Dating Software - Award-Winning Dating Script ♥ PG Dating Pro

Ice core basics

ice core dating software

Ice is not airtight until one or two hundred meter thick. Documentation and FAQ resources. Startup guide, manuals and technical documentation, monetization ways. So your conclusion is that since it isn't known for sure, it is reasonable to assume that the ice layers are somehow formed differently because your Bible tells you so.

Recommended publications

The local temperature changes are from two sites in Antarctica and are derived from deuterium isotopic measurements. Quaternary Science Reviews , 27 1: For those confused by metrics, 10cm is a little less than 4 inches. And how would such a dramatic climate Does the data gathered represent the average for the entire year? He said that it didn't but that the weight of the ice actually depressed the land. It was drier in places, such as around the margins of the ice sheets, but there was still precipitation.

In Greenland, glass shard layers from volcanic eruptions tephra are preserved in ice cores. The tephra ejected in each volcanic eruption has a unique geochemical signature, and large eruptions projecting tephra high into the atmosphere results in a very wide distribution of ash.

These tephra layers are therefore independent maker horizons ; geochemically identical tephra in two different ice cores indicate a time-synchronous event. They both relate to a single volcanic eruption. Tephra is therefore essential for correlating between ice cores, peat bogs, marine sediment cores, and anywhere else where tephra is preserved[12, 13].

Changes in sea ice concentrations can also be reconstructed from polar ice cores[14]. Ice core records of sea salt concentration reveal patterns of sea ice extent over longer glacial-interglacial timescales. Methane sulphonic acid in near-coastal ice cores can be used to reconstruct changes and interannual variability in ice cores.

Mineral dust accumulates in ice cores, and changing concentrations of dust and the source provenance of the dust can be used to estimate changes in atmospheric circulation[15]. Changes in the dust emission is related to environmental changes in Patagonia. Eight glacial cycles from an Antarctic ice core. Nature , Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations: Journal of Quaternary Science , Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice-shelf history.

Toward a radiometric ice clock: Quaternary Science Reviews , 30 Acceleration of snow melt in an Antarctic Peninsula ice core during the twentieth century. Nature Geosci , advance online publication. Cold conditions in Antarctica during the Little Ice Age — implications for abrupt climate change mechanisms.

Earth and Planetary Science Letters , Volcanism and the Greenland ice-cores: Earth-Science Reviews , 3: Quaternary Science Reviews , 27 1: A review of sea ice proxy information from polar ice cores. Quaternary Science Reviews , 79 0: Reconstruction of millennial changes in dust emission, transport and regional sea ice coverage using the deep EPICA ice cores from the Atlantic and Indian Ocean sector of Antarctica.

Earth and Planetary Science Letters , 1: Share this If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader. What kind of crushing and grinding does ice undergo over thousands of years? When bubbles are analyzed and you get your values, what exactly do those values represent? What about temperature, for instance? Does the data gathered represent the average for the entire year? What is the margin for error? What is the sampling rate for the graphs shown above?

How many years of separation between the samples? Could years of data have been lost to melting or sublimation? That means there is a bit of uncertainty around the exact age of the samples of atmospheric gas contained in the bubbles, as the upper few tens of meters of snow and firn is essentially open to the atmosphere.

It also means that the ice surrounding the bubbles is older than the air inside. This is a primary area of research in ice core science.

This really does allow close matching between modern measurements and old air trapped in the firn and ice below. An Australian group did this quite nicely at a place called Law Dome, on the coast of East Antarctica. You are right to be careful assuming that the carbon dioxide, methane, or other gases inside the bubbles might not be perfectly preserved. It turns out that they are quite well preserved, especially in Antarctica.

These bubbles in ice are the ONLY way that actual samples of the ancient atmosphere are preserved. For instance, since the Greenland Ice Sheet is in the Northern Hemisphere with most of the exposed land on Earth, the ice there contains high amounts of dust. Minerals in that dust do interact with gases preserved in the icy air bubbles, so much so that carbon dioxide records from Greenland ice cores are very difficult to develop.

Antarctica preserves much cleaner, clearer gas records because it is very isolated from any of the few Southern Hemisphere land masses and thus isolated from dust sources. Ice core sites are picked very carefully to avoid too much complex ice flow at great depths, but there is always some. It is quite common that the bottom few hundred meters of deep ice cores m long cores are not included in climate records. Another relevant process occurs at depths greater than about m.

Other things you mention are worth considering, and are considered by us icy scientists often. And, yes, especially in East Antarctica where snowfall is very low less than 5 cm per year , wind scouring and sublimation can remove snow from the surface, resulting in probably short discontinuities in the data.

In, fact, data from most of these ice cores are archived in a few places. I remember when the Artic not Antarctic was being researched thru ice core samples. I think you human penguin guess at alot of data that you research. Without precipitation how would or could you even guess at what a year would be. Oh well theres a sucker born every minute i suspect. Many thanks for your comment. Precipitation was occurring throughout the last ice age and certainly throughout the Holocene last 11, years.

You cannot build an ice sheet without precipitation! It was drier in places, such as around the margins of the ice sheets, but there was still precipitation. Although archives of precipitation are generally more complex than temperature, thicknesses of annual layers in ice cores provide some good information on precipitation.

In places like the UK, lake and peat bog cores include microfossils which also provide information on past precipitation. In Antarctica, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has collapsed in the past. Please forgive me if this was answered in the article. Earlier I read another article on ice cores going back , years.

Given your comments about evidence of ice fields collapsing, hope do you rule out total melt-off of an ice sheet? Would that not extend the time frame of the , bands, and add millennia to the core? Secondly, the question was raised about the necessity of precipitation to create the bands.

Is it not a stretch to think that an , year core might have a significant number of years without precipitation? Ice cores are taken generally from areas with the slowest-moving ice, such as at the ice divide.

Even here, it is difficult to find very old ice. However, there are now programmes underway to core ice that may be many millions of years old in the Dry Valleys e.

I want to add it to my data ime drilling him with. Ive seen it in the past, its one of the easiest to understand for most people. Ive studied a lot of data, but most find it very hard going.

Most graphs need a decent understanding of the science that not many people have. You have to keep things as simple as possible for most people. Ime arguing with my brother about manmade climate change. Hes no dummy[nor am i]. Hes very high up in the fire brigade here in Tasmania, but i cant make him see how illogical it is to believe that years of rampant FF burning and CO2 emissions have had no effect on the climate: As he puts it: I shudder to think whats going to happen when they get around to mining the methane hydrate and burning that!!

Any idea where i can find that graph?? Hi I am doing environment studies for building at Unitec Mt Albert Auckland NZ, just would like to know if the ice core samples that have been recorded are from the same altitude around the planet. The atmospheres would change the density of the samples and would like to know what the out come of the samples would return at different altitudes. Ice cores are generally taken where the ice is thickest, meaning the top is the highest around and the bottom is the lowest they can find.

Here the ice flow is slowest and the ice is ideally the oldest. That means it will be about two miles high in Antarctica, and over a mile high in Greenland. What the researches are interested in is the content of the bubbles—not their size or quantity. They are assumed to retain the relative gas ratios of the atmosphere that they trapped, as well as the isotope ratios.

The current time — i. Current period is at left. The isotopic record of past climate recorded by the bottom layer of the ice core is determined by the age of the ice. The age of the bottom layer of the ice core is determined by the depth to which the ice-core is drilled, and the thickness that one annual layer represents. Notably missing is a mention of the temporal relationship between CO2 concentrations and the derived temperature.

Cross correlating the two from the Vostok data set reveals a quite variable delay between local minimums and maximums of CO2 and temperature, with CO2 lagging by up to years. The DomeC data is more precise and definitive about the delay, which is on the order of a couple of hundred years, although slightly asymmetric. The delay can only be indicative of biology catching up with a more favorable climate as it takes time for CO2 to accumulate up to a large enough level to support a larger biomass.

Similarly, on the down slope, the extra CO2 temporarily sustains a more robust biomass as the planet cools. Also missing is any mention of the strong correlation between the Earths variable precession, orbit and axis and the temperatures extracted from ice cores, especially DomeC whose temporal positioning of ancient samples is far more accurate than Vostok.

Here are some informative plots. They show a metric congruent with the probability that given a change in some variable for example, temperature that in N years K in these plots the same variable autocorrelation or a different variable cross correlate will be changing in the same direction positive values or in the opposite direction negative values. A value of zero means that there is an equal probability that the variable will be changing in either direction.

Results from both Vostok and DomeC shown. The peak in the green is at the delay where changes in CO2 are most correlated to changes in temperature. The green line consistently above the magenta line shows that changes in CO2 concentrations are always more correlated to past temperature than future temperatures.

Note that for the DomeC data, with better temporal positioning, future temperatures are nearly completely uncorrelated to past CO2 levels. This next plot adds CH4, showing that it is delayed by even more and is another unambiguous biological marker. These autocorrelation tests of temperature data show the strong correlation with various periodic orbital attributes. Correlation to the precession of perihelion is shown here around 20K years although also present is the strong correlation to the period of axial tilt variability.

This last one shows the temperature variability plotted along with the axial tilt and variable eccentricity. The smoothing applies is averaging around center and is used to 1 normalize the sample period between recent samples and ancient samples, 2 normalize the sample period between variables with different temporal resolution and 3 to act as a low pass filter to remove short term correlations to reveal longer period correlations.

I should have provided enough information to replicate these results, but if more is required, more is available. Why does Vostok temperature from the Deuterium and 18O proxies disagree so much? The plot you linked to shows delta-Deuterium dD in blue, which is the ratio of H2 to H3 called deuterium in H2O water. This is a very important distinction. So the orange curve represents the isotopic composition of atmospheric oxygen measured in air bubbles trapped in the ice cores, versus the blue curve of the isotopic composition of water a.

This proxy is representative of global ice volume, because the size of the ice sheets determines the d18O and dD composition of seawater, which in turn sets the isotopic baseline of the global hydrologic cycle.

There are very small, useful differences in how O and H fractionate in water which can tell us a bit about where the moisture that falls as snow on the ice sheets comes from. Whew, looks like I posted too fast!

Apologies for my confused response. Question for those knowledgeable about the actual data. I looked at a handful of datasets on the NOAA ice core website which are for periods of over k years.

They generally have a resolution in the hundreds of years with some exceptions of higher resolution. When looking at a trend over hundreds of thousands of years, plotting data points every couple hundred years makes plenty of sense.

But I am curious about whether there is higher resolution data for the specific historical periods during which there are rapid increases in CO2 levels, specifically k, k, and k years.

I had the same question. Also, to what degree has each ice core data set been cross-referenced to each corresponding data set by location and researcher ie do we have a list by year of all of the available ice core data for that year to achieve a reasonable average? If not, which is considered definitive? Lastly, how well does ice core data from different locations correlate? Please be aware that I have now implemented a comments policy on the website: I am studying to be a science teacher and have been assigned to ask an expert about the project I am doing for class.

The project is making a poster about ice core sampling. Is there anyone on this site who could refer me to an expert or is an expert? That would be quite helpful.

Specifically I would like to ask an expert 1 is there ice core data that shows the very recent exponential rise of CO2 to over ppm in the last few years, and 2 about the controversy of why the CO2 levels have historically appeared to follow the temperature.

I have to cite the expert so I will need more info about your expertise see above. For the first, some of the best ice core CO2 data that overlaps with modern measurements comes from a place called Law Dome in East Antarctica. David Etheridge from Australia is the expert on this, and there is a very detailed article about his work here:.

As for the second question, natural fluctuations of temperature in the past have indeed led CO2. Rather than citing a conversation in the comments here, even if I am an expert, I would encourage you to cite credible information you can find on these topics.

The links I have provided are for very reliable sources which can confidently be cited. Ice cores are collected from the oldest ice in the interior of ice sheets. The ice contains isotopes that vary with climate. Lots more information here: Approximately how many years of time is covered by each CO2 reading from an ice core? Comparing CO2 measurements which may represent the average conc.

You would miss any large spikes or dips that may occur due to natural forces. In the upper parts of the ice core last few hundred years , annual laminations in the ice allow us to derive annual CO2 and isotopic variations. As the ice is compressed deeper in the core, the annual layers are lost so several not s of years may be amalgamated.

The entirety of this most recent AR is freely available from http: Take a look at page 54 of the Technical Summary, here: Although the language and material in this summary is still at a relatively high level, you can still gain a lot by just looking at the figures.

Solar variability has at least a 15x smaller effect on RF than CO2! Greenhouse gases are really the primary drivers of warming by a significant margin, importantly with relatively small uncertainty. There is an year cycle in sunspot numbers, which has been observed for several hundred years you can see these data in the top box of figure TS. Hope that helps in some small way. There is a lot of technical information in the IPCC reports, and it can sometimes be a bit overwhelming, but it represents fairly well the entirety of our understanding of the Earth system as compiled by the expert authors and editors as well as thorough peer review.

The ice-cores give a recording of variations of temperatures at the site, but only at the site of the cores. CO2 would be the same around the globe. How do those temperature variations relate to those at other parts of the globe? For example, how does a Vostok ice-core record of a change of say 9C translate to other latitudes? This is a very insightful question.

You are correct that CO2 would be the same around the globe, as it is a well-mixed greenhouse gas GHG. Methane records in particular are used to synchronize deep ice core records. The easiest way to explore this question of how Antarctic temperatures relate to the rest of the world is to look at what Greenland ice core temperature records look like.

Here is a great article on RealClimate. You can think of deltaO basically as temperature, but calculating exact degrees-celsius from this proxy is more involved than I am able to go into! Briefly it involves measuring the physical temperature of the ice sheet using the borehole created by the ice core, which then helps better get an estimate of true temperature change through some interesting math and physics. You can see in the first figure in the RealClimate. This has to do with the geography of these places, and energy heat transport through slow ocean circulation processes.

Consider that Antarctica is a large continental ice sheet surrounded by the Southern Ocean and from this alone it makes sense that temperature changes will be more gradual in the Antarctic.

It takes a long time to get an entire ocean to warm or cool, or for ocean currents to transport water warmed in the North Atlantic all the way to Antarctica—around years, based on this new data from WAIS Divide. That really only partly answered your question, but I wanted to be able to point you to freely available data so you can see the difference between Antarctic and Greenland ice core temperature proxy data.

We also know that polar amplification causes more rapid warming at high-latitudes due to dominant pole-ward circulation and thus heat transport. So from the Volume change data above Ice Age Temperature Change figure , I would estimate that the earth will possibly start a new ice age in 1K to 5K years from now.

We have been in a melting phase for about the last 15K to 20K years. So, given the talk about methane, CO2, H2O yes water is a green house gas too , sun activity, magnetic field of earth, volcanic activity under Greenland and the Antarctic, cows farting and adding to the methane part of green house gases yes a farming factor , plus industry and the growth of cities, plant growth when CO2 builds up in the atmosphere, plants actually thrive , the earth wobbling influence, etc….

I am focused on the cyclic nature of the ice volume. Hi there, although I myself am not at OSU, I can provide some perspective from a faculty member there and his co-authors. They argue that this longer-term framing of past and future climate change better informs decision-makers and the public that anthropogenic global warming is not just going to be a problem on the timescale of the 20th and 21st centuries.

We usually only look at years of historical temperature measurements to establish that the climate is warming, for instance. The article itself is here unfortunately probably with a pay-wall: See a Washington Post write-up here: Sun activity, magnetic field, volcanic activity are lesser terms.

The answer is that NO we are not going to have another ice age, and this article takes it further to really demonstrate what we are going to face instead. Based on policy decisions about GHG emissions in the coming decades, we are committing ourselves to possibly having anywhere from 10 m to 20 m of sea level rise over the next 10, years. We were required to quote UncertInty of Measurement within a stated Confidence Interval for our tests. I would like to see this information for data on carbon dioxide and other gases in ice cores, particularly for oxygen isotopes at extremely low concentrations.

I note that this information dates back many years. Surely more modern measurements would have lower uncertainty. Also what about the uncertainty of temperature measurement in past centuries. There are a number of factors affecting the precision and accuracy of ice core measurements, which are very carefully documented and presented in the literature.

In many cases, with the progression of technology, the biggest limiting factors are no longer in the instruments used i. That statement applies to the more routine measurements made, including CO2 concentration of ancient air trapped in bubbles in the ice, and oxygen isotopes in the ice itself which provides a temperature proxy. More advanced techniques, for instance breaking down the carbon isotopic composition of that CO2 to name just one, still have relatively large analytical uncertainties.

One is the development of ice core timescales, which are a combination of annual layer counts, absolute dating of volcanic horizons, ice-flow models, and gas chronology matching. There is also uncertainty in diffusion of chemical signals in the snowpack, which essentially averages these signals on depth scales controlled by site temperature and snow accumulation rate. Diffusion is studied and documented so scientists know the minimum resolution at which they can interpret actual climatic or environmental signals rather than meaningless noise.

There is also uncertainty of the spatial coherence of chemical signals in the snow i. Some of these sources of uncertainty are briefly discussed here by Eric Steig of the University of Washington full disclosure, Eric was my M. For an example of the state-of-the-art of ice core dating including uncertainty, check out two papers on the WAIS Divide ice core timescale. This is the highest-resolution Antarctic ice core record spanning the last 68, years.

Methane synchronization 68—31 ka BP and the gas age—ice age difference http: This is a lot of information to digest, but I will emphasize that these sorts of detailed presentations of uncertainty associated with ice cores are published for all major ice core projects. All scientific journals require such presentation of uncertainties associated with all presented data.

Additionally, as an international community, the International Partnerships in Ice Core Sciences works to maintain high standards for presenting uncertainties affecting these valuable data. Is the current rise in global temperatures statistically significantly greater than the natural variation in Greenland ice core temperature variation seen over the last 10, years? From graphs that I have seen, the current rise in global temperatures is well within normal variation where as the CO2 rise is obviously a dramatic new change.

If this dramatic rise in CO2 has not caused any statistically significant abnormal rise in temperature when compared to a 10, year record, it is unclear how much an effect this rise in CO2 is having. I guess the only answer is that the rise in temperature is lagging the rise in CO2. I would like to understand how the Greenland data show no abnormal significant rise in current temps.

Thanks for any insights! Fred, I suspect you may have seen mislabeled Greenland ice-core graphs based on Alley and the Cuffey and Clow papers. They are all over the internet, typically found on blogs that try to refute anthropogenic global warming. The last data point from these ice-core studies was , years ago, however the graphs are mislabeled labeled as current or present.

Your framing of this question is great, very clearly set out. You are right that we have dramatically increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, from about ppm before the early s to about ppm today which we know from, guess what…. Despite this noise, we are indeed seeing anthropogenic warming emerge from natural variability. A very detailed demonstration of this, unsurprisingly, comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You can see from the blue AOGCM results, that you cannot produce the 20th century warming trend without including anthropogenic forcing, which includes greenhouse gases and also aerosols and other pollutants—which actually have a cooling effect.

We understand very well what is going on! There is still some rather unpredictable natural variability, but the budget-keeping adds up. In the case of Greenland temperatures specifically, we are seeing the trend begin to emerge out of natural variability. Events like the summer melt event which spanned the entire Greenland Ice Sheet are rare but not unprecedented—a similar event occurred in the 19th century.

However, they are very likely to become more common in the near future as global temperatures increase, sliding the bell curve of temperature variation towards the hot end of the scale. In the polar regions where natural variability is particularly extreme, the emergence of clear anthropogenic warming is slower to emerge but in recent years is exceeding previous variability.

Posted by Don Keyes on September 03, at Do you know if ice core dating is accurate. I heard that Antarctica had ice rings like tree rings that go back 50, years undisturbed by a flood. If it is challenged do you know on what basis. An ice core of over 2km in length has been drilled and carefully analysed. Yes, the number of layers indicates many tens of thousands of years.

I spent a year in Greenland Thule and went up onto the cap a few times. While there I had the opportunity to talk to a team of scientists who were loading supplies in order to head back out onto the cap. They were taking ice cores.

They said that they were working in an area where the ice was about 9, ft. I mentioned that I was amazed that the ice went up that far. He said that it didn't but that the weight of the ice actually depressed the land. I have since learned that this is called isostasy. At any rate, he talked about the seasonal layers in the ice. These layers can be counted only so far down because the weight of the ice compresses the layers more and more the deeper they are in the ice.

Still, there are other means to study the composition of the ice that makes it possible to recognize the seasonal layering. I understand that the age of the ice at Camp Century very near to where I was is over , y. The ice at Camp Century isn't even half the thickness at the center of the cap.

I saw these layers first hand inside some ice caves in the cap. While I didn't count 4, layers, I could see several hundred. In my view it just isn't reasonable to claim that all of that ice was laid down in just a few years after the flood. Gallo was right when he mentioned that compression would destroy the "rings. That ratio may be good only to indicate the climate at the time of snowfall.

At any rate, the main challenge I am aware of to standard ice core dating has to do with the fact that we really don't know if layers before known time were caused by many different storms in a few years or one season layering a year.

We know what we see now, and many extrapolate backwards from that. In a couple of papers were presented at the International Conference on Creationism dealing with this subject: Also of note that year, and along lines of explanation was the presentation Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: It amazes me that you feel freely qualified to propose answers to questions where you aren't. Please explain in more detail about oxygen isotopic record. None of the authors you mention have had any training in stable isotopes, so there word is as good as yours.

What I remember reading about isotopes of oxygen did not come from those articles, but from a discussion over a year ago, I think, with some other people -- teachers. That is why I felt pretty hesitant about it. It's not worth you jumping on, really. What little I remember had to do with the idea that a heavier isotope -- 18O -- would evaporate more slowly than a lighter one and thus a ratio could establish climatary differences during the time of the snowfalls.

If I am wrong in what I remember, just say so. The isotopic composition of both oxygen and hydrogen deposited at the polar regions is primarily a function of temperature.

The oxygen isotopes in ice cores are used to date the cores due to the seasonal variations. One looks for summer layers for example as a function of depth. From that one can examine such things as precipitation and overall climatic change. There are complications and Tom Moore is probably better at describing these to you than I am, but basically you are looking at seasonal variations.

It is known that the ice layers represent annual snows down to a certain level. There is nothing that distinguishes the layers below that from the ones above. So your conclusion is that since it isn't known for sure, it is reasonable to assume that the ice layers are somehow formed differently because your Bible tells you so.

At any rate, the story invented to make the mythology of the Bible seem reasonable requires that you claim different causes. There is no evidence that the ice layers going down for several thousand years were formed for any other reasons than those we know to be in effect today.

To assume, without evidence, that any other cause is reasonable, is irrational at best. Besides, I doubt that you can cram , storms into years. Your whole story is nothing more than imagination. This is what I hear mostly from evolutionists, gallo -- especially in regard to transitionals Science does that all the time, right? It is unscientific when you propose those other explanations without evidence. As far as science is concerned, they are meaningless. In other words, pseudoscience. Posted by Helen on September 04, at Joe said he would explain to me about oxygen isotopes if I answered him about why I posted something the way I did.

So I responded, and he posted his explanation. Some background here, because I want to continue the questions regarding this subject:. I had also thought that dating was mentioned in regard to this.

I mentioned this in a response to someone interested in ice cores further down and Joe promptly jumped on it, telling me I should not post what I did not know about. So I asked him to explain to me what I said was wrong or what was right. This is his answer:. So, first of all, my memory had served me right and there was no reason to jump on my post regarding that. But that aside, if it is possible for anyone here to walk in my shoes for just a bit, let me ask some questions from a YEC point of view:.

Understanding that it takes FAR more snowfall than present to establish the ice caps, and understanding that it also requires warmer water to evaporate faster if not also a generally warmer climate to hold that evaporated water until air currents reached the poles, isn't it wrong to extrapolate backwards just from what we see today? If it is possible that the world was different then from what we know today, then what would have happened post Flood or at the time of Peleg, when there are good reasons to think the ocean waters somewhat warmer than now, as well as the atmosphere?

If either catastrophe disturbed the climatic patterns of the world very much and one would presume that they would , then many storms of varying intensities AND temperatures would have arrived over the poles in rapid succession. It seems to me that this would produce the same things we see in the ice cores that are now attributed to a long series of unchanging seasons.

Now, guys, I have spent a lot of time working on posts discussing evolutionism seriously in the past, especially in regards to mutations, etc. Agree or disagree, you have to admit the time on my part! So I am asking for time now from you. Not mocking, not throwing stuff up in the air and laughing about it -- but the time to think some of this through.

Yes, I will try to find out more as we go and different things are brought up, if they are, but for now, at first, why wouldn't this be an acceptable model to work with theoretically? I have reproduced the article here so that I can respond to it in context. First of all, thank you for the link to it. Before I begin, I want to mention that the dating and the article are done with the presupposition of both long ages and not only uniformitarianism but gradualism.

Understanding that I do not accept these presuppositions and will be looking at the evidence presented from the standpoint of recent creation and catastrophic interruptions in history, I will approach the article from a "devil's advocate" point of view as far as evolutionists are concerned.

The quoted article is in italics. Antarctica is the coldest, windiest, highest and driest continent on Earth. That's right - the driest! Antarctica is a desert. The annual precipitation of snow, averaged across the continent, is about 30 centimetres, which is equivalent to about 10 centimetres of water. In some locations as little as 2 centimetres water equivalent is recorded.

For those confused by metrics, 10cm is a little less than 4 inches. Because of the low temperatures, however, there is little or no melt. Thus the snow has accumulated year after year for thousands of years and, with time, is compressed to ice to form the Antarctic ice sheet.

Approximately 98 per cent of the Antarctic continent is covered by the ice sheet which is on average about 2, metres thick and, at it's deepest location, 4, metres thick.

It is due to this thick ice mass that Antarctica is, on average, the highest continent. Since the ice sheet is formed by the accumulation of snow year after year, by drilling from the surface down through the ice sheet, we drill our way back in time. Ice drills are designed to collect a core as they cut through the ice, so samples are collected that are made up of ice deposited in the form of snow many thousands of years ago. As the snow is deposited on top of the ice sheet each year, it traps different chemicals and impurities which are dissolved in the ice.

The ice and impurities hold information about the Earth's environment and climate at the time of deposition. A variety of different analyses techniques are used to extract that information. One measurement, the oxygen isotope ratio or delta value, measured using a mass spectrometer on melted samples of the ice, gives us an indication of the temperature at the time the ice was deposited as snow.

Measuring the delta value at many depths through the ice core is equivalent to measuring the air temperature at many times in the past. Thus, a climatic history is developed. Climatic temperature against time from delta measurements taken on the ice core drilled at the Russian station, Vostok, in central Antarctica Figure 2.

Available data from this ice core so far extends back about , years. However, drilling of the core still continues, and it is expected that, when drilling is completed in a few years time, an age of , years will have been reached. This was an ice age period.

These short warmer periods are called inter-glacials. We are in an inter-glacial now. From , to about 20, years ago, there was a long period of cooling temperatures, but with some ups and downs of a degree or two. From about 18, or 19, years ago to about 15, years ago, the climate went through another warming period to the next inter-glacial, - the one we are now in. What is being seen here is two possible ice ages, the first one being somewhat less and perhaps shorter than the second.

Removing the time element, which is gradualistic and uniformitarian, what might just as easily be seen is the ice age that is postulated as arising out of the Flood catastrophe, with a warmer period for several hundred years, and then the massive volcanic activity thought to be present at the time of Peleg, which would have resulted in a much more severe ice age.

During the formation of both ice ages, the storms would have had to be constant, one on top of another with very little time in between, and very fierce. This would also account for what is seen in the ice cores. Figure 2 also includes a graph of the concentration of dust in the ice core. High concentrations of dust occur at the same times as the colder periods shown on the temperature graph.

There are several possible reasons for this: All of these factors would increase the amount of dust lifted into the atmosphere to then be blown over Antarctica and deposited with the snow on the surface of the ice sheet. Colder periods are normally times of less precipitation, as cold air is dry.

The writer here is postulating more deserts by presuming a worldwide cold and dry climate. I think he may be presuming too much. A warmer world in the tropic and temperate zones, particularly where the oceans are concerned a few degrees warmer temperature in the oceans would vastly increase the rate of evaporation , would provide the precipitation for the massive snowfalls required for the laying down of not only the polar caps but for the advent of the ice age s as well.

One thing I noticed here is that the author also mentions more land being exposed during the ice age s , and when I mentioned that, I was ridiculed on this forum. One thing that is not mentioned in this article is the composition of the dust. Does it show high or low amounts of volcanic material? And at which levels? I would be curious to know this. Dust concentration, climatic air temperature as inferred from del measurements , and concentration of carbon dioxide and methane from measurements of trapped air are plotted against time before present.

After Lorius et al.

Imsges: ice core dating software

ice core dating software

Dynamic tensile and shear moduli measurements have been carried out on highly oriented thermotropic liquid crystalline copolymers formed by random copolymerization of 2-hydroxynaphthoic acid, terephthalic acid and p-aminophenol. Do they cause a problem for the recent-creation model of earth history?

ice core dating software

The confidence in the chronology becomes less the lower in the ice sheet one goes, however. Share this If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

ice core dating software

People will pay more for your ice core dating software paid services. Share this If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader. Earth and Planetary Science Letters This temperature gradient occurs from climate change, which affects the surface first. Third Response From Helen Gallo was right longview wa dating he mentioned that compression would destroy the "rings. Concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane measured ice core dating software dwting air bubbles trapped in the ice are shown in Figure 2 along with temperature and dust graphs.