Antarctic Ice Core over 500,000 Years Old Extracted

Lycos Environmental News Service ^ | 03/15/2002

[dead]

I guess my problem is less with the guys actually drilling than it was the people who pay them.

[blam]

"Are they counting layers like tree rings?"

Yup. They will be careful though because some years could be compressed due to the weight or even melted together due to a slightly warmer period. The ice cores are not as dependable (like tree rings) as a year to year record but, are best at monitoring 'periods'. Some years will be clearly discernable and identifiable as a particular year but, not all years. There will be years missing but the date of those missing years will be known.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Antarctic Ice Core over 500,000 Years Old Extracted

Where's the Hundred-Billion-Year-Old-Ice?!</font size>

Either the "old earth" heated up dramatically long ago, or it's not quite so old.

It used to be hot
Then not
Global Warming s'not

AMPU

[athiestwithagun]

Impossible. Everyone knows the Earth is only 10,000 years old. This is a trick of the Evil One.

[alaskanfan]

So you can assure me that these folks received no U.S. taxpayer funding?

What about the first point of my reply regarding interpretation of data, do you also have a comment on that?

[ElkGroveDan]

I was just thinking, "Can I use that ice to keep my Dewar's and water cold?"

As my grandfather used to say, "If the recipe called for water, they'd have put it in the bottle."

[alaskanfan]

Your basis of savings depends greatly on the involved scientists inerpretation of the data that they have.

To believe that they would not tend to skew the facts in their favor in order to continue to receive international funding is one of the lies foisted on us by environmentalists.

[stilts]

The last few meters of the GISP core (Greenland) weren't really useful. I think it's because the ice is moving, and near the bedrock it's somewhat anchored, so the ice layers get "stretched".

Actually, I beleive the Greenland iceplate is much more dynamic in its movement then the antarctic one. It could be that the samples from this ice field are not as effected by "smear".

[alaskanfan]

So how much did it cost the British taxpayers or is that a moot point?

What sort of a climate change caused all of this ice to be formed in the polar regions? How does this relate to the current global warming hoax being foisted on us by the environmentalists?

[alaskanfan]

Waiting, waiting, waiting, sorry there cog!!!

[El Gato]

Excuse me if I get this wrong, but isn't this "understanding" subjective to the interpretation of said data.

Of course it does, but it's alot better than the liberal method of drawning conclusions and making "predictions" with no data at all.

As far as cost goes, not much compared to all to the cost of the "environmental impact" statements and such required before anybody can do much of anything, which in turn pales in comparison to the cost of welfare, or even welfare fraud.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Global Warming Hoax :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Global Warming Hoax , click below:
	click here >>>	Global Warming Hoax	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[alaskanfan]

OOOOOwwwwww!!!!! I'm sorry but don't entitlement programs only gain strength if they are utilized? It doesn't matter if they are national or international, they only grow power if they are recoignized.

[Dan Day]

530,000 years ... 420,000 years...

It's ammusing that they tack on the extra significant figure when they are pretty much taking a wild guess.

No, they're not "pretty much taking a wild guess". It's not all that hard to date things accurately to within two significant digits (which is all they're claiming in the above figures), especially when the item under consideration is of a nature to allow multiple dating methods to be used as "cross-checks" of each other, as is the case for arctic ice cores.

They're not guessing, they're measuring.

[Dan Day]

Who cares?!? Ice is ice. I defy them to compare a cube of their to one from my freezer and tell me the difference.

Wow, cool -- so the ice in your freezer contains captured pockets of atmospheric air from hundreds of thousands of years ago, ancient pollen grains from extinct plants, layers of dust from pre-historic volcanic eruptions, and micrometeorites from across several millennia?

I'm impressed.

[cogitator]

So how much did it cost the British taxpayers or is that a moot point?

I don't know. It's a legitimate point to ask and I don't fault you for it. I just didn't want anyone else to think that this was a U.S. study. Many nations include research as part of their national science efforts, so this comes out of the British science budget.

What sort of a climate change caused all of this ice to be formed in the polar regions? How does this relate to the current global warming hoax being foisted on us by the environmentalists?

Good question. Looking WAY back, one of the causes that has been examined for the basic cooling of the Earth since the Eocene (the second period of the Cenozoic) was the formation of the Himalayas.

From Global Climate Change Student Guide: Internal Forcing Mechanisms: Orogeny

"Ruddiman & Kutzbach (1991) have proposed that the uplift of the Tibetan Plateau, the Himalayas and the Sierra Nevada in the American south-west may have induced a global cooling during the last 40 million years (see section 5.2.2.3). Raymo & Ruddiman (1992) also suggest that increased uplift of these regions exposed more rock, thereby increasing the rate of physical and chemical weathering. During chemical weathering, carbon dioxide is extracted from the atmosphere to react with the decomposing rock minerals to form bicarbonates. These bicarbonates are soluble and can be transported via rivers and other fluvial channels, finally to be deposited on ocean floors as sediment. In essence, carbon dioxide is sequestered from the atmosphere, thereby decreasing the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, causing further cooling."

[stands2reason]

Cool screen name. Buddhist?