Is Ice Core Analysis Flawed?

I have a theory that the last glacial period only started around 38,000 B.P. The obvious evidence to dispute this are the ice cores drilled from Greenland and Antarctica. Interestingly though, the sediment cores drilled from the seabed in the North Atlantic only produce data going back to around this date. Is it possible that the assumption that banded layers in ice cores are laid annually is incorrect? Could it be that scientists are suffering from "Tree Ring Psychology"? If there were two periods of cooling and warming throughout the year, then two layers could be laid in a single year. This simple reasoning would drastically shift the ice core proxies and bring them into line with the sediment core data with astounding results. Heinrich events would have to be totally re-thought.

Woolly mammoths would have been living in lush vegetation during the summer months in northern Siberia. This makes much more sense in my mind. Does anyone agree that this an interesting avenue of investigation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_events

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Human analysis is always flawed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then what are we meant to make of this analysis you've just made?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's flawed?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Come on, think about it. Is this the best you can do?

 

The Mammoth part is right and there are serious issues with the ice age theory. But so is the evidence for North American and North European glaciations in the last few 100,000 years.

The ice core layer snow count is highly accurately duplicated in annual sedimentation layers in deep lakes, showing the same isotope swings as well as tree rings and coral rings, etc. Moreover the much older Antarctic ice cores are reflected in oceanic sediment cores back to about 740,000 years.

So no dice, cross checking the many ways of counting layers, the age accuracy of those records is generally much better than 1%.

But this still does not explain the mammoths. Therefore other things must be interpreted wrongly. I know what, but nobody listens.

 

Hi Andre, glad to hear somebody else is pondering the Mammoth enigma. I've suspicious that the correlation with oceanic sediment cores go back 740,000 years. Do you have a link? I'm just starting to research the subject in depth. The Bond & Lotti sediment core data only goes back to around 38,000 B.P. I'm aware that the ice core data is an excellent fit with known volcanic activity up to around 15,000 B.P (I think). I have a developing theory that there is another mechanism which causes snowmelt, due to high energy wind turbulence and even rainfall. It would then be possible that multiple layers were formed in a single year before around 15,000 B.P. I'm convinced that the annual layers aren't consistant with deeper ice core samples, but this would take a lot to prove of course.

www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/publications/Rain_on_snow.ppt

What do you think is interpreted wrongly? I'm very interested.

 

For starters, Dick -Sir Mammoth- Mol is my best friend, I'm looking over his shoulders, having first hand information. I translated a couple of books and articles for him. This one for instance.

Second, here is a graph of the water isotopes of the EPICA Dome C ice core versus a benthic stack (Lisiecky & Raymo 2005) Showing the average isotope variation of 57 different oceanic sediment cores for the last half a million years.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Third, the problem we have is singling out the desired interpretation of certain things, which may or may not be true. This is called affirming the consequent fallacy: If it snows the fields are white. Now, the fields are white, hence it snows.

translated to the ice cores this is equal to "If it is cold, the isotopes are down, the isotopes are down, hence it is cold."

In reality the value of the isotopes is a complex function of mainly source temperature and humidity, cloud temperature (dew point) Rayleigh effect, seasonality of temperature and precipitation. It can be shown that especially summer aridness and in a lesser degree overall aridness, shows exactly the same finger print as 'cold', the difference is in a variable, called deuterium excess, and the latter clearly shows aridness, instead of cold, for the Greenland ice cores during the last glacial phases, which is highly ignored/ not understood by the researchers. But it's a long and complex story, way too difficult to beat global warming.

 

I'm really impressed Andre. In fact, you're the first person on this forum who's on my wavelength. I was a scientist for the MoD, so this a new area for me, but I'm just so interested in it. The assumptions of the isotope data must be too simplistic in my view. You don't seem to have mentioned pressure. I think that a blizzard could create enough pressure to cause snowmelt in sub-zero temperatures. Hence a mechanism for multiple layers in a single year. The isotope reaction to pressures during blizzards may also behave similarly to the effect of a higher temperature. I haven't researched it yet though.

I also have a cast iron theory for the Mammoths, which would mean both Newton's and Einstein's theory of gravity is wrong. Especially 'space-time'. I'm writing a book just as soon as I can.

 

Concerning the ice cores, in one word: Non calor sed umor

(It's not the heat but the humidity)

And before casting iron theories about mammoths, it's better to gather all available data, and that's probably one or two orders of magnitude more than one might think.

I just so happen to run a thread about that here

 

Well i would say...... That approximatly 6,428 years to 4,785 years ago the earths north pole was faceing the sun, the doors on pryamids of Giza faced the sun as well, the artic as well as Greenland where hot vapor mist tropical enviroments and so there was no Ice pack to accumulate and make a record.

Anything that scientist find in the Artic or Greenland Ice Pack is a record only of the last say 4,000 years, can it tell us about global warming it would seem so give it would have at least a record of weather over the last several thousand years.

About seaons well if the earth spins faster that would increase the number of season, if counting seasons by other than tempiture; but given the earths motion over the last 6,428 years it shows under calculation that the earth has shorter seasons in the distant past and that the seasons have been getting longer.
Also the motion of earth in the past had a triangular motion that caused for three different season. this has gradulally changed into the four seasons, or 8 seasons that we have now as the earth progreessed into a circular motion.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

I appreciate you have a lot more knowledge than I do Andre. I'll need to research the importance of humidity. Thanks for the links, and great photographs of the mammoth remains.

One obvious question I have is 'Why is the glacial maximum around 20,000 B.P if the Greenland data suggests the ice age started at least 110,000 years ago?' A more logical answer would be that the glacial maximum was around the middle of the ice age, which coincides with an onset of around 40,000 B.P! Another clue to the mystery?

What is your explanation for the near-perfect condition of some of the mammoth remains? How were they frozen so quickly so as to by-pass the onset of decay?

Are you able to summarise your findings and ideas? Why don't you write a book about it? You seem to have enough material for several.

 

Hi Andre, I've found this interesting bit of info:

When you say "humidity", I assume that you mean relative humidity. It is likely that higher
relative humidities imply warmer temperatures, and thus a greater ability to melt snow.

Aside from this situation, a higher absolute humidity (amount of water vapor in the air) could
enhance warming of the air from increased absorption of long wave radiation, thus enhancing
melting.

The increase of relative humidity in and of itself would not directly increase the rate of snow
melt, only indirectly as explained above.

David R. Cook
Atmospheric Research Section
Environmental Research Division


Do you concur with this view Andre? Is it much more complicated than this?
I've just found something else:


From the theoretical and physical descriptions given above, it is clear that the rate of snowmelt increases as humidity increases, due to latent heat released as water vapor condenses when air temperatures are above freezing.


It seems that humidity is only a major factor when temperatures are above freezing or when there is a large amount of solar radiation.

 

There is evidence for three glacial advances in the European region in the period as of 110,000 years ago, the early (90 ka), middle (65ka) and late Weichselian advances (20ka). In between there is some scattered evidence that things were just as warm, as today, but the isotope levels never reached those of today again.

Try to think outside the box. Just because those remains are frozen now, how can we be sure that this is how they got preserved? If it was about freezing, why do we mainly find mammoth mummies? Why not horses, bizons, antilopes, etc, which were just about as abundant? Also the common factor with all mummies is water, all of them have been found close to water reservoirs, streams or pond remains.

Infortunately there has never been concise research to the preservation of mammoths, but it's very unlikely that it was freezing. Also, mind that all those remains did survive the Holocene Thermal Maximum roughly between 9000 and 5000 years ago, when the trees reached the Arctic coast in Siberia. The likely scenarios include liquefaction during earthquakes and peat mummies. Perhaps that mammoths were more susceptable to be caught that way.

I started several manuscript which were overrun with new evidence. So I will resume that as soon as I have a definite answer and we're closing in.

 

I don't know the context but this goes definitely not without saying. If the temperature increases, maintaining constant humidity, the relative humidity decreases and it takes a lot of energy (2500 joule per gram) to evaporate addional water to keep relative humidity constant with higher temperatures.

However what I'm talking about is hydrography, the behavior of heavy isotopes (heavy oxygen, 18O and heavy hydrogen 2H, or Deuterium (D) in the water cycle under different conditions, warm, cold, humid, arid, seasonal extremes, etc giving a lot of combinations, resulting in certain variations in isotope ratios. But this is susceptable to a big affirming the concequent fallacy: If it snows the fields are white. Now the field are white, hence it snows. This translates to: If it is cold then the isotopes are light, the isotopes are light so is it cold? This is the fundamental error in paleoclimatology.

I'll demonstrate that there are at least two more different situations resulting in the same output, aridity and seasonality of precipitation and this is what makes the ice core analysis flawed.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The above map of Northern Hemisphere show the view of the earth from the position of the sun, when the earths north pole faced the sun. It is this region that was with out Ice cover approximatly 6,000 to 4,000 years ago.
The exsposer to sun light 24 hours a day defines that no Ice cover would exist in this region of the earth. The result a tropical enviroment without night fall.
If you locate eygpt on the above map you can see that the site choose for building of the prymids of eygpt is a enviorment that must have been comfortable, given the paintings and depictions of eygptian life during this period of earth history. They clearly chose a location that was not directly under the northern postion of the sun. It would seem the northern regions of the earth would be a very tropical misty and dew condenseing enviorment.

Given these conditions the opposite side of the Earth the Southern Hemisphere appears to be the location of the oldest Ice cover, and so having the oldest record of climate change obatinable for a analaysis. With a the north pole faceing the sun constantly the south pole or Antarctic would be in a Hemisphereic Ice Age. Most of the Pacific Ocean would be Ice Packed.

:A indicator to the accuracy of such analogy of earth motions and the position of the sun in the northern hemisphere would be the occurance of asteriods,meteroids And Carbon 14 presence in the southern hemisphere of the earth. I am currently under the understanding that a great number of asteroids and meteroids have be found in the Antarctic (addition finds would appear to be on the ocean floor within the southern hemiphere). The presence of asteriods ect.... found in the Antarctic give me enough assurance that this is near actual motion of the earth leaving the conditions of the enviorment for the occrrance of the Arctic and green land Ice pack.

Mammoths just may have been frozen in one season as the earths axis changed some time before the birth of Jesus Christ, or at a point where there is a sharp decrease in the earths magnetic feild. which i would exspect to be around 3,214 years ago when i assume the Magentic pole was located in Mongolia.


I would also say that the Graph for Isotopes Should be condensed from millions of years into just several thousands years for a better correlation to climatic events. How would that change your opinion on Isotpes angular postion.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This Image produced by NOAA show the near orentiation of the earths axis about 3,214 years ago, when the earths axis was located at the 45 Degrees North mark. It shows that the region where mamoths are found and where current perma frost exist as being in a much cooler enviroment as a result of direct sunlight loss, where Siberia and Alaska are resting near the terminator of day and night.

A existing Ice Age in the Southern hemisphere would allow a much greater decrease in tempiture as it adds to cool new regions, doing so much quicker than by just a decrease in direct solar light fall. So then wind chill from such a large region in the southern hemisphere covered in a ice age would nearly flash freeze life forms if the region has changed solar light fall as well in quick alteration of earths motion. The 45 Degree axis also leaves the region near the terminator day in shadowed light and darkness for much longer time frames.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

What is your view on the research done by Charles Hapgood? He mentions frozen whooly rhinoceros remains amongst others. I agree with liquefaction and bog preservation, that fits with my theory perfectly.

Do you have good information and links regarding irradiation isotope markers, such as 10Be and 36Cl? How good is this seasonality data? This is my current area of concern.

Also scientists have taken direct thermometer readings from holes in the ice sheet. These give indications of the temperature when the snow fell. None show a temperature above O'C. How do you relate to these findings?

Do you have a theory for Heinrich events? They appear to be a major piece of the ice age puzzle. I do incidentally, but it's a long story. Glad to hear you're closing in on a complete picture of events. I'd better get writing my book to clarify my ideas and get some credit.

 

Charles Hapgood was ahead of his time, albeit that he choose the wrong hypothesis. There is no chance on a crust shift, perhaps a rapid true polar wander which can be sustained physically. We are ahead too, as we have to sit out the global warming madness before we can return to science, and come up with a next hypothesis that fits the evidence better.

There are some ice core records on 10Be, not sure about 36Cl and I don't see a connection with seasonality.

Yes no problem there, except that the resolution of borehole temperatures is more like a few milennia and spikes are completely gone. But temperature at snowfall is also an indicator of introducing trouble. What if the seasonality between summer and winter snowfall would change? (And it did for sure)

Yes I have and it fits perfectly but I won't talk about that here.

 

<looks at some real scientists, listens to their science-speak, flees from giant foreheads.>