Controlling the weather

[Isaac]

I obviously don't remember every detail I've ever read, but the gist of them is that various dating methods have been disproven or fallen out of favor among the community, carbon dating being one

There is a museum in Texas that records every time they find stuff in layers of soil that is "impossible" per evolutionary theory, and those "impossibilities" are frequent, and all recorded there. Museum of the Bible, I think it's called, or something along those lines. They have tried hard to cover up that evidence, but it remains

And I'm not claiming that - I'm claiming you don't know for sure and if you think that you do, it requires extraordinary evidence.

 

[moke123]

Are you disputing the fact that our ice samples go no further than 300,000 years?

Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend to 3km in depth. The oldest continuous ice core records to date extend 123,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica. Ice cores contain information about past temperature, and about many other aspects of the environment. Crucially, the ice encloses small bubbles of air that contain a sample of the atmosphere – from these it is possible to measure directly the past concentration of atmospheric gases, including the major greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

 

[RogerCooper]

I obviously don't remember every detail I've ever read, but the gist of them is that various dating methods have been disproven or fallen out of favor among the community, carbon dating being one

There is a museum in Texas that records every time they find stuff in layers of soil that is "impossible" per evolutionary theory, and those "impossibilities" are frequent, and all recorded there. Museum of the Bible, I think it's called, or something along those lines. They have tried hard to cover up that evidence, but it remains

And I'm not claiming that - I'm claiming you don't know for sure and if you think that you do, it requires extraordinary evidence.

Carbon dating has gone through a number of revisions, but has not been disproven or fallen out of favor. It is still remains the standard method of dating for organics up to 50,000 years old. It needs to be used carefully as samples can have dates distorted by various types of contamination.

It is true to say they I have not personally inspected rocks under a microscope to date them. But I can tell you from personal knowledge that there is no sign the Eastern Coastal plain was substantially under water in geologically recent times, as the maritime deposits would be obvious. The actual case is the reverse, as land deposits can be found off-shore. Long Island Sound was once a river valley.

Pat's original claim that Antarctica was ice-free 300,000 years ago is simply wrong. As for the Museum of the Bible, I doubt that have an exhibit about contradictions and errors in the Bible.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I can't find the article I was quoting from. Here is another. I must have transcribed the 8 as a 3. I'll recalculate my time line. But, the reality is that given the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years vs 800,000 years for the oldest continuous sample, we are looking at a miniscule piece of time on which all the "evidence" is based. We are still talking about a continuous couple of hours of relative time. So, the models are all based roughly on yesterday afternoon from 2 to 4 PM. Except that during that time, the temperature would have been falling. If they look at 10 AM to noon, the temperature would be rising.

Research — Center for Oldest Ice Exploration

coldex.org

 

[ColinEssex]

I can't find the article I was quoting from.

Maybe it was fantasy or maybe a dream. Transcribed the 8 as a 3? Possible, they are close on a keyboard.
Col

 

[Isaac]

Carbon dating has gone through a number of revisions, but has not been disproven or fallen out of favor. It is still remains the standard method of dating for organics up to 50,000 years old. It needs to be used carefully as samples can have dates distorted by various types of contamination.

It is true to say they I have not personally inspected rocks under a microscope to date them. But I can tell you from personal knowledge that there is no sign the Eastern Coastal plain was substantially under water in geologically recent times, as the maritime deposits would be obvious. The actual case is the reverse, as land deposits can be found off-shore. Long Island Sound was once a river valley.

Pat's original claim that Antarctica was ice-free 300,000 years ago is simply wrong. As for the Museum of the Bible, I doubt that have an exhibit about contradictions and errors in the Bible.

revisions, i like that lol
sounds like a done deal to me

 

[moke123]

One of the most widely used is potassium–argon dating (K–Ar dating). Potassium-40 is a radioactive isotope of potassium that decays into argon-40. The half-life of potassium-40 is 1.3 billion years, far longer than that of carbon-14, allowing much older samples to be dated.

 

[RogerCooper]

revisions, i like that lol
sounds like a done deal to me

Do you think that scientists perfect a technique immediately? Does your code always run perfectly the first time and never need revisions?

 

[Pat Hartman]

Maybe it was fantasy or maybe a dream. Transcribed the 8 as a 3? Possible, they are close on a keyboard.

Why is your inclination to always attack me (and others)? Can't you ever be positive or simply quiet? God forbid you make an actual contribution to the conversation. To explain how an 8 becomes a 3, is easy when you make hand written notes rather than typing them and then transcribe them days latter.

You nit-pick details because you personally have no substance and you cannot actually address the logic of the analysis which is - the models are looking at an instant in time and making an assumption on way too little data. Anyone who has ever taken a class in statistics will tell you that they can make the chart show anything they want by adjusting the sample.

 

[RogerCooper]

Why is your inclination to always attack me (and others)? Can't you ever be positive or simply quiet? God forbid you make an actual contribution to the conversation. To explain how an 8 becomes a 3, is easy when you make hand written notes rather than typing them and then transcribe them days latter.

You nit-pick details because you personally have no substance and you cannot actually address the logic of the analysis which is - the models are looking at an instant in time and making an assumption on way too little data. Anyone who has ever taken a class in statistics will tell you that they can make the chart show anything they want by adjusting the sample.

It is easier to disprove an egregiously wrong statement fact than to go through the entire line of analysis.

Pat, as you are clearly an intelligent person, why do you make such wrong statements? Your attack on the concept of a "normal" temperature of the Earth is weakened, not strengthened with factually wrong statements such as the Antarctic icecap is only 300,000 years old.

You have a tendency to mix truthful, debatable and clearly wrong statements in your discussions. As long as it can be used to attack a Democrat it doesn't seem to matter to you whether it is true or false. You stated that "Crime in New York is highest it has ever been" when the huge decline in crime from its 1990 peak is well-known. If you had stated the DA Bragg's prosecution of Trump lacks a proper legal basis, you would have been on solid ground. There was no need to make stuff up to attack Bragg.

The truth does matter. Good decision making requires facts. Crime was brought down in NYC, by consistent policies of denormalizing crime and catching criminals, not by long prison sentences. Dealing with Global Warming requires realistic thinking about the costs of decarbonization, adaption and geoengineering.

I do this because so others will understand things better and because standing up for truth matters (and is fun). You have some valid points, why don't you just make those points.

 

[Pat Hartman]

because prior to that, the planet had no polar ice caps. We were in a warm period as far as climate goes.

This is the part of my statement that you are arguing with. I'm not sure what the article said to lead me to that conclusion. My bad. Thank you for the correction. I will update the original post to add a cross out to those words. I think the article was more localized than I thought so the area where they were getting the samples may have been ice free prior to that.

What I find disturbing is that you chose to nit-pick rather than address the concept of all of this climate change hysteria being based on a sample which is the equivalent of a couple of hours out of a year in time. It is like the UK COVID model that sent the world into a tizzy because it predicted a 10% death rate which never materialized. And no one ever apologized for the mistake which they realized pretty early on. The death rate for COVID 19 was very similar to that of a bad flu. The difference is that COVID was especially contagious and deadly to the elderly and the infirm but if you were young and healthy, you just had a bad flu. The hysteria was caused by the press' moto - "If it bleeds, it leads". The worse and more dangerous they could make the news, the better and they scared the bejesus out of most of the world.

The problem is not the conclusion - the earth is warming. That point is not in contention. The problem is two-fold.
1. The size of the sample is too small and more importantly it is not random so you can't use it to draw any accurate conclusions. I think I found a good analogy that explains why the sample is flawed. Refer to my small town example for how the sample is biased. THAT is what you should be arguing. Why you think that a sample that small which is not randomly distributed across the entire set of data but pulled from a continuous series of values, is what I want to know.
2. The assumption that humans are the sole cause of the increase and therefore, we must do something to reverse the trend. This is simply hubris. We do need to work on cleaning up our pollution and we've been made major strides in the past 50 years in the US. Even after leaving the Paris accords, we are meeting/exceeding our goals.

 

[Pat Hartman]

You stated that "Crime in New York is highest it has ever been" when the huge decline in crime from its 1990 peak is well-known.

Please note the recent change in the FBI's numbers. They reflect the increase. You see different news than I see. The difference is that I see yours so I know why you hate Trump but you never see the reports that reflect badly on the current Administration or favorably on Trump. I'm sure you think Kamala walks on water but before the event that killed Biden's chances, the administration was trying to figure out how they could get the black woman off the ticket because she was so unpopular.