Why is the climate changing. (Page 132)

ghostgeek: It's only believers who try to discredit the science behind these dating procedures.

zeffur: If your science is bullet proof--then you should surely be able to prove it, right? If you can't, then that speaks volumes about it's lack of credibility.

ghostgeek: So, are radiometric methods foolproof? Just how reliable are these dates?

As with any experimental procedure in any field of science, these measurements are subject to certain "glitches" and "anomalies," as noted in the literature. Skeptics of old-earth geology make great hay of these examples. For example, creationist writer Henry Morris [Morris2000, pg. 147] has highlighted the fact that measurements of specimens from a 1801 lava flow near a volcano in Hualalai, Hawaii gave apparent ages (using the Potassium-Argon method) ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years, citing a 1968 study [Funkhouser1968]. In the particular case that Morris highlighted, the lava flow was unusual because it included numerous xenoliths (typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material) that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the Earth but not completely melted in the lava. Also, as the authors of the 1968 article were careful to explain, xenoliths cannot be dated by the K-Ar method because of excess argon in bubbles trapped inside [Dalrymple2006]. Thus in this case, as in many others that have been raised by skeptics of old-earth geology, the "anomaly" is more imaginary than real.

[ https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php ]

ghostgeek: The overall reliability of radiometric dating was addressed in some detail in a recent book by Brent Dalrymple, a premier expert in the field. He wrote [Dalrymple2004, pg. 80-81]:

These methods provide valid age data in most instances, although there is a small percentage of instances in which even these generally reliable methods yield incorrect results. Such failures may be due to laboratory errors (mistakes happen), unrecognized geologic factors (nature sometimes fools us), or misapplication of the techniques (no one is perfect).

We scientists who measure isotope ages do not rely entirely on the error estimates and the self-checking features of age diagnostic diagrams to evaluate the accuracy of radiometric ages. Whenever possible we design an age study to take advantage of other ways of checking the reliability of the age measurements. The simplest means is to repeat the analytical measurements in order to check for laboratory errors. Another method is to make age measurements on several samples from the same rock unit. This technique helps identify post-formation geologic disturbances because different minerals respond differently to heating and chemical changes. The isochron techniques are partly based on this principle.

The use of different dating methods on the same rock is an excellent way to check the accuracy of age results. If two or more radiometric clocks based on different elements and running at different rates give the same age, that's powerful evidence that the ages are probably correct.

[ https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php ]

ghostgeek: Along this line, Roger Wiens, a scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, asks those who are skeptical of radiometric dating to consider the following (quoted in several cases from [Wiens2002]):

There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.

All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some [skeptics] make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!

Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.

Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.

A recent survey of the rubidium-strontium method found only about 30 cases, out of tens of thousands of published results, where a date determined using the proper procedures was subsequently found to be in error.

Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.

The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.

[ https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php ]

zeffur: Show us definitive proof that the sample that you cite has been independently verified to be dated correctly...

theHating: When my balls get sweaty and the skin is all warm and loose, i pull em up over the waistband of my underpants so I don't accidentally sit on them.

I win.

theHating: I'm actually wondering if anyone else has figured out this amazing life hack, or if I need to make a youtube tutorial on it

ghostgeek: Zeffur, show us definite proof that the Gospels aren't total bollocks. Sorry about my language but a certain individual's posts had a disorienting affect upon me.

zeffur: Properly read & apply the good things found in the bible & you will have all of the evidence that you require--because God will bless you as you've never been blessed before if you are sincere. Your failure to have such faith will cause you to continue to doubt.

ghostgeek: Yeah, I guess if you lack faith you'll continue to doubt.

kittybobo34: Ghost,, I think his point was that because there are some good things in the bible,, that is proof that its all true. A con mans dream that everyone should think that way..

ghostgeek: The Bible has no monopoly on good teaching.

zeffur: What a joke. Most of civilized Western civilization is based on Biblical laws & morals--not the unstable relativism of atheists & their rarely followed 'ethics'

zeffur: re: "kittybobo34: Ghost,, I think his point was that because there are some good things in the bible,, that is proof that its all true. A con mans dream that everyone should think that way.."

Since when is it a con to personally choose to do what is right & good rather than to choose to do what is wrong & evil? Your logic has no worthy foundation.

ghostgeek: Matt 5:38-48

[38] Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
[39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
[40] And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
[41] And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
[42] Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
[43] Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
[44] But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
[45] That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
[46] For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
[47] And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
[48] Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

ghostgeek: Cars with hydrogen fuel cells instead of the typical lithium-ion batteries from electric cars offer an attractive value proposition that seems to get rid of the problem of the end of the lithium batteries life cycle. This is a plus as for now, at a time when there’s still some uncertainty about the future of these batteries (from cars, but also from solar panels, cellphones and others) once they no longer serve their main purpose. They’re hard to recycle and some projects are being developed to reuse them as back up generators in urban buildings like hospitals.

As well, driving without any polluting emissions (as would happen if we considering renewable energy grids are growing worldwide with decarbonization) with the plus of being quickly refueled in 5-10 min compared to the best case scenario of 40 minutes charging or the most common scenario of 3-6 hours charging in electric cars, is an unquestionable win for the hydrogen mobility movement too.

[ https://youmatter.world/en/hydrogen-electric-cars-sustainability-28156/ ]

ghostgeek: The promises of hydrogen are convincing indeed. It is a clean fuel with no harmful tailpipe emissions (unless you are harmed by water and oxygen. If so, please see a doctor immediately). Hydrogen vehicles are basically electric cars with a fuel tank. They boast the performance and instant torque of battery electric cars, while providing greater range than any pure EV on the market today. Lastly, refueling times are comparable to gasoline cars, obviating range anxiety and lengthy charging stops. And no conversation of hydrogen power would be complete without a mention that this is the most abundant element in the universe – so we can move on now.

The detractors of hydrogen would point out that fuel cell tanks can explode in an accident, that the fueling infrastructure is lacking, and that the technology is unproven. And they would be completely right. But frankly all or some of these are roughly the same negatives as using gasoline, diesel, pure-grain alcohol, steam, or battery electric cars. Every fuel source has its own shortcomings, and hydrogen’s are certainly not outsized compared to its competitors.

[ https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hydrogen-cars/ ]

ghostgeek: Investors are gearing up for the hydrogen economy.

Consider that stock in battery- and fuel cell-powered heavy duty truck maker Nikola (ticker: NLKA) is now worth billions. The company wants to revolutionize heavy duty trucking with cheap hydrogen fuel. Its stock exploded onto the scene in June, at one point eclipsing the value of Ford Motor (F).

Nikola isn’t the only one interested in hydrogen. Traditional trucking firms such as Cummins (CMI) and Paccar (PCAR) are investing in hydrogen tech, too.

[ https://www.barrons.com/articles/nikola-stock-rise-hydrogen-future-role-51595607803 ]

ghostgeek: Macquarie synthetic biologists have made a breakthrough in renewable energy production by creating genetically-engineered sugar-loving bacteria that can produce on-demand, zero-emission hydrogen fuel faster than has been done anywhere else.

News of a renewable carbon-free energy source which can cheaply convert cane sugar into hydrogen with pure water as the only by-product, is a welcome breakthrough.

Bio-hydrogen production is in its infancy and in Macquarie University’s new synthetic biology innovation, the bacteria are not just the fastest hydrogen-producing microbes around, they are also happy to sit around with no food for months on end – then launch into action to produce on-demand energy.

“There’s already early interest from sites that use diesel generators, such as remote and island communities,” says Professor Robert Willows, a synthetic biologist in Macquarie University’s Department of Molecular Sciences.

The team is developing a prototype and early results suggest that the technology will be cheap to run, quiet and be very low-maintenance.

[ https://lighthouse.mq.edu.au/article/september2/designer-bacteria-could-fuel-the-future-with-cheap-hydrogen ]

kittybobo34: Ghost,, that is amazing if true. Gives me hope for the future. Now if they can just figure out how a humming bird generates all that mechanical energy on a few drops of sugar water

zeffur: re: "ghostgeek: Macquarie synthetic biologists have made a breakthrough in renewable energy production by creating genetically-engineered sugar-loving bacteria that can produce on-demand, zero-emission hydrogen fuel faster than has been done anywhere else."

Sweet! pun intended. lol

Just add carbon from C02 & we can keep using gasoline which is a convenient & dense fuel source with a net-zero C02 emission when manufactured that way!

ghostgeek: Japanese scientists say they have revived microbes that were in a dormant state for more than 100 million years.

The tiny organisms had survived in the South Pacific seabed - in sediment that is poor in nutrients, but has enough oxygen to allow them to live.

Microbes are among the earth's simplest organisms, and some can live in extreme environments where more developed life forms cannot survive.

After incubation by the scientists, the microbes began to eat and multiply.

[ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53575103 ]

ghostgeek: Finnish scientists producing a protein "from thin air" say it will compete with soya on price within the decade.

The protein is produced from soil bacteria fed on hydrogen split from water by electricity.

The researchers say if the electricity comes from solar and wind power, the food can be grown with near-zero greenhouse gas emissions.

If their dreams are realised, it could help the world tackle many of the problems associated with farming.

[ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51019798 ]

ghostgeek: Seems bugs are the answer to everything.