Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, May 7, 2011.
from Judy Curry's blog
hahaha, universally true
I guess you should know. You're as guilty as anyone.
In other words, if the science is not settled..........dont say the science is settled.
Ha ! Ha!
Archeologist's are same way as the scientists.
How do your know the age of the layers? From the dinosaur bones we collect.
Then when you ask How do you know the age the dinosaur bones?
From the layers that we dig them up them from.
that always did seem bogus............
That is the difference between soft "sciences" like palentology and climate science and the hard sciences like physics and chemistry. In the soft sciences they get to make a lot of assumptions based on something other than hard, observed evidence. There is a great deal of subjectivity. In the hard sciences, there is no room for assumptions. Claims are based on hard, observed, REPEATABLE proof.
Climate science is among the softest of the soft sciences. Apparently no proof of anything is needed and one may make the most outrageous claims and so long as the media says the claim is valid, then the claim is valid. Its a good thing we don't build bridges and buildings based on the same scientific principles.
One of the biggest problems with climate science is the tendency to use statistics as a camoflauge of their predetermined ideas rather than a tool to determine the worthiness of said ideas. the incredible jerry-rigging of MBH98, and 99 is a horror story of inappropriate mathematical manipulation.
Another, and more easily understood, example of data and mathematical manipulation is this (peer reviewed) destruction of a Phil Jones/Michael Mann paper that they published on Real Climate. https://public.me.com/ix/williseschenbach/Svalbard.pdf
I really recommend this link for people who think the whole climategate/peer review scandal is nothing but skeptics and alarmists pointing fingers at each other. it shows how data is misrepresented, then hidden, then found by sleuthing. it shows how inappropriate statistical methods are used and high school mistakes are made (always in the right direction though). and it shows the contempt that the climate science elite has for doing science.
Sorry about that I meant Paleontology not archeology. My bad please forgive
I still think it's funny.
It seems bogus, because it is. Not the age of layers and how they are determined, but the above analysis of how it is done. The age of layers is determined by radioactive decay. Once you know the age of a layer and find a certain species there and in no other, you can go elsewhere and find that same species and be confident you know the age range of that layer. No real archeologist would say what peach said. That's just BS put out by skeptics to fool the unsophisticated, which apparently you've swallowed hook, line and sinker. Even our resident geologist and skeptic would have to agrree with that, right westwall?
The problem arises when you have nothing to radioactively date. Potassium Argon dating is fairly accurate when you have igneous rock to date. The melt as it cools freezes the isotopes in place and that will give you a very accurate time delineation.
However, what do you do when all of your fossils are in an alluvial or lacustrine (sedimentary) deposit? You will certainly know that the fossils came after the time of the bedrock (which is igneous) which underlays the sedimentary deposit, but that's it. If the fossils themselves are lithified you can once again resort to K-Ar dating (though that results in secondary dating, you are measuring the age of the rock that lithified the bones, the bones themselves were far older) so even when you have excellent markers the dating of fossils can be fraught with difficulties.
Once a particular formation has been dated you can indeed go around the world and date subsequent layers based on those findings (and in fact geologists are trying to do just that) but, there are thousands of areas where you have multiple non conformities and unconformities where you have no igneous formations to use as baselines. You have millions or even billions of years of sedimentary buildups so you know approximately how long a particular geomorphic province has been around but you have no idea of what the ages of the individual formations which make up that province are.
I see no excellent markers in anything the climatologists do. There is no hard/fast data set anywhere. And those that do exist (like the example Ian provided) are corrupted by the climatologists involved.
Separate names with a comma.