Earth Younger Than First Thought

[Winter Warmer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10577055.stm

[bush]

So that means the earth is .015% younger than first thought ( comparative youngster?). So what is the error margin in the calculations then? Nothing involving isotopic dating can be done with such precision especially considering the speculation that the meteor subjects compared with are just presumed to be the same age as the solar system. More junk science. Sorry but just fed up with this sort of thing.

[Devonian]

So that means the earth is .015% younger than first thought ( comparative youngster?). So what is the error margin in the calculations then? Nothing involving isotopic dating can be done with such precision especially considering the speculation that the meteor subjects compared with are just presumed to be the same age as the solar system. More junk science. Sorry but just fed up with this sort of thing.

Bush, using what expertise do you judge it 'junk'?

[bush]

Dev just peruse these two paragraphs

.

The team compared the results from this technique with a similar method using two different isotopes. And instead of assuming that one method was more accurate than the other, and that the Earth formed at a steady rate, they modelled all of the different ways that the process could have happened.

"If correct, that would mean the Earth was about 100 million years in the making altogether," Dr. Rudge said. "We estimate that makes it about 4.467 billion years old - a mere youngster compared with the 4.537 billion-year-old planet we had previously imagined."

But never mind that:-

"The 'Late Heavy Bombardment' was a phase in the impact history of the Moon that occurred 3.8–4.0 Gyr ago, when the lunar basins with known dates were formed^{1, 2}. But no record of this event has yet been reported from the few surviving rocks of this age on the Earth. Here we report tungsten isotope anomalies, based on the ¹⁸²Hf–¹⁸²W system (half-life of 9 Myr), in metamorphosed sedimentary rocks from the 3.7–3.8-Gyr-old Isua greenstone belt of West Greenland and closely related rocks from northern Labrador, Canada. As it is difficult to conceive of a mechanism by which tungsten isotope heterogeneities could have been preserved in the Earth's dynamic crust–mantle environment from a time when short-lived ¹⁸²Hf was still present, we conclude that the metamorphosed sediments contain a component derived from meteorites"

In other words the crust contains varying amounts of tungsten that cannot be explained except perhaps by meteoritic contamination. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6896/abs/nature00923.html

Or maybe reading this http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=foLRISkt9gcC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=tungsten+in+meteorites&source=bl&ots=-rzNz6w1D0&sig=38Oa-AxDq0eccK2R7J2Rp2Mr4bg&hl=en&ei=Ofw9TKulNdjPjAfz4eH5Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=tungsten%20in%20meteorites&f=false

would help understanding the uncertainties.

[Devonian]

Dev just peruse these two paragraphs

.

The team compared the results from this technique with a similar method using two different isotopes. And instead of assuming that one method was more accurate than the other, and that the Earth formed at a steady rate, they modelled all of the different ways that the process could have happened.

"If correct, that would mean the Earth was about 100 million years in the making altogether," Dr. Rudge said. "We estimate that makes it about 4.467 billion years old - a mere youngster compared with the 4.537 billion-year-old planet we had previously imagined."

But never mind that:-

"The 'Late Heavy Bombardment' was a phase in the impact history of the Moon that occurred 3.8–4.0 Gyr ago, when the lunar basins with known dates were formed^{1, 2}. But no record of this event has yet been reported from the few surviving rocks of this age on the Earth. Here we report tungsten isotope anomalies, based on the ¹⁸²Hf–¹⁸²W system (half-life of 9 Myr), in metamorphosed sedimentary rocks from the 3.7–3.8-Gyr-old Isua greenstone belt of West Greenland and closely related rocks from northern Labrador, Canada. As it is difficult to conceive of a mechanism by which tungsten isotope heterogeneities could have been preserved in the Earth's dynamic crust–mantle environment from a time when short-lived ¹⁸²Hf was still present, we conclude that the metamorphosed sediments contain a component derived from meteorites"

In other words the crust contains varying amounts of tungsten that cannot be explained except perhaps by meteoritic contamination. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6896/abs/nature00923.html

Or maybe reading this http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=foLRISkt9gcC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=tungsten+in+meteorites&source=bl&ots=-rzNz6w1D0&sig=38Oa-AxDq0eccK2R7J2Rp2Mr4bg&hl=en&ei=Ofw9TKulNdjPjAfz4eH5Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=tungsten%20in%20meteorites&f=false

would help understanding the uncertainties.

If you have intelligent doubts wouldn't it be better to put those doubts to the scientists concerned rather than to dismiss them with words like 'junk science' on a internet forum?