Greenland Ice Cores

quote:

---

Ok, to be honest, that is a lot of information, I currently understand that, the dating methods you have all given me seem to be consistent within eachother, astronomical occurences and etc... Is it true that most or all of the prominent dating methods rely on Radioactive decay?

---

I like the hawaiian islands as a perfect example of three different measures that agree: erosion, tectonic movement, and radioisotope dating. The hawaiian islands are the product of a stationary hotspot. As the pacific plate moves over the hotspot a new island is formed. Kind of like Hansel and Gretel leaving a bread trail behind them. If we assume that this process has been going for a while, we should be able to date all of the islands in the chain, and these ages should correlate with the movement of the pacific plate.This is the graph of the data: As you can see, especially with the newest islands in the chain, there is a strong correlation between age and the distance from Kilauea, the newest volcanoe that is located over the hotspot. secondly, the distance and ages also match the movement of the pacific plate (8.3 cm/year). Along with this, as you travel farther from Kilauaea the islands are more eroded. This also fits. For more info, go here. Again, all data meets at one point, the accuracy of radioisotope dating and an old earth.

Abby,I got the chart from Hawaii Center for Volcanology | Formation of the Hawaiian IslandsIt also includes a chart on the erosion pattern. The site also lists about 30 data points (distance and K/Ar age). I have been meaning to make a chart that includes the data points and also has a line depicting the 8.3 cm/yr movement of the pacific plate. 8.3 cm/yr ----> 83 M/1000 years ----> 83 km/Myr would be the conversion for the chart. This would mean that after 65 million years an island should have moved 5,400 km. The oldest data point on the site above was Suiko central, dating 64.7 Myr and 4,860 km from Kilauea. The slight discrepancy can be attributed to slight variations in plate movement or slight movement of the hotspot over the years, but the numbers are quite close.PS: This island chain is mostly underwater and extends towards Siberia. The Hawaiian Islands comprise the most recently created islands in the chain. Enjoy.Added in edit: You will also notice from the site that the ages and distances were collected from many different sources, not just one survey. I think this lends credibility to the chart, in that the numbers were collected independently and by several different investigators. Such is the power of science.
[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-18-2004][This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-18-2004]

Abby,Couldn't help it, I had to make that graph. Instead of plotting 8.3 cm/yr I did a line of best fit (simple regression). I got an R²=0.9826, and y=0.013x-2.7085. I obviously didn't force it through the origin, but the slope is 0.013 or 76.9 km/million years. This is pretty close to the 83 km/million years if current movement is extrapolated out. I would attach the excel file, but forum rules prohibit this. It only took me about 5 minutes to do it, so it shouldn't take long to reconstruct.Also, I was hunting around for the actual measurements of the plate movement. I found this pic:{Edited scaling, to restore page width to normal. Right click on graphic to see full scale version. - Adminnemooseus}The measurements do differ between islands, anywhere from 6.4 to 8.5 cm/yr. So this could factor into the slop of the regression above.If you right click on the pics you can get the source material, at least with most internet viewers.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-18-2004][This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-19-2004]