Perry –
Summary: You
initially were told that counting layers is not how age is worked out. You get butt hurt and link to something that
shows annual layering. I then explain what annual layering is and you
get butt hurt and pretend that the two things are the same therefore I am
contradicting myself!
I see you still do not understand what is going on
here. Therefore:
“When asked, “Bob, when you dug that
airplane out, how many layers of ice were there above the airplane?”, He said,
“Oh, there were many hundreds of layers of ice above the airplane.”
The facts are that in only 48 years, these planes were already under
260 feet of ice, and under "many hundreds" of ice layers.” – Perry
This led to
my initial response to your lack of understanding as to what a layer is. Your own post speaks for itself; in only 48
years there were many hundreds of layers above the planes. This should encourage you to realise that
more than 1 layer can be lain down in a year.
Therefore counting layers is not how you work out ages. Would you agree?
An annual
layer, on the other hand, are 1 or more layers that have been lain down over
the course of a year; hence the term annual layer. Do you know how those boundaries are worked
out?
The rest of
your latest post is a rambling of ignorance.
The question
you need to ask and seek an answer for is this:
How do you
work out where 1 year stops and the next year starts when using ice cores?
Pasting
silly pictures does nothing to enhance your argument other than to further
demonstrate you do not understand what it is you are talking about e.g.
“We date the ice layers by the carbon 14 and
we calibrate the carbon 14 by the ice layers” – Perry
Silly... Do you understand what relative dating is and what absolute dating is?
Oh, and ice cores are only like tree rings insofar as an analogy... Perhaps that is where your confusion is arising.