Two million-year-old ice provides snapshot of Earth's greenhouse gas history

[➕👇 ꓤꓱꓷꓠꓵ🎵Tone]

Oops

 

[daydream]

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-million-year-old-ice-snapshot-earth-greenhouse.html

 

 

Oregon State University Professor Ed Brook holding 2 million-year-old ice

Quote

 

 

 

The team that included Brook wanted to find out how carbon dioxide levels varied during that older time period, which until now was known only indirectly from the chemistry of sediments in the ocean and on land.

They found that the highest levels of carbon dioxide matched the levels in warm periods of more recent times

 

Sorry for stealing your thunder. 🙂 

Edited November 1, 2019 by M'Awan

[Thesauron]

Those ice cores are interesting. They’ve captured many interesting details about life on earth. Oh, and it’s very old ice. Which means the whole earth could not have been enveloped in a temperate climate. Or do these ice sheets form even in warm climates?

[jayrtom]

2 hours ago, Thesauron said:

Those ice cores are interesting. They’ve captured many interesting details about life on earth. Oh, and it’s very old ice. Which means the whole earth could not have been enveloped in a temperate climate. Or do these ice sheets form even in warm climates?

Do you have the same confidence on science findings when they talk about human bones 200.000 years old (when we do know from the bible that there were no humans at that old times)

[Thesauron]

Do you have the same confidence on science findings when they talk about human bones 200.000 years old (when we do know from the bible that there were no humans at that old times)

When it doesn’t contradict what’s written in the Bible, then, yes. When there’s a clear contradiction, then we’ve probably misunderstood either the text or the science.

[jayrtom]

4 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

When it doesn’t contradict what’s written in the Bible, then, yes. When there’s a clear contradiction, then we’ve probably misunderstood either the text or the science.

I was specially pointing out your sentence "Oh, and it’s very old ice." 

It's clear that when the same technology concludes dates of 200.000 years for humans, it's not the bible that is wrong but the science. And so are any dating specially on those orders of magnitude

[Thesauron]

I was specially pointing out your sentence "Oh, and it’s very old ice." 

It's clear that when the same technology concludes dates of 200.000 years for humans, it's not the bible that is wrong but the science. And so are any dating specially on those orders of magnitude

The same technology? How do you measure the age of ice sheets?

 

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/environment/climate-change/ice-cores/reconstructing-climate-history/dating-a-core

[jayrtom]

1 hour ago, Thesauron said:

The same technology? How do you measure the age of ice sheets?

 

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/environment/climate-change/ice-cores/reconstructing-climate-history/dating-a-core

And what? Do you read about any definitive method there?

 

I suggest you read the book of Stephen Meyers "Signature in the Cell" which has a very good chapter on this kind of reasoning used to conclude things from the past - "Abductive reasoning"

Is is well worth the reading

 

Quote

.......Second, such sciences explain present events (“manifest effects”) by reference to past (causal) events, rather than by reference to general laws (though Whewell acknowledged that laws often play a supporting role in such explanations). 7

Historical scientists cite the occurrence of an event or series of events in the past as the explanation for some observable phenomenon in the present. 8 For example, a geologist might explain the origin of the Alps as the result of a series of geological events involving the collision of specific tectonic plates, the overthrusting of sedimentary layers, and then the subsequent folding and faulting of those layers. As science historian Jonathan Hodge explains, Whewell realized that historical sciences do not study “forces that are permanent causes of motion, such as gravitational attraction,”but “causes that have worked their effects in temporal succession.”9 Third, in their attempt to reconstruct “ancient conditions,”Whewell argued that historical scientists also utilized a distinctive mode of reasoning. 10 Using knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships, historical scientists “calculate backwards”and “infer”past conditions and causes from “manifest effects.”11 As Gould later put it, historical scientists proceed by “inferring history from its results.”12 For example, in order to reconstruct the Cambrian environment, paleontologists such as Gould and Conway Morris made inferences about the past based on present-day fossils and other clues. 13 They inferred a past environment and set of conditions as the cause of the evidence they found. Like other historical scientists, they reasoned from clues back to causes. 14

 

Abductive Reasoning

This type of reasoning is called abductive reasoning or abduction. It was first described by the American philosopher and logician Charles Sanders Peirce. He noted that, unlike inductive reasoning, in which a universal law or principle is established from repeated observations of the same phenomena, and unlike deductive reasoning, in which a particular fact is deduced by applying a general law to another particular fact or case, abductive reasoning infers unseen facts, events, or causes in the past from clues or facts in the present. 15 As Peirce himself showed, there is a problem with abductive reasoning. 16

Consider the following syllogism:

 

If it rains, the streets will get wet.

The streets are wet.

Therefore, it rained.

 

In this syllogism, a past condition (it was raining) is inferred from a present clue (the streets are wet). Nevertheless, this syllogism commits a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. Given that the street is wet (and without additional evidence to decide the matter), one can only conclude that perhaps it rained. Why? Because there are other possible ways the street may have gotten wet. A street-cleaning machine, an uncapped fire hydrant, or rain might have caused the street to get wet. It can be difficult to infer the past from the present because there are often many possible causes of a given effect. When this is the case, abductive inferences yield plausible, but not certain, conclusions..........

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by jayrtom

[normadenardo]

Maybe it was just very old water. Lol. 

[Thesauron]

3 hours ago, jayrtom said:

And what? Do you read about any definitive method there?

 

I suggest you read the book of Stephen Meyers "Signature in the Cell" which has a very good chapter on this kind of reasoning used to conclude things from the past - "Abductive reasoning"

Is is well worth the reading

There is no need to discard scientific conclusions that doesn’t violate what the Bible says. If we do, we are out on thin water. Of course, no scientific method is 100% certain, and methods are always questioned and refined. But if they say the ice is very old, there’s no reason to believe it’s not. If they say the ground you are treading has this or that age, why not? It’s possible.

 

 

[Shawnster]

3 hours ago, normaclutter said:

Maybe it was just very old water. Lol. 

I just hope it wasn't heavy. 

[Tortuga]

1 hour ago, Thesauron said:

If we do, we are out on thin water.

Wait...I think Johan told a joke....

[BenJepthah]

12 hours ago, Thesauron said:

The same technology? How do you measure the age of ice sheets?

 

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/environment/climate-change/ice-cores/reconstructing-climate-history/dating-a-core

Aha! So this clearly states how the ice is dated. Completely different from the carbon 14 methods usually used for bones. 

[BenJepthah]

The article indicates primarily that in the oldest known ice the same correlation exists between Co2 levels and adjusting climate . More CO2 warmer less CO2 cooler.  And that the maximum Co2 levels have not changed but the minimums have been changing making the cooling periods less pronounced.  If true then a mechanism probably exists to uptake the additional Co2 . Capping the amount that can effect warming periods.