" This presents a problem. A review of four eruption chronologies constructed since 1970 illustrate this problem quite nicely. In 1970, Lamb published an eruption chronology for the years 1500 to 1969. The work recorded 380 known historical eruptions. Ten years later, Hirschboek published a revised eruption chronology that recorded 4,796 eruptions for the same period – a very significant increase from Lamb’s figure. One year later, in 1981, Simkin et al. raised the figure to 7,664 eruptions and Newhall et al. increased the number further a year later to 7,713. It is also interesting to note that Simkin et al. recorded 3,018 eruptions between 1900 and 1969, but only 11 eruptions were recorded from between 1 and 100 AD. So obviously, as one goes back through recent history, the number of known volcanic eruptions drops off dramatically, though they were most certainly still occurring – just without documentation. Based on current rates of volcanic activity, an expected eruption rate for the past several thousand years comes to around 30,000 eruptions per 1,000 years.25 With such a high rate of volcanic activity, to include many rather large volcanoes, how are scientists so certain that a given acid spike on ECM is so clearly representative of any particular volcano – especially when the volcanic eruption in question happened more than one or two thousand years ago? The odds that at least one volcanic signal will be found in an ice core within a very small “range of error” around any supposed historical eruption are extremely good - even for large volcanoes. Really, is this all too far from a self-fulfilling prophecy? How then can the claim be made that historical eruptions validate the dating of ice cores to any significant degree?" detectingdesign/ancientice.html
Posted on: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:01:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015