http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== From c.leroy Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:44:12 -0700 (PDT) To: velikov at yahoogroups.com Subject: R.G.A. Dolby's Ice Core "Crucial Test" [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] For all the Sturm und Drang und Unordnung that the "ice cores" have generated since 1983 when R.G.A. Dolby's suppressed 1977 message was revived beginning with a short challenge (see below) sent to attendees to the C.S.I.S. conference (followed by being featured in my articles in SIS Workshop 5(4), 1984, and Kronos X(1), 1984), it ought to be surprising that Dolby's full paper has never been formally published, although copies of it were distributed to all attendees at Milton Zysman's August 1990 "Reconsidering Velikovsky" in Toronto, which included Charles Ginenthal and Gunnar Heinsohn who subsequently published his ignorant fantasy about the "lost squadron" from World War 2 trapped in Greenland's ice (recently resurrected for this list by Ted Holden). Dolby's article was planned to be an appendix to the section "Litmus Tests in the Ice" that was to have started off Part 2 (Conclusion) of my invited memoir at Aeon, "Of Lessons, Legacies and Litmus Tests: A Velikovsky Potpourri" whose Part 1 ran in Aeon 3(1), Nov. 1992; but the Conclusion was cancelled by Cochrane in June 1993. The section "Litmus Tests in the Ice" was emailed to this list in three parts in June 2000 without the Dolby appendix. Over the years much idiotic nonsense has been promulgated in reaction to the evidence against Velikovskian catastrophism by many apologists, including: Lynn Rose (who has never mentioned Dolby altho' he was sent a copy), Charles Ginenthal, Dave Talbott, Alfred de Grazia (see pp. 99, 101-2, Kronos X(1), 1984), Ted Bond (see p. 101, Kronos X(1), 1984), Henry Zemel, Bernard Newgrosh, Alasdair Beal, Fred Hall (in early issues of Aeon), et al. Thirty-two years after composition, here is Dolby's ice core "crucial test": On the Possibility that Ice Cap Cores May Provide an Empirical Test of Some of Velikovsky's Ideas. R.G.A. Dolby The earth's upper atmosphere is convected downwards in the polar regions, and with it some of the finer extra-terrestrial dust that falls on our planet. A proportion of thsi is deposited in the snow falling on the ice caps of Antarctica and Greenland. Thus, samples of the extra-terrestrial material(1) are trapped wtih other atmospheric dust(2) in successive levels of the ice and snow that have built up the ice caps. In recent years, deep holes have been drilled through this thick ice, and the cores of the holes extracted, to provide a continuous record of what was in the atmosphere over many years. The interesting question arises, could this record be made into an empirical test of Velikovsky's ideas? According to Velikovsky, large quantities of cometary material fell upon the earth in a number of catastrophes, the most recent being nearly 2,700 years ago. Some of this material would have reached the polar ice caps, and should still be present at the appropriate depth in the cores that have already been collected. It is a simple matter to study the cores carefully for signs of t his material. To the best of my knowledge, the only significant non-aqueous material reported is a certain amount of dirt in six layers up to 0.5 mm thick of the Byrd Station Antarctic core, at depths between 1300 and 1700 meters.(3) This dirt was tentatively identified as volcanic ash, and attributed to eruptions from volcanoes less than 300 kilometers away. The question I wish to consider is whether the evidence in this case could be built up sufficiently to be acceptable to Velikovskian catastrophism as a crucial test. There seem to be two possible Velikovskian explanations of the absence of a thick layer of cometary material in the cores taken. The ice caps may indeed be far older than human history (as evidence about sea levels in historical times would seem to suggest), but the heat of the catstrophe washed the ice caps clean, leaving no traces. Alternatively, it may be argued that the ice caps were formed, or reformed within historical times, and the date that is customarily construed as evidence of their greater age has been misinterpreted. I will attempt to show that both these alternative are improbable on the present information and that only a small amount of rechecking of the cores could come close to settling the matter. Consider first the idea that although the lower parts of the ice cap are old, the catastrophes melted and washed away large quantities of ice, including all the cometary material. If there had been a catastrophic melting of the (then) upper levels of the ice caps, it would be expected that when this ended the final surface would have a thick level of refrozen melt water. Now, in all but the lowest levels of the core, it is possible to tell from teh structure of the ice whether it was formed directly from snow, or if it has been melted and refrozen. For example it was noted by Gow et al that each of the dirt levels in the Antarctic dust between 1300 nad 1700 meters, previously mentioned, has a layer of refrozen melt water up to 10mm thick above it. This can be explained as due to the sun warming the darker dirt particles, which in turn melt the snow. The same report states that no other signs of melt were observed in the core. The only way in which such melt water could be removed without trace would be if in the years after the catastrophe the surface of the caps evaporated faster than snow was deposited. But that is an implausible suggestion in a world which has just had a sudden increase in the available water from the ice cap melt and from the cometary material. Furthermore, the finest material from the comet would have remained in the upper atmosphere long after the source of the catastrophe had gone and disturbances in the lower atmosphere and on the surface had ceased. For example, after the Krakatoa eruption, the extra upper atmosphere dust lasted several years. Therefore, the first levels of postcatastrophic snowfall on the ice caps should contain appreciable amounts of the cometary material. If in these first years the refrozen melt water was being evaporated from the ice caps, the post-catastrophic dust deposits would be more concentrated and therefore more noticeable in the record revealed in the ice core. The ice cores could easily be rechecked to confirm that none of these possibilities occurred. The second possible Velikovskian explanation is that the ice caps were formed much more quickly than is normally supposed, so that no trace of the catastrophes is to be expected in the existing ice. A number of methods have been used by scientists to date the ice cores. Many of these make uniformitarian assumptions which Velikovskians reject. For example, the simplest method of calculating the relationship of age and depth is to assume that the snowfall rate has been roughly the same as at present and that the deeper annual layers have been squeezed thinner in the normal pattern of glacier formation. But such calculations are only used when confirmed by other dating methods. One of the more interesting methods is to deterine the stable isotope ratio for oxygen (or for hydrogen) in each layer of the ice. This ratio is affected (among other factors) by the temperature at which the snow originally formed.(4) A regular seasonal variation can be followed through successive levels of the ice.(5) However, it has not proved practicable to use this variation to make absolute measurements of the age of the ice, as it is too complex, and the seasonal variations are blurred in the older levels as teh strata diffuse into one another.(6) However, the measurement of stable isotope ratios also indicates variations over longer periods. This has been related to climactic changes in average temperatures. Correlations can be found between the advance and retreat of ice ages by this method and such other methods as the dating of deep sea cores, dating of ice sheet retreats and advances, and so on. These methods indicate that the Greenland ice core is about 100,000 years old at the bottom, and agree with the assumption that annual snowfall rates have been roughly comparable to modern values over this period. It is not essential for my argument that Velikovskians should accpet the precise dating of the levels of the ice cores offered by physical scientists. All that need be shown is that the bottom of each ice core is considerably more than 3,000 years old. Even if the arguments already existing in the scientific literature do not show this, the use of stable isotope ratios could, I believe, settle the matter conclusively. In order for the ice caps to have built up within three thousand years, snowfall rates over them would have to have been of the order of thirty times as great as at present for a significant proportion of that time. (This figure need not be exact for my argument.) This is exceedingly unlikely in the interior of Antarctica, where the air is so cold that it can carry very little moisture. The stable isotope ratios, as I have already explained, give an indication of the temperature at which the snow was originally formed. Measurements already made show that the isotope ratio has not fluctuated very far from its present value in the top 800 meters of the Camp Century Greenland ice core.(7) Thus the temperature of formation has not greatly varied. This depth of ice corresponds, according to orthodox calculations top about 4,000 years. At gerater depths, the isotope ratios indicate that the was formed at much lower temperatures. Without the assumption that the air over the ice caps was once warmer, and thus capable of carrying much greater quantities of moisture, it is extremely difficult for Velikovskians to explain rapid ice cap formation. A further check on orthodox opinions about the rate of snow deposition on the ice cap over the last three thousand years could be made by studying the seasonal variations in stable isotope ratios. Even though it may not be practical to use these to give an absolute measure, they could be used to make spot checks at various depths on the thickness of the seasonal snowfall. The dramatic change in snowfall required for rapid ice cap formation could easily be detected. (The isotope diffusion problem anticipated in the lower levels of the ice core would be far less serious if the levels were formed more recently and the seasonal strata were far thicker.) I do not suppose that information about ice cores could be made into a completely decisive test of Velikovsky's arguments for the extra-terrestrial origin of historical catastrophes. It is always possible to find some way of questioning the scientific presuppositions of any conclusions that are drawn. But I do think that this is another source of information that should be drawn into the discussions of Velikovsky's ideas. If it turns out that the only way to avoid regarding it as a falsification is to make new ad hoc and implausible assumptions, then this will reveal something about the difficulties of Velikovsky's theory as an empirical hypothesis. And if, on the contrary, the theory can account for any difficulties with the ice core record, its claim to be a viable scientific doctrine would have new support. Footnotes: (available by request) ------------------ Keep in mind that Dolby wrote in 1977, five years before the Dye 3 ice core results were published, which was the first ice core from Greenland complete from top to bedrock. For additional background, see Sean Mewhinney, "Minds in Ablation" . His "Ice Cores and Common Sense", written in 1988, was published in Catastrophism & Ancient History 1990, XII(1) & XII(2), after Kronos and Aeon showed no interest in publishing it. Its monograph format was mailed to 110 interested parties in April 1989, including Dave Talbott and most of the Kronos staff. Canadian Ian C. Johnson, a widely published Velikovsky commentator, after reading "...Common Sense" noted that thus ended "twenty years of cheap thrills". Ellenberger, "Letter to Friends", Sept. 1, 1987 (mailed to over 200 people) Ellenberger, "Worlds Still Colliding" Ellenberger, "Litmus Tests in the Ice" A, B, C. email by request. The Implications of Volcanic Acid Fallout in Greenland for Velikovskian Catastrophes Until recently sufficient uncertainties existed with Greenland's ice cores to impune[sic] their ability to challenge both the timing and intensity of large scale volcanic eruptions during the time covered by Worlds in Collision. However, now the Dye 3 ice core from Greenland has been dated layer by annual layer back to 3600 B.P. The data from this core look good enough to preclude the occurrence of cosmic catastrophes at the times and of the intensity that Velikovsky's scenario requires. This conclusion relies on the assumptions that the catastrophes would inject volcanic gas and dust into the atmosphere which would be deposited on the polar ice caps and that the deposits are datable, preferably by counting annual layers, as is the case with Greenland's Dye 3 core. Of particular concern is the observation that volcanic acid fallout in Greenland, identified with ancient eruptions in the Velikovskian time frame, is comparable in amount to that associated with single recent volcanic eruptions. This is not what whould be expected if catastrophes of the magnitude envisioned by Velikovsky actually happened. Some may recoil at accepting the ice core data as credible evidence because it is based on uniformitarian assumptions. However true this may be, Velikovskian catastrophes SHOULD have left unequivocal marks in the ice cores--and such markers, the matter of dating aside, do not show up. Since ice formed from compacted snow can be distinguished from that formed from melted snow, even if melting washed away a tell-tale dust layer, the melting would be evident, and it is not. Until reason is substituted for faith, the evaluation of Velikovsky's ideas will remain an exercise in rhetoric. The reader is invited to study the papers cited below. The ice cap evidence, however, would not necessarily exclude catastrophes of the magnitude envisioned by Clube and Napier in The Cosmic Serpent. References: C. U. Hammer et al., J. Glaciology 20 (1978) 3-26. C. U. Hammer et al., Nature 288 (1980) 230-235. W. Dansgaard et al., Science 218 (1982) 1273-1277. C. Leroy Ellenberger --- On Sun, 7/19/09, Leroy Ellenberger wrote: >    Tree Rings & Ice Cores Do Not Lie: PC & EU Kerplunk!-- >       or Dave Talbott's > Nonsensical Delusion Debunked > > The following came to me in a flash of insight this > afternoon during mediation while watering the front lawn. I > recalled that in 1989 when Sean Mewhinney's monograph "Ice > Cores and Common Sense" was mailed to 110 hopefully > interested parties, Dwardu Cardona wrote back on June 14th > that he was "sold" on Sean's case for the evidence in the > Greenland ice cores that disproves any possibility of global > cataclysms of Velikovskian or neo-Velikovskian proportions, > while Dave Talbott (another recipient) somehow NEVER got > around to reading it for he never mentioned it in his ice > core comments on talk.origins in summer 1994 while he relied > on Charles Ginenthal's then unpublished article on ice cores > that was published in fall 1994 in The Velikovskian 2(4), > without ever saying so. Sean's "Ice Cores..." was a > refutation of Lynn Rose's nonsensical ideas in Kronos; his > subsequent "Minds in Ablation" dispatched > Charles Ginenthal's > further nonsense on which Talbott relied. > > For the benefit of the several newcomers to the forum, many > of whom are in thrall to Talbott's vaunted guru status, > please be aware that Talbott is a false prophet, whose ideas > have been disproved many times in multiple forums which he > refuses to acknowledge, much less rebut. > > Talbott's focus is exclusively on Saturn at the celestial > pole, which to him is the pole of the equator, while > dismissing the ancients' veneration of the pole of the > ecliptic. The most exalted place in the sky was NOT the pole > of the equator, but the pole of the ecliptic, the "pole par > excellence of the Chaldeans" [Hamlet's Mill, p. 143].  > When confronted with Assyriologist Peter Jensen's > identification of Anu with the pole of the ecliptic and > Bel/Enlil with the pole of the equator [Jensen, Die > Kosmologie der Babylonier (1890/1974), p. 143.], Talbott > declared "I certainly cannot accept" it [Talbott, The Saturn > Myth (1980), p. 342, n. 60.] THIS IS NOT HOW TRUE > SCHOLARS DEAL WITH CONFLICT. This is the posture of a > montebank. N.B.: Jensen's position is not unique, for it is > also to be found in Talbott's reference to Jeremias, > Handbuch der Altorientischen Geisteskultur (1913). > > Furthermore, Talbott never confronts the fact that, in the > Babylonian-Assyrian astrology that he cites, Saturn was NOT > given a specific name until AFTER "Jupiter and Venus were > specifically distinguished among the planets [Morris > Jastrow, Jr., "Sun and Saturn", Revue d'Assyriolgie 1910, > vol. VII, pp. 163-178]. When I raised this point against > Saturnism in my July 20, 1994, post to talk.origins, > Talbott's July 3 reply ignored it. > > As we are seeing with Tom Bridgman's series of critiques, > the Electric Universe is a non-starter, as was earlier > explained to Talbott, Thornhill, et al., in 1998 by Tim > Thompson, Robert Grumbine, Wayne Throop, Karl Hahn, Burch > Seymour, and others in various electronic forums. However, > even earlier in 1985 in Kronos X(3) in the section "Electric > Stars" as part of my "Still Facing Many Problems, Part 2", I > disproved Juergens' model while showing that every reason he > gave for developing it was either wrong or seriously > flawed. While several readers of Kronos wrote to > criticize various topics in my article, NO ONE ever > criticized anything in "Electric Stars"--and among the > subscribers were Earl Milton, Wallace Thornhill, and Donald > Scott, who said nothing. > > Some seem to take heart from Tony Peratt's work in which a > super-active Sun over a century or more many thousands of > years ago produced stupendous plasma displays which were > preserved by our ancestors world-wide in rock > carvings. Be all that as it may be, as I have pointed > out more than once to this list, Peratt's scenario would > have produced a characteristic signature of Beryllium-10 > deposition in the world's glaciers and ice caps and no such > signal is seen in the cores extracted. However, as Mike > Baillie has indicated, the very same plasma displays over a > shorter time-scale could have been produced during a > perihelion passage of proto-Encke in the Taurid-Encke based > recent episode of "coherent catastrophism" proposed by > Victor Clube and Bill Napier. I have also pointed out that > the petroglyphs on Easter Island, catalogued by Peratt, are > too young to fit into Peratt's scenario because Easter > Island was uninhabited at the early time Peratt ascribes to > his model; but they are compatible with Baillie's > model and its timing. Hmmm. > > Oh, yes, and there is nothing in the proxy climate records > preserved in the world's tree rings and ice cores that > supports the Holocene planetary fantasies promulgated by > comparative mythologists who, clearly, are clueless in the > mythosphere and deluded beyond redemption! > > And, that's the way it is. A day like all other days, > except you are there! > > Cheers,   Leroy >