Quote of the Week

[IanC]

from Judy Curry's blog

“Do not confuse science with scientists, expertise with experts, or intellect with intellectuals. Society is not anti-intellectual or anti-science, it is anti-intellectuals, opposed to the people who claim those credentials, and for excellent reasons. Even those who on any given issue make appeals to the authority of selected scientists or experts will discount or reject equivalent authority when it does not confirm cherished biases.”

hahaha, universally true

 

[konradv]

from Judy Curry's blog

“Do not confuse science with scientists, expertise with experts, or intellect with intellectuals. Society is not anti-intellectual or anti-science, it is anti-intellectuals, opposed to the people who claim those credentials, and for excellent reasons. Even those who on any given issue make appeals to the authority of selected scientists or experts will discount or reject equivalent authority when it does not confirm cherished biases.”

hahaha, universally true

I guess you should know. You're as guilty as anyone.

 

[skookerasbil]

In other words, if the science is not settled..........dont say the science is settled.

 

[peach174]

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.

 

[skookerasbil]

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............

 

[wirebender]

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 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.

 

[IanC]

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 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.

 

[peach174]

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.

Sorry about that I meant Paleontology not archeology. My bad please forgive
I still think it's funny.

 

[konradv]

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............

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?

 

[westwall]

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............

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Are you really this stupid?

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

that always did seem bogus............

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.

Still trying to dis scientists. There are many,many more methods than just Potassium-Argon.


Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2 Modern dating methods
2.1 Uranium-lead dating method
2.2 Samarium-neodymium dating method
2.3 Potassium-argon dating method
2.4 Rubidium-strontium dating method
2.5 Uranium-thorium dating method
2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
2.7 Fission track dating method
2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
2.9 Luminescence dating methods
2.10 Other methods

Note the 'other methods' at the end.

One of the best methods for dating rocks concerns ashfalls from volcanoes. The date of eruption is frozen in the ash and can be determined by many of the methods above. Since there have been many eruptions that have spread ash over half a hemisphere, a layer of ash in sedimentary rock will give you a good date for that layer.

Another useful method is the magnetic reversals. We have a very good record of those, and getting a sequence above or below a layer will give you the age.

 

[westwall]

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.

Still trying to dis scientists. There are many,many more methods than just Potassium-Argon.


Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2 Modern dating methods
2.1 Uranium-lead dating method
2.2 Samarium-neodymium dating method
2.3 Potassium-argon dating method
2.4 Rubidium-strontium dating method
2.5 Uranium-thorium dating method
2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
2.7 Fission track dating method
2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
2.9 Luminescence dating methods
2.10 Other methods

Note the 'other methods' at the end.

One of the best methods for dating rocks concerns ashfalls from volcanoes. The date of eruption is frozen in the ash and can be determined by many of the methods above. Since there have been many eruptions that have spread ash over half a hemisphere, a layer of ash in sedimentary rock will give you a good date for that layer.

Another useful method is the magnetic reversals. We have a very good record of those, and getting a sequence above or below a layer will give you the age.

Few of those work with purely sedimentary deposits. I used K-Ar dating as an example because most people are familiar with it as they are with C-14 dating. The other dating methods will work well in their particular niche, but sedimentary formations are allways problematic.

You will also please note THE EMPHASIS ON THE USE OF IGNEOUS ROCKS FOR THE FIXING OF A DATE SERIES!

One of the best methods for dating rocks concerns ashfalls from volcanoes. The date of eruption is frozen in the ash and can be determined by many of the methods above. Since there have been many eruptions that have spread ash over half a hemisphere, a layer of ash in sedimentary rock will give you a good date for that layer.
Of course if you had taken geology clases way back when as you claim you would know that.

 

[hendrickL]

.... nice thread...

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Still trying to dis scientists. There are many,many more methods than just Potassium-Argon.


Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2 Modern dating methods
2.1 Uranium-lead dating method
2.2 Samarium-neodymium dating method
2.3 Potassium-argon dating method
2.4 Rubidium-strontium dating method
2.5 Uranium-thorium dating method
2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
2.7 Fission track dating method
2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
2.9 Luminescence dating methods
2.10 Other methods

Note the 'other methods' at the end.

One of the best methods for dating rocks concerns ashfalls from volcanoes. The date of eruption is frozen in the ash and can be determined by many of the methods above. Since there have been many eruptions that have spread ash over half a hemisphere, a layer of ash in sedimentary rock will give you a good date for that layer.

Another useful method is the magnetic reversals. We have a very good record of those, and getting a sequence above or below a layer will give you the age.

Few of those work with purely sedimentary deposits. I used K-Ar dating as an example because most people are familiar with it as they are with C-14 dating. The other dating methods will work well in their particular niche, but sedimentary formations are allways problematic.

You will also please note THE EMPHASIS ON THE USE OF IGNEOUS ROCKS FOR THE FIXING OF A DATE SERIES!

One of the best methods for dating rocks concerns ashfalls from volcanoes. The date of eruption is frozen in the ash and can be determined by many of the methods above. Since there have been many eruptions that have spread ash over half a hemisphere, a layer of ash in sedimentary rock will give you a good date for that layer.
Of course if you had taken geology clases way back when as you claim you would know that.

You have a sediment that is bracketed by igneous rock. It has a particular suite of fossils, plant and animals. You find a sediment with the same suite of fossils, but it is not bracketed by dateable rocks, the fossils give the date.

 

[westwall]

Still trying to dis scientists. There are many,many more methods than just Potassium-Argon.


Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2 Modern dating methods
2.1 Uranium-lead dating method
2.2 Samarium-neodymium dating method
2.3 Potassium-argon dating method
2.4 Rubidium-strontium dating method
2.5 Uranium-thorium dating method
2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
2.7 Fission track dating method
2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
2.9 Luminescence dating methods
2.10 Other methods

Note the 'other methods' at the end.

One of the best methods for dating rocks concerns ashfalls from volcanoes. The date of eruption is frozen in the ash and can be determined by many of the methods above. Since there have been many eruptions that have spread ash over half a hemisphere, a layer of ash in sedimentary rock will give you a good date for that layer.

Another useful method is the magnetic reversals. We have a very good record of those, and getting a sequence above or below a layer will give you the age.

Few of those work with purely sedimentary deposits. I used K-Ar dating as an example because most people are familiar with it as they are with C-14 dating. The other dating methods will work well in their particular niche, but sedimentary formations are allways problematic.

You will also please note THE EMPHASIS ON THE USE OF IGNEOUS ROCKS FOR THE FIXING OF A DATE SERIES!

One of the best methods for dating rocks concerns ashfalls from volcanoes. The date of eruption is frozen in the ash and can be determined by many of the methods above. Since there have been many eruptions that have spread ash over half a hemisphere, a layer of ash in sedimentary rock will give you a good date for that layer.
Of course if you had taken geology clases way back when as you claim you would know that.

You have a sediment that is bracketed by igneous rock. It has a particular suite of fossils, plant and animals. You find a sediment with the same suite of fossils, but it is not bracketed by dateable rocks, the fossils give the date.

Possibly. What do you do for the instances where a particular creature lived for tens of millions of years? That is very common so once again dating them becomes an issue. The study of the ancient past is never easy. Any who think it is have never sat on a hillside deciphering the multiple unconformities and discontinuities from across the valley that make up the real world.