Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
Elhardt
Junior Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 10-27-2007


Message 211 of 357 (430877)
10-28-2007 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-15-2005 8:24 PM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
I'm new to this board so excuse the slightly lateness of my post. I'm no YEC, but in some cases some of the data used in correlating dates can start off flawed in the first place, or contradict over observations. For example this:
422,776 years by annual layers of ice in Antarctica (different location altogether)- recently updated to 650,000 years
Being extremely liberal and taking the maximum possible depth of ice at 2 miles thick and your first number, you end up with 40 years of annual ice per foot, or one year adding only about 0.3 inches. If it's 900,000 years as the post above states, it gets worse. You're now at about 0.15 inches added per year. The problem is that appears orders of magnitude too small and contradicts other things I've seen.
For example, on one documentary I was watching, some scientists dug down about 6 feet into the ice, and they were pointing out that you could see the yearly layers as the sun shined through the ice, and it was about 9 inches per year. They also said the ice at that place was about 4000 feet deep. A simple calculation gives you an age of about 5333 years. So a problem may appear on your end, not on the YEC's end.
Also take those P-38 aircraft that landed on the ice in Greenland in 1942. When some veterans went back to recover one, none of them could be found. They were under 268 feet of ice in just 50 years. Too often is seems things move a lot faster than scientists tell us.
Who says one band in an ice core equals one year anyway? Isn't it possible to have multiple falls of snow and melting and freezing in one year? And I am not aware that anybody has ever taken a two mile long or deep ice core either. So who knows what the yearly layers look like.
As you can see, in this annual ice layer case there are nothing but contradictions. First we need to solve contradictions like 9 inches per year vs 0.15 inches per year or we're going to get nowhere. And the snow on the antarctic is supposed to be slowly moving outward like a glacier and dropping into the ocean such that there shouldn't be any ice still existing from 400,000+ years ago. And there is evidence that rivers were depositing sediments into the ocean 6-7000 years ago there meaning it was partly free from ice. The whole picture gets very confused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2005 8:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by kongstad, posted 10-28-2007 3:25 AM Elhardt has not replied
 Message 213 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2007 8:28 AM Elhardt has not replied
 Message 214 by Percy, posted 10-28-2007 9:21 AM Elhardt has not replied
 Message 215 by The Matt, posted 10-28-2007 12:05 PM Elhardt has not replied

kongstad
Member (Idle past 2869 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 212 of 357 (430888)
10-28-2007 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Elhardt
10-28-2007 1:39 AM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
Hi Elhardt
Regarding the Planes on the ice, you can see this link
CD410: Airplanes Buried in Ice
The thing is the planes did not land on a stable ice field, where the cores are drilled, but near the coast, and on an active glacier. The snowfall near the shore is much larger than further inland.
Where was the dig you mention in the documentary? Was it the same conditions ad where ice cores are drilled, or was it a less stable environment?
Besides that , you would expect the top layers to be thicker. The further down you come the thinner the layers, a part of this is because of compression, but part is because the weight presses the layers so that the layers both become thinner and they expand. This causes the ice to travel away, and eventually be expelled into the sea, because the layer stretches as it thins out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Elhardt, posted 10-28-2007 1:39 AM Elhardt has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 213 of 357 (430910)
10-28-2007 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Elhardt
10-28-2007 1:39 AM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
Welcome to the fray Elhardt,
Being extremely liberal and taking the maximum possible depth of ice at 2 miles thick and your first number, you end up with 40 years of annual ice per foot, or one year adding only about 0.3 inches. If it's 900,000 years as the post above states, it gets worse. You're now at about 0.15 inches added per year. The problem is that appears orders of magnitude too small and contradicts other things I've seen.
There are a couple of errors here, first is that the layers are not the same thickness now as when they were laid down. If you read the references you would see that the layers are compressed by the ice and snow over them, with the deeper layers being more compressed than the upper layers. Second, the thickness of the layers has nothing to do with their annual character - again the references give information on the differences between summer and winter ice that is irrespective of thickness.
For example, on one documentary I was watching, some scientists dug down about 6 feet into the ice, and they were pointing out that you could see the yearly layers as the sun shined through the ice, and it was about 9 inches per year. They also said the ice at that place was about 4000 feet deep. A simple calculation gives you an age of about 5333 years. So a problem may appear on your end, not on the YEC's end.
Again, a there are several errors here. First, you are still assuming constant layer thickness as noted above, and second the same references that tell you about the compression of the ice layers also talk about where the ice is so compressed that the annual layers can no longer be distinguished by eye, and have to be measured by other means (based on the characteristics of winter ice versus summer ice). Third, you are assuming that "a simple calculation" has some real relationship to reality when you have not established a basis for making such a claim: to do so honestly you would need to show first that the layers do not change in time. The scientists counting the layers are making no such assumptions -- they are content to count the layers.
Also take those P-38 aircraft that landed on the ice in Greenland in 1942. When some veterans went back to recover one, none of them could be found. They were under 268 feet of ice in just 50 years. Too often is seems things move a lot faster than scientists tell us.
As noted by kongstad ice build up is different in different places. This P-38 story is an old creationist PRATT (point refuted a thousand times) for several reasons. The most basic is that the depth of ice is not the same as annual layers of ice. By knowing the differences between winter and summer ice even the ice over the P-38 (and other craft) can still be separated into annual layers. Amazingly when this is done and the layers counted, they match the age of the aircraft.
Who says one band in an ice core equals one year anyway? Isn't it possible to have multiple falls of snow and melting and freezing in one year? And I am not aware that anybody has ever taken a two mile long or deep ice core either. So who knows what the yearly layers look like.
The fact that you have not read the references provided, nor studied the issue by researching the articles in the science journals is evident, so what you are aware of or not aware of seems to hold very little value. As noted above the references do not assume that "one band in an ice core equals one year" -- they test the ice to see that the bands are annual layers.
As you can see, in this annual ice layer case there are nothing but contradictions.
We see nothing of the kind, rather what we see is a rather ignorant (having skipped the references that give the information) review by an amateur who is unfamiliar with the behavior of ice. For instance:
First we need to solve contradictions like 9 inches per year vs 0.15 inches per year or we're going to get nowhere.
There is no contradiction, as this is actually discussed in the references, where they explain about the compaction of the ice and the relative thickness of the layers as they change with depth. You also fail to show that the 9" layers are from the same place as the ice cores.
And the snow on the antarctic is supposed to be slowly moving outward like a glacier and dropping into the ocean such that there shouldn't be any ice still existing from 400,000+ years ago.
When you compress any material vertically it tends to spread horizontally. The degree of spread depends on the compressibility of the material and whether there is anything to restrain the horizontal spread. Spreading horizontally does not make the material in the center disappear.
And there is evidence that rivers were depositing sediments into the ocean 6-7000 years ago there meaning it was partly free from ice.
Or that the rivers were running under the ice, as they do in many many many places covered by glaciers.
The whole picture gets very confused.
It looks to me like you need to do some real research into the subject, not read creationist "papoganda" and educate yourself about what the facts are about the ice layers. The information is available.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Elhardt, posted 10-28-2007 1:39 AM Elhardt has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 214 of 357 (430917)
10-28-2007 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Elhardt
10-28-2007 1:39 AM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
Hi Elhardt, welcome aboard!
I think you're probably misinterpreting RAZD's post. For example:
Elhardt writes:
422,776 years by annual layers of ice in Antarctica (different location altogether)- recently updated to 650,000 years
Being extremely liberal and taking the maximum possible depth of ice at 2 miles thick and your first number, you end up with 40 years of annual ice per foot, or one year adding only about 0.3 inches. If it's 900,000 years as the post above states, it gets worse. You're now at about 0.15 inches added per year. The problem is that appears orders of magnitude too small and contradicts other things I've seen.
Although you're responding to Message 1, at least some of what you're replying to comes from Message 205:
RAZD in Message 205 writes:
  • Message 8 - The minimum age of the earth is 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in the Vostok Ice Core, extended to 740,000 years with the EPICA Ice Core with an estimated final depth age of 900,000 years. (different location again).
RAZD's post is providing various minimum ages of the earth indicated by different evidence, because obviously the earth cannot be younger than the oldest evidence. The 422,776 year figure comes from the Vostok ice core, the 650,000 year figure comes from a different ice core (RAZD doesn't say which one), the 740,000 year figure comes from the EPICA ice core, and the 900,000 year figure is an estimate of the total age at EPICA had they been able to obtain a core all the way to the bottom.
For example, on one documentary I was watching, some scientists dug down about 6 feet into the ice, and they were pointing out that you could see the yearly layers as the sun shined through the ice, and it was about 9 inches per year. They also said the ice at that place was about 4000 feet deep. A simple calculation gives you an age of about 5333 years. So a problem may appear on your end, not on the YEC's end.
Ice accumulation rates vary widely around the globe, plus snow does not turn to ice until under great pressure, usually at least a few meters. Ice cores brought up from great depths expand once relieved of the pressure. If you can remember where the scientists in that documentary were working we can look up things like accumulation rates relative to other areas around the globe and figure out what's going on.
Who says one band in an ice core equals one year anyway?
This thread is actually about correlations. One of the reasons we know the bands correspond to years is the way some of the bands can be correlated with significant global events, such as volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa and Vesuvius.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Remove P-38 comments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Elhardt, posted 10-28-2007 1:39 AM Elhardt has not replied

The Matt
Member (Idle past 5541 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 215 of 357 (430933)
10-28-2007 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Elhardt
10-28-2007 1:39 AM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
And there is evidence that rivers were depositing sediments into the ocean 6-7000 years ago there meaning it was partly free from ice
Why is that a problem? look at Greenland today. We see rivers fringing the ice sheet where it melts. If the climate was warmer 6-7000 years ago, we'd probably see that in Antarctica. What bearing does that have on the age of the ice sheet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Elhardt, posted 10-28-2007 1:39 AM Elhardt has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 216 of 357 (431001)
10-28-2007 7:30 PM


Siberia's Massive Peat deposits all C-14 dating young!
Siberia is one of the coldest areas in the northern hemisphere but it has evidence in its permafrost called peat.
Siberia is located in the upper hemisphere like Iceland and Greenland but because of the prevailing winds does not get excessive moisture as does Greenland or Iceland.
Yet massive amounts of Peat in Siberia all needing thousands of years to form in a temperate climate are all dating only thousands of years old.
The Greenland Ice varves are melting today and the average global temperature its been said to have "only" raisen 1 degree celcius over the last 100 years.
=============================================================
Siberia was a temperate climate only thousands of years ago same latitude as Iceland yet the 1 degree rise in global warming has not caused Siberia to have a temperate climate today.
Given the evidence is that Siberia had a temperate climate only thousands of years ago then Greenland was green and the ice varves only thousands of years old.
Either the C-14 dating is bogus and the siberian peat not young or the Greenland ice varve dating is bogus and Greenland's young and not old.
================================================================
Page 12
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:EBYzAW6rHiMJ:radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/...
View as HTML
=========================================
We expected to see the ice get better, get flatter, as we got closer to the pole. But the ice was busted up," Dupre said. "As we got closer to the pole, we had to paddle our canoes more and more."51
Borisov argued that this idea is not all that far-fetched. He notes that measurements carried out on Greenland’s northeastern glaciers as far back as the early 1950’s showed that they were loosing ice far faster than it was being formed. 8 The northeastern glaciers were in fact in “ablation” as a result of just a 1C rise in average global temperature. What would be expected from another 2C rise? - over the course of several thousand years?
Ancient Ice
Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.
Edited by reversespin, : To correct a link.
Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.
Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.
Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shortened display form of very long URL, to restore page width to normal.

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Percy, posted 10-28-2007 8:57 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 226 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2007 6:34 PM johnfolton has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 217 of 357 (431022)
10-28-2007 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by johnfolton
10-28-2007 7:30 PM


Re: Siberia's Massive Peat deposits all C-14 dating young!
reversespin writes:
Given the evidence is that Siberia had a temperate climate only thousands of years ago then Greenland was green and the ice varves only thousands of years old.
The paper (14C Dating of Pear and 18O-D in Ground Ice From Northwest Siberia) says nothing about a temperate climate in Siberia (indeed, the word "temperate" doesn't even appear in the paper), and the conclusions from the paper disagree with you, saying that while summers were warmer, winters were colder:
Conclusions from the paper writes:
The new 14C dates from peat profiles at Seyaha, Shchuch’ya and Labytnangi indicate that: 1) the vegetation patterns within the tundra regions in the Early Holocene differed considerably from the present, in this period forest migrated far to the north in the Yamal Peninsula, 2) summer warming caused foresting of tundra, 3) simultaneously, the winters were colder and the climate was more continental than at present, 4) rapid peat accumulation (4-5 m per 1000 years) occurred during this period, and, 5) simultaneously with the peat accumulation in summer, freezing and formation of syngenetic ice-wedges took place in winter.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by johnfolton, posted 10-28-2007 7:30 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by johnfolton, posted 10-28-2007 10:20 PM Percy has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 218 of 357 (431039)
10-28-2007 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Percy
10-28-2007 8:57 PM


Re: Siberia's Massive Peat deposits all C-14 dating young!
Percy writes:
The paper (14C Dating of Pear and 18O-D in Ground Ice From Northwest Siberia) says nothing about a temperate climate in Siberia (indeed, the word "temperate" doesn't even appear in the paper), and the conclusions from the paper disagree with you, saying that while summers were warmer, winters were colder:
I'll agree could not find the word temperate in the Russian study must of been another link. The Holocene Optimum period high mean growth rate which suggests a warm summer climate which is interesting due forest were growing far to north in the Yamal Peninsula.
====================================================================
The important message is, however, the high mean growth rate observed, which gives information about the warm summer climate in the Holocene Optimum.
Page 13
Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Percy, posted 10-28-2007 8:57 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by edge, posted 10-28-2007 11:08 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 222 by Percy, posted 10-29-2007 9:16 AM johnfolton has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 219 of 357 (431049)
10-28-2007 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by johnfolton
10-28-2007 10:20 PM


Re: Siberia's Massive Peat deposits all C-14 dating young!
I'll agree could not find the word temperate in the Russian study must of been another link. The Holocene Optimum period high mean growth rate which suggests a warm summer climate which is interesting due forest were growing far to north in the Yamal Peninsula.
The article also suggests colder, more continental winters. Please explain what your point is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by johnfolton, posted 10-28-2007 10:20 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by johnfolton, posted 10-29-2007 1:28 AM edge has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 220 of 357 (431061)
10-29-2007 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by edge
10-28-2007 11:08 PM


Re: Siberia's Massive Peat deposits all C-14 dating young!
Given the Yamal Peninsula was not frozen over with trees known to be growing that far north for thousands of years. Meaning a climate far different may have existed where the summer and winter climatic models that have been assumed are being re-evaluated.
With only a 1 degree rise in global temperature today you need a paddle boat near the north pole. Imagine what a 2 degree rise in global temperature would do in respect to opening up the Artic Ocean to the ocean tidal currents.
Its highly possible that the Artic Ocean was open 5,500 years ago and that these indicator fossils are only 5,500-9,500 years old.
Even Purdue University is questioning current scientific beliefs in respect to temperature extremes between summer and winter in the past.
Everyone just assumed there was but now are questioning this assumption due the tropic indicator fossils in the artic circle conflicts with all known scientific climatic senerios.
It likely does however agree with the young earth creationists water canopy which I find interesting personally but interestingly the answer the scientists are looking for is in the book of genesis.
===================================================================
There is a fundamental discrepancy between what kind of climate we expect to result from high atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and what kind of climate really prevailed during these ancient epochs," Sluijs said.
"We, hence, need to improve our climate models. An important question is, what was seasonality like in the Arctic? Was there an as-large temperature difference between summer and winter as there is nowadays?"
Source: Purdue University
http://www.physorg.com/news68305951.html
====================================================================
The cylindrical core samples contained the remains of ancient plant and animal life, which yielded critical new information about the Arctic Ocean during that time. Researchers used a recently developed technique called TEX-86, which enables scientists to measure the temperatures that existed when ancient organisms lived by analyzing the composition of fatty substances called lipids in their cell membranes. Using this technique, the researchers found that sea surface temperatures at the North Pole had soared to 23 degrees Celsius, or around 73 degrees Fahrenheit, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or the PETM, about 55 million years ago. Today's mean annual temperature at the North Pole is around minus 20 degrees Celsius, Huber said.
Researchers also discovered the remains of tiny algae called dinoflagellates, belonging to the species Apectodinium, which previously had been restricted to warmer regions of the world.
"The presence of Apectodinium during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum provides confirmation that subtropical conditions arrived in the Arctic during this time," Huber said.
http://www.physorg.com/news68305951.html
Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by edge, posted 10-28-2007 11:08 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2007 7:47 AM johnfolton has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 221 of 357 (431083)
10-29-2007 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by johnfolton
10-29-2007 1:28 AM


Re: Siberia's Massive Peat deposits all C-14 dating young!
Just a quick question for now (I'll get into your posts more tonight):
What does this have to do with the correlations of ages between the different systems?
It is one thing to say:
Message 216
Either the C-14 dating is bogus and the siberian peat not young or the Greenland ice varve dating is bogus and Greenland's young and not old.
And it is another to explain how the ages then are correlated by those different systems.
To say nothing of the fact there are other alternatives ...
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by johnfolton, posted 10-29-2007 1:28 AM johnfolton has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 222 of 357 (431099)
10-29-2007 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by johnfolton
10-28-2007 10:20 PM


Re: Siberia's Massive Peat deposits all C-14 dating young!
reversespin writes:
The important message is, however, the high mean growth rate observed, which gives information about the warm summer climate in the Holocene Optimum.
I thought your "important message" was that a warmer Siberia had to mean that Greenland was melting during that period and could not have been accumulating ice layers.
Your position is not supported by that article, which only says (and I'm summarizing) that Siberia experience greater extremes of temperature during this period. Whatever implications that might entail for Greenland are not clear, but the evidence from the Greenland ice cores is what you would look to for evidence of either accumulating or melting ice layers.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by johnfolton, posted 10-28-2007 10:20 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by johnfolton, posted 10-29-2007 12:53 PM Percy has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 223 of 357 (431122)
10-29-2007 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Percy
10-29-2007 9:16 AM


Re: Siberia's Massive Peat deposits all C-14 dating young!
Percy writes:
Your position is not supported by that article, which only says (and I'm summarizing) that Siberia experience greater extremes of temperature during this period. Whatever implications that might entail for Greenland are not clear, but the evidence from the Greenland ice cores is what you would look to for evidence of either accumulating or melting ice layers.
The trees were growing far to the north in the yamal peninsula so the permafrost was not a problem. The mean growth suggested a long warm growing season and the only reason the Russians "assumed" a cold winter was ice wedges in the permafrost that likely happened when the land was quick frozen like as was documented in the other link about the Berezovka Mammoth in the Russian Museum.
In the same part of the link as the Berezovka Mammoth it talks of temperate plants and warm weather animals all jumbled together within the Artic Circle along the same latitude as Greenland all around the globe.
It was like there was a big flood that just jumbled all these warm blooded creatures and temperate plants together within the Artic Circle along the same latitude as Greenland all around the globe.
No real evidence the ice varves in Greenland could of existed with all these warm blooded creatures and temperate plant thriving for thousands of years 5,500 years ago.
If you note no wood dated older than 9,500 years old in the Russian study thus no temperate plants older than 9,500 years.
==================================================================
Ancient Ice
Ancient Ice
Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.
Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Percy, posted 10-29-2007 9:16 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Percy, posted 10-29-2007 1:17 PM johnfolton has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 224 of 357 (431124)
10-29-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by johnfolton
10-29-2007 12:53 PM


Re: Siberia's Massive Peat deposits all C-14 dating young!
reversespin writes:
In the same part of the link as the Berezovka Mammoth it talks of temperate plants and warm weather animals all jumbled together within the Artic Circle along the same latitude as Greenland all around the globe.
So if regions at the same latitude must have the same climate, that must mean that Barcelona, which is at roughly the same latitude as me here in New Hampshire, but must get at least several feet of snow a year. And that London, roughly 800 miles further north, must get many feet of snow.
But of course, London doesn't get much snow, and I doubt that it ever snows in Barcelona, so there goes your theory that equal latitudes mean equal climates.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by johnfolton, posted 10-29-2007 12:53 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-29-2007 1:54 PM Percy has not replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 225 of 357 (431128)
10-29-2007 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Percy
10-29-2007 1:17 PM


Re: Siberia's Massive Peat deposits all C-14 dating young!
Tell me about it.
I'm in the middle of Missouri on the same latitude as Cyprus and the northern part of the Sahara dessert.
We typically get winters where the temperature occasionally falls as low as -15 Fahrenheit (-26 Celsius)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Percy, posted 10-29-2007 1:17 PM Percy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024