Originally posted by Proper KnobContaminated and Biased Data:
I've given it a little quick look through, but i can't find anywhere in the text which states that the ice caps are only 5,000yrs old.
According to Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland, the ice core data is not only contaminated by procedural problems, it is also manipulated in order to fit popular theories of the day.
Jaworowski first argues that ice cores do not fulfill the essential criteria of a closed system. For example, there is liquid water in ice, which can dramatically change the chemical composition of the air bubbles trapped between ice crystals. "Even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to -73°C) contains liquid water. More than 20 physicochemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice. . . Even the composition of air from near-surface snow in Antarctica is different from that of the atmosphere; the surface snow air was found to be depleted in CO2 by 20 to 50 percent . . ."50
Beyond this, there is the problem of fractionation of gases as the "result of various solubilities in water (CH4 is 2.8 times more soluble than N2 in water at O°C; N2O, 55 times; and CO2, 73 times), starts from the formation of snowflakes, which are covered with a film of supercooled liquid."50
"[Another] one of these processes is formation of gas hydrates or clathrates. In the highly compressed deep ice all air bubbles disappear, as under the influence of pressure the gases change into the solid clathrates, which are tiny crystals formed by interaction of gas with water molecules. Drilling decompresses cores excavated from deep ice, and contaminates them with the drilling fluid filling the borehole. Decompression leads to dense horizontal cracking of cores [see illustration], by a well known sheeting process. After decompression of the ice cores, the solid clathrates decompose into a gas form, exploding in the process as if they were microscopic grenades. In the bubble-free ice the explosions form a new gas cavities and new cracks. Through these cracks, and cracks formed by sheeting, a part of gas escapes first into the drilling liquid which fills the borehole, and then at the surface to the atmospheric air. Particular gases, CO2, O2 and N2 trapped in the deep cold ice start to form clathrates, and leave the air bubbles, at different pressures and depth. At the ice temperature of –15°C dissociation pressure for N2 is about 100 bars, for O2 75 bars, and for CO2 5 bars. Formation of CO2 clathrates starts in the ice sheets at about 200 meter depth, and that of O2 and N2 at 600 to 1000 meters. This leads to depletion of CO2 in the gas trapped in the ice sheets. This is why the records of CO2 concentration in the gas inclusions from deep polar ice show the values lower than in the contemporary atmosphere, even for the epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now."50
No study has yet demonstrated that the content of greenhouse trace gases in old ice, or even in the interstitial air from recent snow, represents the atmospheric composition.
The ice core data from various polar sites are not consistent with each other, and there is a discrepancy between these data and geological climatic evidence. One such example is the discrepancy between the classic Antarctic Byrd and the Vostok ice cores, where an important decrease in the CO2 content in the air bubbles occurred at the same depth of about 500 meters, but at which the ice age difference by about 16,000 years. In approximately 14,000-year-old part of the Byrd core, a drop in the CO2 concentration of 50 ppmv was observed, but in similarly old ice from the Vostok core, an increase of 60 ppmv was found. In about 6,000-year-old ice from Camp Century, Greenland, the CO2 concentration in air bubbles was 420 ppmv, but was 270 ppmv in similarly old ice from Byrd Antarctica . . .
One can also note that the CO2 concentration in the air bubbles decreases with the depth of the ice for the entire period between the years 1891 and 1661, not because of any changes in the atmosphere, but along the increasing pressure gradient, which is probably the result of clathrate formation, and the fact that the solubility of CO2 increases with depth.
If this isn't already bad enough, Jaworowski proceeds to argue that the data, as contaminated as it is, has been manipulated to fit popular theories of the day.
Until 1985, the published CO2 readings from the air bubbles in the pre-industrial ice ranged from 160 to about 700 ppmv, and occasionally even up to 2,450 ppmv. After 1985, high readings disappeared from the publications!50
Another problem is the notion that lead levels in ice cores correlate with the increased use of lead by various more and more modern civilizations such as the Greeks and Romans and then during European and American industrialization. A potential problem with this notion is Jaworowski's claim to have "demonstrated that in pre-industrial period the total flux of lead into the global atmosphere was higher than in the 20th century, that the atmospheric content of lead is dominated by natural sources, and that the lead level in humans in Medieval Ages was 10 to 100 times higher than in the 20th century."50 Beyond this potential problem, there is also the problem of heavy metal contamination of the ice cores during the drilling process.
Numerous studies on radial distribution of metals in the cores reveal an excessive contamination of their internal parts by metals present in the drilling fluid. In these parts of cores from the deep Antarctic, ice concentrations of zinc and lead were higher by a factor of tens or hundreds of thousands, than in the contemporary snow at the surface of the ice sheet. This demonstrates that the ice cores are not a closed system; the heavy metals from the drilling fluid penetrate into the cores via micro- and macro-cracks during the drilling and the transportation of the cores to the surface.50
Professor Jaworowski summarizes with a most interesting statement:
It is astonishing how credulously the scientific community and the public have accepted the clearly flawed interpretations of glacier studies as evidence of anthropogenic increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Further historians can use this case as a warning about how politics can negatively influence science.50
While this statement is most certainly a scathing rebuke of the scientific community as it stands, I would argue that Jaworowski doesn't go far enough. He doesn't consider that the problems he so carefully points as the basis for his own doubts concerning the basis of global warming may also pose significant problems for the validity of using ice cores for reliably assuming the passage of vast spans of time, supposedly recording in the layers of large ice sheets. (Back to Top)
Originally posted by galveston75The fact thing is a furphie. It stems from the anti-evolutionists focus on the notion of 'theory'. In science, a theory is just an explanation. In popular terms, a theory is something that has not been proven or verified.
Lots.....But the very basic one answer though is it is not where humans came from no matter how hard evolutionist try to convience us and themselves. Not one shread of evidence but yet they say it's fact.
But your answer doesn't really answer my question. You clain that evolution hasn't been proven with any evidence. Ignoring the actual evidence that does exist, this deosn't answer the question.
What's the problem with a theory that describes speciation events such as those that are described by evolution?
Originally posted by amannionSo if a theory is just an explination of something then an explination of what water is made of is just a theory?
The fact thing is a furphie. It stems from the anti-evolutionists focus on the notion of 'theory'. In science, a theory is just an explanation. In popular terms, a theory is something that has not been proven or verified.
But your answer doesn't really answer my question. You clain that evolution hasn't been proven with any evidence. Ignoring the actual ev ...[text shortened]... h a theory that describes speciation events such as those that are described by evolution?
And if you have evidence that all life evolved from something that we are not now, I'm listening.i
Originally posted by galveston75Absolutely. Any scientific explanation is a theory. Sometimes these theories develop into mathematical descriptions which are often described as laws, but theories include our explanation for gravity, our understanding of the nature of the solar system, and on and on.
So if a theory is just an explination of something then an explination of what water is made of is just a theory?
And if you have evidence that all life evolved from something that we are not now, I'm listening.i
Evidence for evolution comes from a number of different areas:
1. genetics. If evolution is a useful explanation of speciation, then we would expect species that share a common ancestor (according to the explanation) would also share commonalities in their genetic sequences. This is true.
2. palaeontology. Fossils of different species can be dated and using the resultant timeline we can develop a sequence that matches the evolutionary explanation.
3. anatomy. Similarity of structural features across different plant and animal species is evidence for common descent.
4. geography. Distribution of species across continents also shows evidence for evolutionary explanations.
5. direct observation. Experiments with a number of shorter lived species - eg. fruit flies - show speciation occuring in the laboratory according to the expectations of evolutionary theory.
Could this evidence be explained with some other theory? Of course. Science doesn't deal in absolutes. Evolution may be wrong, or at least not quite right as we currently understand it. But it certainly fits all the data we have to date. And their are no alternative candidates for a scientific explanation.
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionThanks for the explination as most never take the time to do so. And I do understand what your saying as far as it's basically the best explination that science has to say why life is on this earth.
Absolutely. Any scientific explanation is a theory. Sometimes these theories develop into mathematical descriptions which are often described as laws, but theories include our explanation for gravity, our understanding of the nature of the solar system, and on and on.
Evidence for evolution comes from a number of different areas:
1. genetics. If evolution the data we have to date. And their are no alternative candidates for a scientific explanation.
So we don't know what water is made of? It's a theory or a fact?
But to comment on a couple of the points that you say evolution proves. Genetics and anatomy could also be said to be a design by a creator. If he uses a certain design that works in life for many forms of life such as a beak, why not use that for more then one species? It doesn't have to be just for a bird. If a flat tail works for a beaver, does it mean it can't work for another species?
It would seem that a wise creator would use various attributes for various species if he sees the wisdom in that design.
As for as palaeontology most palaeontologist have to admit there are actually very few fossils that would even come close to show a possible link between species. Diffenently not the thousands that would be needed to base a science fact on.
Geography just shows migrations of animals if that's what your getting at?
How have fruit flies improved their species in lab test?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNext time it's by fire 🙂
excellent work! but i fear as RBHill does, even if God caused another apocalyptic flood with rain for forty days at present , Noobster and Zapansy, Ullr and Fabian, while being washed away in the deluge would attribute this divine phenomena to climate change.
Manny
Originally posted by galveston75Okay, let'sclear up a few things.
Thanks for the explination as most never take the time to do so. And I do understand what your saying as far as it's basically the best explination that science has to say why life is on this earth.
So we don't know what water is made of? It's a theory or a fact?
But to comment on a couple of the points that you say evolution proves. Genetics and ana ...[text shortened]... if that's what your getting at?
How have fruit flies improved their species in lab test?
Evolution isn't about improvement. Species don't improve, they evolve. All this means is that you get changes that help to make a species better suited for survival in a particular environment - if that's improvement in your book, then evolution is improvement, but since most people think of improvement as being better, then evolution is not improvement.
Your question - it's a theory or a fact? - completely ignores what I was saying. There is no difference between theory and fact. A theory is an explanation for something. Therefore it's a fact. Is it right or not? Well, maybe, maybe not. Although it's usually better to think of a theory as being better or worse at explaining something.
Creation can be an explanation, but it isn't scientific.
As for this supposed lack of fossil links - I'm not sure how many palaeontologists you know, but I don't know of any that use fossils or lack of them to deny evolutionary explanations.
Originally posted by galveston75Can you provide any references to support that claim?
As for as palaeontology most palaeontologist have to admit there are actually very few fossils that would even come close to show a possible link between species. Diffenently not the thousands that would be needed to base a science fact on.
As far as I know, all fossils are compatible with the Theory of Evolution and a vast number of them (in the millions at least) do show links between species.
Originally posted by twhiteheadwith the internet today, anyone can provide links to just about anything.
Can you provide any references to support that claim?
As far as I know, all fossils are compatible with the Theory of Evolution and a vast number of them (in the millions at least) do show links between species.
he will provide links. and then you will waste a hell of a lot of time doing some research to disprove them. and then he will mumble something or post the same link again or call you a heathen or an infidel or ignore you for about 40 posts.
we are not in the bussiness of honest debate here. just have some fun and only reply when someone says something particularly stupid.
example to my post above. i asked galveston to explain how the flood was universal and dated at around 2200 BC yet the egyptian culture is continuous through that period. egyptians before and egyptians after. written records before and after the flood. the great pyramid about 300 prior to the flood. pyramids after the flood.
do you know what he asked me? a proof that there was an egyptian written record before the flood. now i am at work and i don't have time to thoroughly search the internet but i still wasted 10 minutes looking for that proof. but i couldn't find any. if you would have asked me that question i would have given you 10 links in about 10 seconds. but galveston doesn't function like that. i couldn't just given him the timeline agreed upon by all archeologists and egyptologists. there is a huge giant satanist conspiracy and they are all involved. what constitutes a proof for any normal sane person is a misinterpreted biblical relic for the insane.
Originally posted by ZahlanziSome of us are reasonably honest. For those that are not, I am curious as to why. Why is it that some Christians feel such a strong need to disprove evolution? What is so wrong with just going with the 'its a miracle' claim and stop trying to show that creationism is in some way scientific or supported by science? But most importantly, why go to the extent of making up nonsense or lies just to try and show evolution is flawed? Especially when you know that you will be called on it.
we are not in the bussiness of honest debate here. just have some fun and only reply when someone says something particularly stupid.
Originally posted by twhiteheadthey have a higher authority to consider. they believe that god requires absolute faith and that the bible is 100% foolproof. they believe that every time in history someone tried to add something to the bible that didn't come from god was smoten(smite smoten?) with divine fury and thus the bible is really foolproof.
Some of us are reasonably honest. For those that are not, I am curious as to why. Why is it that some Christians feel such a strong need to disprove evolution? What is so wrong with just going with the 'its a miracle' claim and stop trying to show that creationism is in some way scientific or supported by science? But most importantly, why go to the exten ...[text shortened]... t to try and show evolution is flawed? Especially when you know that you will be called on it.
also they don't care if they make sense or not because ultimately they think they would be rewarded for their faith (and for bad judgment).
it seems that if you want something bad enough you will distort a lot of facts to make them fit your needs.
the only way a christian(and any other religious person for that matter) could engage in honest debate is if they realize that if god wanted us to KNOW that he exists he would appear on Saturday Night Live show. since he doesn't we must realize that he probably doesn't want to be found, not beyond the bible. this way the events of the universe can be looked upon with objective eyes and, if you are religious, everytime you increase your knowledge you realize you are one step closer to infinity.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis question is important.
Some of us are reasonably honest. For those that are not, I am curious as to why. Why is it that some Christians feel such a strong need to disprove evolution? What is so wrong with just going with the 'its a miracle' claim and stop trying to show that creationism is in some way scientific or supported by science? But most importantly, why go to the exten ...[text shortened]... t to try and show evolution is flawed? Especially when you know that you will be called on it.
I have to struggle with the question: "Is all christians as stupid as these extreem fundamentalists are?"
The answer must be: "No, most christians are nice and good christians. Only a few are not."
These fundamentalists who make themselves as a interpretator for all christians are doing so much counterproductive propaganda! Please, all other christians (a few are already here arguing against the crack pots), help us tell them how wrong they are. Let them know that they are hurting the good cause of the christian religion.
Are they driven by the words of satan?
