Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Isotopic analysis of the ice in the core can be linked to temperature and global sea level variations. Analysis of the air contained in bubbles in the ice can reveal the palaeocomposition of the atmosphere, in particular CO2 variations. There are great problems relating the dating of the included bubbles to the dating of the ice, since the bubbles only slowly "close off" after the ice has been deposited.
Some contamination has been detected in ice cores.
Dating the air with respect to the ice it is trapped in is problematic. The consolidation of snow to ice necessary to trap the air takes place at depth (the 'trapping depth') once the pressure of overlying snow is great enough. Since air can freely diffuse from the overlying atmosphere throughout the upper unconsolidated layer (the 'firn'), trapped air is younger than the ice surrounding it.
Trapping depth varies with climatic conditions, so the air-ice age difference could vary between 2500 and 6000 years (Barnola et al., 1991). However, air from the overlying atmosphere may not mix uniformly throughout the firn (Battle et al., 1986) as earlier assumed, meaning estimates of the air-ice age difference could be less than imagined. Either way, this age difference is a critical uncertainty in dating ice-core air samples. In addition, gas movement would be different for various gases; for example, larger molecules would be unable to move at a different depth than smaller molecules so the ages of gases at a certain depth may be different. Some gases also have characteristics which affect their inclusion, such as helium not being trapped because it is soluble in ice.
Dating is a difficult task. Five different dating methods have been used for Vostok cores, with differences such as 300 years per meter at 100 m depth, 600yr/m at 200 m, 7000yr/m at 400 m, 5000yr/m at 800 m, 6000yr/m at 1600 m, and 5000yr/m at 1934 m.[24]
Different dating methods makes comparison and interpretation difficult. Matching peaks by visual examination of Moulton and Vostok ice cores suggests a time difference of about 10,000 years but proper interpretation requires knowing the reasons for the differences.[25]
When you take samples from locations where you have no idea what the history is there will always be issues. You work your best to do the best you can and you take many samples (which they have done) in many different locations...that error decreases. Welcome to science 101 you should have learned in middle school.
Get a middle school text book about doing experiments and it will explain this issue.
It's not a nail in the coffin, it's another person didn't pay well enough attention in school and waves their ignorance around like a champions flag.
When you take samples from locations where you have no idea what the history is there will always be issues. You work your best to do the best you can and you take many samples (which they have done) in many different locations...that error decreases. Welcome to science 101 you should have learned in middle school.
Get a middle school text book about doing experiments and it will explain this issue.
It's not a nail in the coffin, it's another person didn't pay well enough attention in school and waves their ignorance around like a champions flag.
Yeah, that's it. ROFL... It doesn't decrease the errors, it adds more confusion. If you don't know the time frame that each air sample is from, you could collect 10 trillion of them and you STILL wouldn't know if the samples taken at each location at the same depth are even close to each other or not. I don't think you understood the issue at hand. Talk about middle school and all, did you graduate yet?
Yeah, that's it. ROFL... It doesn't decrease the errors, it adds more confusion. If you don't know the time frame that each air sample is from, you could collect 10 trillion of them and you STILL wouldn't know if the samples taken at each location at the same depth are even close to each other or not. I don't think you understood the issue at hand. Talk about middle school and all, did you graduate yet?
Judging by the lack of proficiency in grammar, I'd say graduation is still a few (more) attempts away.
When you take samples from locations where you have no idea what the history is there will always be issues. You work your best to do the best you can and you take many samples (which they have done) in many different locations...that error decreases. Welcome to science 101 you should have learned in middle school.
Get a middle school text book about doing experiments and it will explain this issue.
It's not a nail in the coffin, it's another person didn't pay well enough attention in school and waves their ignorance around like a champions flag.
Jesus went to church riding dinosaurs, right? The earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. I'm not sure if I'd want to be backing conservatism in the conservatism vs science debate.
Jesus went to church riding dinosaurs, right? The earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. I'm not sure if I'd want to be backing conservatism in the conservatism vs science debate.
With your reasoning skills, I don't think you should consider debating at all.
When you take samples from locations where you have no idea what the history is there will always be issues. You work your best to do the best you can and you take many samples (which they have done) in many different locations...that error decreases. Welcome to science 101 you should have learned in middle school.
Get a middle school text book about doing experiments and it will explain this issue.
It's not a nail in the coffin, it's another person didn't pay well enough attention in school and waves their ignorance around like a champions flag.
How so?
All I see is another AGW chihuahua deflecting, changing the subject, DENYING that there can be questions about the assumptions the AGW rely upon.
But keep calling names. We understand.
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
