten-thousand years old. I was serious about that. So since I couldn’t get you to do my work for me…. I did my own search. I did find one here that claims to date back 110,000 years. News to me, but that’s still a long way from 4.5 billion.

Maxx on May 1, 2007 at 11:01 PM

I’m not going to go on a fact-finding expedition for you when you’ll ignore any evidence I come up with anyways. There is such a thing as half-life dating, we use it, and thus we are able to determine the age of the earth to be ~4.5 billion years old, if you don’t believe that it’s not my problem, it’s yours.

Well that’s not what I was talking about now was it ? I was talking about “ice cores” (more than ten-thousand years old) and the article you pointed me to had nothing to say about ice cores, now did it ?

Now, you find me an article about someone claming to have ice core samples that date back more than ten-thousand years, and that really will be a revelation, because I’ve never read or heard of such a thing. Do you have one ?

The quote left out the best part:

However, future warming induced by anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions may influence the system.

If they didn’t say that, they would be condemned for apostasy and their research would never be published.

It’s also possible the authors included the remark because they honestly hold that opinion.

It brings up a good point, though. This article can just as easily be cited as support for the anthropogenic “consensus” because the authors included that remark, even though the research itself is completely irrelevant to the question of attribution. Remember that study that showed that like 99% of climatological papers at least implicitly supported anthropogenic warming? This study could easily have been in the 99% because of that reference in passing to global warming.

The article does just as little to support skepticism, of course. That’s one of the problems with this issue. Neither side of the debate is playing fair in the way they present it to the public. “Earth’s climate seesaws every 10,000 years” makes for an arresting headline, but it’s a complete mischaracterization of the actual findings presented in the study. No offense, Hotair, I love this blog, but it’s the truth.

Maxx on May 1, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Revelation!

Suddenly I have a craving for Tag-a-longs.

KelliD on May 1, 2007 at 11:50 AM

And I have a craving for Tagalogs….but she’s at work right now.

Hi Dear!!!!

During the last 10,000 years climate has been seesawing (from the article)

Your headline is wrong Brian, the article speaks to the earth’s temperature seesawing over the last 10,000 year….. not every 10,000 years. Big difference… especially to those of us that don’t buy into the billions of years old earth theory. No one has ice core samples that go back more than 10,000 years, or at least none that I’ve ever read about, maybe that should tell them something…..

And this discovery is nothing new, this is what the United Nations own scientist found, but they have done their best to suppress the information. Ice core samples show that the earth’s average temperature has been much hotter and much colder than it is today. There is absolutely nothing unusual about our current average global temperature .

As for the Girl Scouts, those bitchy little nazis somehow made the Thin Mints chemically addictive. I hope an ice age comes during their next camping jamboree…

Does that mean we can burn piles of tires and trash just for the fun of it again?

Rick on May 1, 2007 at 1:02 PM

Yep !

There are plenty of sites that stream/have full episodes. Uh, and its South Park, so you should probably take that as a content warning.

Oh, and I wrote this entire post with my eyes closed, THAAAANKS!

However, future warming induced by anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions may influence the system.

If they didn’t say that, they would be condemned for apostasy and their research would never be published.

The Monster on May 1, 2007 at 12:10 PM

Sorry, I have a life. No time for stupid comedy central cartoons.

Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist”? says: Compliance with Kyoto would reduce global warming by an amount too small to measure. But the cost of compliance just to the United States would be higher than the cost of providing the entire world with clean drinking water and sanitation, which would prevent 2 million deaths (from diseases such as infant diarrhea) a year and prevent half a billion people from becoming seriously ill each year.” Al Gore wants us to do that NOW! Is this a logical or thoughtful blind leap to make? There have been points in the history of our planet in which the city of Chicago was buried under a half mile of ice. We have found evidence that at certain points in history the temp of the planet has risen far higher then where we are now at and we have also found evidence of times when the temp of the planet has been far colder then it is now. Human beings have lost millions of lives due to these temp variations. Wouldn’t we be better off shifting our focus away from how to control the temp of the planet to preparing ourselves for survival when avg temps inevitably reach 200 degrees? Or does that work against the socialist agenda of the left?

Shouldn’t that be PRIUS drivers?

Do your homework and watch South Park before you come to class next time.