Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Appreciate the Science Direct article - it's the most concrete piece of evidence I've seen relating to Dendrochronology yet. I went to the radiocarbon calibration program mentioned there (sonny apache server), and found this:http://www.radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/...airbanks0805.pdfIt looks like they're going primarily off Uranium-Uranium and Uranium-Thorium dating? I see more info is found on the first source given here:http://www.radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/.../radiocarbon.htmThe paper is:http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/pubs/2007_Chiu.pdfApparently the names given on the previous table are of islands, Kiritimati, Barbados, etc., where coral was sampled at, per this quote on page 21:

quote:

---

Atmospheric D14C values in this study were computed based on Eq. (1) using paired 230 Th/234U/238U and 14C dates obtained from fossil corals from Kiritimati, Barbados, Araki and Santo Islands (Fairbanks et al., 2005) (Supplementary Appendix A; Fig. 2). Detailed reservoir age determination is described in Fairbanks et al. (2005). The uncertainty of our 14C reservoir correction is not included in the following error analysis of D14C, but is speculated to vary by less than 7100 years (see sonny apache server for a global map of surface ocean reservoir ages), which is not significant in D14C estimates older than 30,000 years BP.

---

This also shows an area of speculation however, since reservoir age correction is "speculated to vary by less than 7100 years". Apparently they made a correction which isn't included in the error analysis and this is assumed to be correct because of 'speculation'.Page 22 appears to show an inconsistency in the data regarding atmospheric Carbon 14 levels incompatible with "model predictions" unless "carbon cycle parameters are adjusted to extreme parameters":

quote:

---

The atmospheric D14C record beyond 30,000 years BP has been an intriguing topic for the following reasons. Different archives do not exhibit the same D14C variations beyond 30,000 years BP, and there is no commonly accepted explanation for the high atmospheric D14C values (Beck et al., 2001; Hughen et al., 2004) recorded in most archives. Beck et al. (2001) and Hughen et al. (2004) used box models to try to interpret their D14C records from a Bahamian speleothem and sediment cores from the Cariaco Basin, respectively. These authors were unable to generate atmospheric D14C larger than 400 per mil in model simulations based on paleointensity-calculated 14C production and fixed or modern carbon cycle conditions (see model ‘‘A’’ in Beck et al., 2001 and model ‘‘a’’ in Hughen et al., 2004). Although our coral D14C estimates are based on high-precision and high-accuracy dating methods (Mortlock et al., 2005; Fairbanks et al., 2005), our record also yields D14C values as high as 800 per mil between 35,000 to 40,000 years BP (Fig. 4). A D14C value of 800 per mil is much larger than model predictions allow unless the carbon cycle parameters are adjusted to extreme values.

​

For example, Beck et al. (2001) model (C) manages to produce D14C values of about 600—800 per mil during 45,000 to 35,000 years BP, but only when the carbonate sedimentation rate is reduced to 12% of the modern value until 25,000 years BP and allowed to gradually be increased and resumed at 11,000 years BP. None of Hughen et al. (2004)’s model results could produce D14C values of 800 per mil even after a 50% reduction in surface-deep ocean exchange rate and 90% reduction of carbon flux into shallow marine carbonate sediments. Thus, the discrepancies between measured D14C and modeled D14C remained unresolved.

---

This is addressed later on pg. 26 as "difficult to explain by 14C production" and "there is sufficient uncertainty, on the order of several percent, to warrant re-measurement of the 14C half-life".

quote:

---

The long-term trend in D14C culminating in extremely high D14C values observed around 40,000 years BP (Fig. 2) (Beck et al., 2001; Hughen et al., 2004; Fairbanks et al.,2005) is difficult to explain by 14C production and various carbon cycle scenarios according to Beck et al. (2001) and Hughen et al. (2004). More intriguingly, the coral radiocarbon calibration curve of Fairbanks et al. (2005) seems strikingly linearover the entire 50,000 year time span, the differences between the paired coral 14C ages and the 230Th/234U/238U ages increase proportionately with time. The ‘‘selection’’ of the 14C half-life value is one parameter that would create a ‘‘proportional offset’’ between the calendar age and the 14C age and leads us to an analysis of the accuracy of the Godwin (1962) 14C half-life, 5730740 years. In the following section, we review the potential sources of error in computing the Godwin (1962) 14C halflife. We conclude that there is sufficient uncertainty, on the order of several percent, to warrant re-measurement of the 14C half-life using ion counting and other simplified, independent methods such as the calorimetry technique until concordant results are obtained.

---

As seen on pages 30-33, this led to a re-examination by the authors of the 14C half-life to try and make their data consistent, reconfiguring what they believe the half-life of Carbon 14 to be (pg. 33). No problem though, they just had to revise the half-life from 5,730 years to 6,030 years to make the results consistent - not a problem, right?

quote:

---

Having now evaluated the methods and related issues relevant to accurate determination of 14C half-life, we test the sensitivity on the calculation of D14C values to the halflife value. If the calorimetry half-life of 6030 years (Jenks and Sweeton, 1952) instead of the consensus half-life of 5730 years (Godwin, 1962) is selected for the computation of our coral D14C values (Eq. (1)), the recalculated D14C 6030 seem entirely consistent with the Beck et al. (2001) model (A) prediction in which mainly the production controls modeled D14C (Fig. 13). Although a correction of 14C halflife would affect the decay term in carbon box models as well, we have demonstrated the potential to reconcile the discrepancy between modeled D14C values and the coral D14C values using the reported calorimetry determined half-life of 6030 years. However, carbon box models are crude by design and cannot adequately reproduce natural variability of CO2, and so the models cannot serve as a confirmation for the ‘‘6030 years’’ half-life. New concordant 14C half-life measurements via calorimetry and modern counting techniques are needed.

---

The most recent paper on the data appears to be showing a number of uncertainties and causes for concern about the half-life measurements and prior atmospheric isotope levels of carbon 14. It only achieved consistent results by completely revamping the Carbon 14 half-life from conventional theory (pg. 34):

quote:

---

An under-estimate of the 14C half-life is a possible explanation for excessively elevated D14C values. If the calorimetry estimated 14C half-life, 6030 years, is validated by new half-life measurements, it could explain much of the linear component of the radiocarbon calibration curves and the discrepancy between D14C values derived from corals and modeled D14C values based on paleointensity combined with a range of carbon cycle scenarios. We conclude that the variation in paleointensity and a possible offset in the absolute value of 14C half-life together control the overall shape and amplitude in the D14C record for the past 50,000 years. A re-determination of the 14C half-life is urgently needed for radiocarbon-based research. After the 14C half-life is accurately measured and replicated by multiple techniques, our coral data will provide an opportunity to examine subtler carbon cycle influences on the younger half of the D14C record.

---

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : adding detailEdited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : fixed spacing of quotes

So in summary, your major source for this, the group doing all the research, shows as their top new source that the only way they could effectively combine Carbon 14 data with coral dates was to arbitrarily change the Carbon 14 half-life from 5730 to 6030 years, which over a 30,000 year period would mean a discrepancy of about 1,500 years. Rather than showing consistency it shows they still don't think the Carbon 14 half-life is certain yet and acknowledge it needs to be changed for their data to be presented as fact. Atmospheric Carbon 14 levels were inconsistent with the data and required the new speculation.I wonder what else I will find out if I check their other sources?Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Here's an analysis of their 2nd source provided (seen at bottom, Publications):http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/pubs/2006aChiu.pdfThe lead paragraph states the following:

quote:

---

230Th / 234U / 238U dating of fossil corals by mass spectrometry is remarkably precise, but some samples exposed to freshwater over thousands of years may gain and/or lose uranium and/or thorium and consequently yield inaccurate ages. Although a d234Uinitial value equivalent to modern seawater and modern corals has been an effective quality control criterion, for samples exposed to freshwater but having d234Uinitial values indistinguishable from modern seawater and modern corals, there remains a need for additional age validation in the most demanding applications such as the 14C calibration (Fairbanks et al., 2005. Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th / 234U / 238U and 14C dates on pristine corals. Quaternary Science Reviews 24(16—17), 1781—1796). In this paper we enhance screening criteria for fossil corals older than 30,000 years BP in the Fairbanks0805 radiocarbon calibration data set (Fairbanks et al., 2005) by measuring redundant 230Th / 234U / 238U and 231Pa / 235U dates via multi-collector magnetic sector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (MC-MS-ICPMS) using techniques described in Mortlock et al. (2005. 230Th / 234U / 238U and 231Pa / 235U ages from a single fossil coral fragment by multi-collector magnetic-sector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 69(3), 649—657.). In our present study, we regard paired 231Pa / 235U and 230Th / 234U / 238U ages concordant when the 231Pa / 235U age (72s) overlaps with the associated 230Th / 234U/ 238U age (72s). Out of a representative set of 11 Fairbanks0805 (Fairbanks et al., 2005) radiocarbon calibration coral samples re-measured in this study, nine passed this rigorous check on the accuracy of their 230Th / 234U/ 238U ages. The concordancy observed between 230Th / 234U / 238U and 231Pa / 235U dates provides convincing evidence to support closed system behavior of these fossil corals and validation of their 230Th / 234U / 238U dates for radiocarbon calibration and D14C reconstruction.

---

Well, so much for wondering if the last paper was a fluke. It seems the more I look into this the sketchier the research looks. Right away the article acknowledges freshwater throws off carbon dating by influencing thorium/uranium levels and repeats that "there remains a need for additional age validation in the most demanding applications such as the 14C calibration", meaning their dates won't work without revising conventional 14C half-life values - again. So if freshwater throws off dates considerably, I wonder what a global Flood (where all water gets mixed together) would do to them?In reading the 1st paragraph, I note that atmospheric levels of Carbon 14 are easily altered by changes in the solar magnetic field and geomagnetic field intensity, and therefore calibrations must be made to account for such decay alterations. It seems this confidence that isotope decay rates remain generally constant doesn't get as much mention when scientists are conversing among themselves in formal papers.

quote:

---

The records of atmospheric 14C concentrations contain important information about the Earth’s history (Libby, 1955; Stuiver and Quay, 1980; Damon, 1988; Bard et al., 1990a; Edwards et al., 1993). Fluctuations in atmospheric 14C are controlled by changes in the solar magnetic field (de Vries, 1959; Stuiver and Quay, 1980), in the geomagnetic field intensity (Sternberg and Damon, 1992; Bard et al., 1990a; Guyodo and Valet, 1999; Laj et al., 2000; Laj et al., 2002), and in the carbon cycling (Siegenthaler et al., 1980; Edwards et al., 1993; Hughen et al., 2000), and these factors operate on different time scales. As a result of these geophysical and geochemical processes, the radiocarbon age of an ancient sample is not equivalent to the calendar age and the radiocarbon chronometer must be calibrated. The most precise and accurate calibration can be achieved when both 14C ages and calendar ages are obtained from the same archived sample (Stuiver and Pearson, 1986; Fairbanks et al., 2005).

---

I continue reading (pg. 2432), expecting to see evidence of this 'consistency' that has you all so enthralled with the theory, and do not see it. The more I read, the sketchier this stuff looks. Now they're saying that the dates start getting really inconsistent when cross-matching multiple dating methods past 13,000 years, and especially bad past 24,000. Apparently there are "significant dating inaccuracies or weak assumptions in more than one of these studies". Also disturbing is that the studies showing these problems "have not been widely adopted for radiocarbon calibration purposes" suggesting previous scientists were just cherry-picking, picking and choosing the studies that supported the conclusion they wanted when recalibrating.

quote:

---

The various archives of atmospheric 14C content depart from one another beyond 13,000 years BP and depart dramatically beyond 24,000 years BP (Fig. 1), suggesting significant dating inaccuracies or weak assumptions in more than one of these studies (van der Plicht et al., 2004). Despite the quantity and quality of the radiometric measurements, most of these prior radiocarbon calibration or radiocarbon comparison attempts have not been widely adopted for radiocarbon calibration purposes (Reimer et al., 2004; van der Plicht et al., 2004) mainly because of uncertainties in the sample quality and geochemical history. The IntCal04 group formally concluded (Reimer et al., 2004; van der Plicht et al., 2004) that the discrepancies between competing radiocarbon calibration data sets older than 26,000 years BP were too large and the sources of these differences too uncertain that they were unsuitable for inclusion in the IntCal04 radiocarbon calibration curve. Instead, IntCal04 published an updated data ‘‘comparison curve’’ entitled NOTCal04 (van der Plicht et al., 2004).

---

I notice that for as chaotic as Figure 1 looks, it would be even more so had they not corrected their fossil corals for their new Carbon 14 half-life assumption. It makes it a little concerning that they can just revise the C14 half-life to make results consistent and then have the cross-matching portrayed as "consistent" like it is on this forum. In Figure 1's note it states,

quote:

---

Solid red circles represent fossil corals from Kiritimati, Barbados and Araki Island (Fairbanks et al, 2005; this study). All U-series dated coral archives were corrected using the most recent estimates of the 230Th and 234U half-lives (Cheng et al., 2000) in this figure.

---

It appears corals are especially desirable for cross-checking dendrochronology because (a) Uranium and Thorium levels can be accurately measured (so does that mean other sources can't?), (b) errors are easily identified and isolated, and (c) they are easy to sample from quantities worldwide.

quote:

---

Fossil corals may be regarded as one of the best archives for providing absolute chronology and extending 14C calibration beyond that obtained with tree rings (i.e. beyond 12,400 years BP) (Bard et al., 1990a; Cutler et al., 2004; Reimer et al., 2004; Hughen et al., 2004; Fairbanks et al., 2005). One of the greatest advantages to using fossil corals for radiocarbon calibration is that both 14C and 230Th / 234U / 238U ages can be measured accurately and precisely, and the corresponding errors are independent and have known uncertainties. Another advantage to corals is the fact that large samples may be collected from many tropical and subtropical locations worldwide and can be analyzed by independent laboratories using a range of processing procedures and instrumentation types for radiocarbon calibration validation.

---

On pg. 2433 it acknowledges freshwater contamination results in an "open system" rather than closed, raising a serious question mark regarding a key principle upon which radiometric dating rests.

quote:

---

While age dating of fossil corals by mass spectrometry is remarkably precise, a potential shortcoming of 230 Th/ 234U / 238U dating in samples older than 30,000 years BP is that corals may have been exposed to fresh water during sea level low stands. Only coral samples that grew at paleo-water depths deeper than 120 m remained in seawater during the subsequent glacial sea level lowstand (Fairbanks 1989; Peltier and Fairbanks, 2005). Exposure to the vados (rainwater percolating zone) and phreatic lens (fresh water table) may lead to gain and/or loss of U and/or Th, changing the [230 Th/ 234 U] activity ratio in the samples and thus compromising the accuracy of age determinations (Bender et al., 1979; Edwards et al., 1987; Hamelin et al., 1991; Gallup et al., 1994). Such open system behavior of samples cannot be easily identified but is typically recognized by the departure from the initial [234U / 238U] activity ratio (denoted as d234Uinitial) of a coral from the modern seawater value (Bender et al., 1979; Edwards, 1988; Hamelin et al., 1991; Henderson et al., 1993; Thompson et al., 2003; Scholz et al., 2004; Mey et al., 2005).

---

It's mentioned still on pg. 2433 how diagenetic calcite specifically is what's causing Carbon 14 accuracy problems from freshwater contamination:

quote:

---

Samples are screened for calcite by XRD at <0.2% detection level (Chiu et al., 2005). This is a particularly important screening step for outcrop coral samples which have been exposed to freshwater and have the potential of being contaminated with diagenetic calcite, thereby compromising the accuracy of the 14C age.

---

I'm not really sure I understand the whole concept of "spiking samples" with Uranium and Thorium to "approximate a target ratio". The fact that the result is "some additional quantity of its daughter product, 233U, may be added" worries me a little they could be inflating the ages slightly through adding additional Uranium like this. It's a bit hard to tell from the wording how much alteration such addition causes.

quote:

---

The chemical procedure used to separate U, Th, and Pa in fossil coral is briefly described in this section although a more detailed description and documentation can be found in Mortlock et al. (2005). A mixed 233U—229 Th spike was added to the sample to approximate a target ratio of 229Th / 230Th equal to 10 and 233Pa spike was added to approximate a target ratio of 233Pa / 231Pa equal to 2. For corals in the age range of 30,000—55,000 years BP, about 1.5 ng 233U and about 0.5—1 pg of 233Pa is added as spike. Since the spiking of samples with 233Pa may take place hours to days following its purification, some additional quantity of its daughter product, 233U, may be added. Although the additional contribution to the 233U spike from 233Pa decay represents at most about 0.1% of the total, a correction is made to the isotope dilution calculation for total uranium.

---

On pages 2434-2435 it's mentioned finally why freshwater contamination was occurring.

quote:

---

230 Th/ 234U / 238U and 231Pa / 235 U ages were obtained on selected fossil corals collected at two locations: Barbados and Araki Island. U-series dates from these samples were previously reported in Fairbanks et al. (2005) as part of the radiocarbon calibration data set. The Barbados sea level record (Fairbanks, 1989, 1990; Peltier and Fairbanks, 2005) indicates that the Barbados corals re-measured in this study were subaerially exposed to freshwater for about 15,000 years while the Araki samples were subaerially exposed nearly continuously due to the high uplift rate of Araki Island.

---

Seen on pg. 2435, freshwater contamination was the major reason samples were excluded, and resulted in rejecting 84 of the 145 fossil Araki corals (testing just 61).

quote:

---

Since our primary justification for redundant
231Pa / 235U ages is for validation of the 230 Th / 234 U / 238U ages in samples which can also be radiocarbon dated, we limited our selection of Araki fossil corals to only specimens found to contain <0.2% calcite and which were expected to fall within the
age range of radiocarbon dating. Sample ARA04-58E was chosen as a test of the 231Pa / 235U methodology. Visual inspection of fossil coral specimens in the field can generally screen those samples with more than 1% calcite. For general reference, 61 out of 145 fossil Araki corals analyzed by XRD methods (Chiu et al., 2005) were found to contain <0.2% calcite.

---

Much of the testing involved a new test for Protactinium which is surrounded by uncertainty (see pg. 2434 for more on that). One major outlier is not even mentioned while 3 of the other 12 results were also excluded though not as extremely inconsistent. It does raise the question, however, of whether this is cherry-picking and showing just the results that are "concordant"; consistent, with the desired conclusion.

quote:

---

The uncertainty of a sample [231Pa / 235U] activity ratio inherits the uncertainty from both the measured 233Pa / 231Pa and233U / 238U ratios and from the uncertainty in the concentration of the 233Pa spike. Therefore, we estimated the overall external precision of the measured sample [231Pa / 235U] activity ratio to be equal to the combined uncertainty in both the sample and standard 231Pa / 235U measured activity ratios. The averaged combined uncertainty in the [231Pa / 235U] activity ratio in these 12 samples is about 1.5% (2 RSD) and corresponds to a relative age uncertainty of about 72%. We shall regard a paired 231Pa / 235U age and 230Th / 234U / 238U age to be concordant when the analytical error in [231Pa / 235U] is p2% (2 RSD) and the 231Pa / 235U age (72s) overlaps the associated 230Th / 234U / 238U age (72s). One replicate 231Pa / 235U age (RGF12-28-6 [a]) clearly fails the concordancy test and is regarded as an outlier and is excluded from later discussion. Three samples have ages that fall only slightly outside of the corresponding 230Th / 234U / 238U age at 2s (Fig. 2 and 3) but must be designated discordant, even though the d234Uinitial values measured in these samples do not suggest open system behavior. The remaining nine samples have 231Pa / 235U ages that are concordant with the 230Th / 234U / 238U ages.

---

The study's findings contradicted another study which found Protactinium declined over time:

quote:

---

Our results appear to be in contrast to those reported using another MC-MS-ICPMS system (Finnigan Neptune), where it was observed that the measured 231/233 ratio in a Pa solution was found to decrease with time as 233Pa decayed to 233U (Regelous et al., 2004). The authors suspected the decrease in the ratio was due to more efficient ionization of U compared to Pa in the plasma source. The effect precluded the possibility of long-term storage of Pa fractions after the final chemical separation (Regelous et al., 2004).

---

In the Discussion section, the authors on pg. 2435 try to explain away the serious questions of this being an open system, saying the remaining 9 samples are consistent with a closed system - even though they admitted earlier many other samples from the same area were excluded for freshwater/calcite contamination resulting in open systems. Apparently these 9 samples were supposed to have been closed systems, nonetheless.As a side note, they mention theory at the end of just why elevated uranium levels result from open system contamination. Perhaps a global Flood mixing fresh water with salt water could be an explanation?

quote:

---

The d234Uinitial values obtained from the Pa—Th—U method in the twelve samples reported here ranged from 140 to 144 (Table 3) and fall within the range of d234Uinitial reported for other concordant 230Th / 234U / 238U and 231Pa / 235U dated samples in this age range (Cutler et al., 2004; Fairbanks et al., 2005) and within the range of d234Uinitial reported for modern corals (Delanghe et al., 2002). In contrast, open system corals are typically characterized by elevated d234Uinitial, and open system corals of approximately the same age generally plot as positive trends on [230Th / 238U] activity versus d234U measured (or [234U / 238U] activity) diagrams (Hamelin et al., 1991; Gallup et al., 1994; Thompson et al., 2003; Scholz et al., 2004; Mey et al., 2005). Alpha recoil addition of 234U (Villemant and Feuillet, 2003; Thompson et al., 2003) has been proposed to explain the anomalous ages and elevated d234Uinitial, but evidence from Holocene and last interglacial corals from the Gulf of Aqaba (Scholz et al., 2004) and marine isotope stage 3 Barbados corals (Mey et al., 2005) indicate that adsorption and not alpha recoil is probably responsible for the elevated d234Uinitial values generally characteristic of open system samples.

---

The charts on pages 2437 to 2438 look very nice and neat, but again, this appears to be because they removed inconsistent results including one major outlier.On pg. 2438, the authors speak of how consistent the results are, and how 9 reliable samples have been found, but mention that 2 will be excluded from future calibrations. Again, this raises the question of why they are keeping only the reliable results they want and removing the ones that are even slightly undesirable. To me at least, this looks suspiciously like cherry-picking, however fancy the terminology might be. They just completely removed the major outlier mentioned on pg. 2435 and the "Three samples [that] have ages that fall only slightly outside of the corresponding 230Th / 234U / 238U age at 2s (Fig. 2 and 3) but must be designated discordant, even though the d234Uinitial values measured in these samples do not suggest open system behavior."

quote:

---

The redating of 11 representative samples in our radiocarbon calibration curve for the time interval spanning 30,000 years BP to 50,000 years BP using the Pa—Th—U method confirms the accuracy of the coral calibration curve (sonny apache server) over this time interval where other archives yield disparate results (Fig. 1). By virtue of the redundant dating, nine calibration samples have been elevated from Categories IV to III (Fairbanks et al., 2005) and two samples are excluded from future versions of our radiocarbon calibration (e.g. Fairbanks0406).

---

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

As you are reading, don't forget that the calibration curves are designed to account for atmospheric fluctuations.It has been known for many years that the levels of C14 in the atmosphere vary due to changes in the sun's output and the earth's magnetic field, etc. Those changes that cause the atmospheric levels to vary by several percent, with the maximum around 10%.This is the reason for comparison of raw C14 ages with items of known age, such as tree rings, corals, and glacial varves. Once the differences due to atmospheric fluctuation are known, the curve allows unknown samples to be corrected or "calibrated" to produce accurate dates.Edited by Coyote, : Spelling

quote:

---

As you are reading, don't forget that the calibration curves are designed to account for atmospheric fluctuations. It has been know for many years that the levels of C14 in the atmosphere vary due to changes in the sun's output and the earth's magnetic field, etc. Those changes that cause the atmospheric levels to vary by several percent, with the maximum around 10%.

​

This is the reason for comparison of raw C14 ages with items of known age, such as tree rings, corals, and glacial varves. Once the differences due to atmospheric fluctuation are known, the curve allows unknown samples to be corrected or "calibrated" to produce accurate dates.

---

Still, the sheer amount of samples removed from the study for freshwater, open system contamination is a bit eye-opening. 84 of the 145 samples were removed for this contamination, 57.9%. And when they'd whittled down to 13 samples, they removed one for being a major outlier and 3 others for being minor outliers. I understand accounting for fluctuations, but throwing out almost your entire sample, whatever is "discordant" and doesn't agree with the result you want, strikes me as somewhat poor methodology.Supposedly there were supposed to be 61 samples left, even after tossing out over half for open system contamination (pg. 2435). And as best I could tell by the end, maybe I'm wrong - most of those just ended up disappearing and didn't get included in the results or final tally. Even if that wasn't the case, throwing out 4 of the 13 samples would be itself disturbing.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Are you seriously objecting to scientists removing known contamination? Would you have the same objection to police forensic scientists taking every care not to contaminate DNA samples at the scene of a murder. (Clue; defense lawyers tend to do their best to prove contamination of the sample.)I think you are now burrowing underneath the barrel, having reached the bottom of it and found it empty.

Whereas scientists, by contrast, are overwhelmingly convinced. So, why do scientists have a different opinion about science then non-scientists who have been systematically lied to by religious zealots? I have a conjecture that may just explain this ... it's because scientists know about science.

So, you read a paper containing words like: "remarkably precise", "rigorous check" and "convincing evidence" and you conclude that what they're talking about is "sketchy"? That is not in fact what it means. Hello ... earth to Jzyehoshua ... the atmospheric fluctuations in ¹⁴C have nothing at all to do with its decay rate.It appears that whenever you read something you don't understand, you just imagine that it must say whatever you want it to mean, and continue arguing on that basis. As a consequence, scientific illiteracy, and indeed just good old illiteracy, are among the most important techniques in your armamentarium.But this restricts the use of your nonsense. To equally ignorant and illiterate creationists, it will doubtless bring some comfort, as people like being told what they already believe. But as they do already believe it, it will make you no converts.If, on the other hand, you address it it the knowledgeable and literate, it will also make you no converts.I really wonder if it's worth talking to you at all. Either you are not trying to be right, or you simply lack the mental capacity to do so.

Hi JzyehoshuaStill trying to throw mud rather than address the correlations. Typical creationists dodge. Let me check: Which is what is quoted in Message 3 -- amusingly you can search the site for the paragraphs quoted and see that they are still there. So you are incapable of following a table of contents? They have changed the website format since the article was written but the information is still available.You will notice the (4) after the link and the references at the bottom:

quote:

---

(4) Reimer, Paula J. et al, "INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 CAL KYR BP" Radiocarbon, Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages v-1334 (March 2004), pp. 1029-1058(30). accessed 25 Dec 2007 from http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/...bon/GetFileServlet?
file=file:///data1/pdf/Radiocarbon/Volume46/Number3/azu_radiocarbon
_v46_n3_1029_1058_v.pdf&type=application/pdf

---

Clicking on the archives button on the Radiocarbon website and then finding and clicking on Volume 46, Issue 3 then on the table of contents you find

quote:

---

IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP.

​

Paula J Reimer, Mike G L Baillie, Edouard Bard, Alex Bayliss, J Warren Beck, Chanda J H Bertrand, Paul G Blackwell, Caitlin E Buck, George S Burr, Kirsten B Cutler, Paul E Damon, R Lawrence Edwards, Richard G Fairbanks, Michael Friedrich, Thomas P Guilderson, Alan G Hogg, Konrad A Hughen, Bernd Kromer, Gerry McCormac, Sturt Manning, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Ron W Reimer, Sabine Remmele, John R Southon, Minze Stuiver, Sahra Talamo, F W Taylor, Johannes van der Plicht, Constanze E Weyhenmeyer

---

Then click on the PDF button and you can download a copy of the article here
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/4167/3592 And you can follow the same path for reference (2) :Radiocarbon (abstract)
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/4172/3597 Curiously I can still find it in the article referenced (4) per above. Of course this means looking at the reference.Note that this is a scientific journal and the articles don't change after being published. They are also peer reviewed and tested by other scientists. And you should now be able to find those links, with the information I have provided. The reference lists are there for a purpose, not just window-dressing. BBC is a news organization not a scientific journal. It appears that you don't know how (or want) to find "good sources" but are really looking for bad or questionable sources. So somebody tried to do a poor job of matching and intentionally got poor results that they could post to fool the gullibles. Amazing. Proof once again that if you want to see lies and misinformation about science that you should go to a creationist site. Thanks for another creationist hoax link.Unfortunately this still does nothing to explain the correlations: why do the four independent dendrochronologies from different locations, different ecologies and different species match with 99.5% accuracy for 8,000 plus years?Why do the four dendrochronologies show the same ratio of 14C/12C at the same ages?All you have done is the standard creationist attempt to discredit a system that invalidates their beliefs, and you still need to address why the correlations occur if the method is so problematic.Perhaps it is because the science knows how and corrects for the problems that you have brought up, because scientists spend the time to do more than just a couple of ad hoc comparisons. Yes, I note that what you quoted says

quote:

---

Nevertheless dendrochronology is a reliable dating method. Why? The always used basic principle for the building of tree-ring chronologies and their application for datings is called replication. It should be illustrated by an example (Baillie 1983): If two tree-ring patterns A and B are similar to each other and a third tree-ring series C is found, which is similar to A, then C must be similar also to B at the same position; all further tree-ring patterns, which are similar to A, must be similar to B and C, etc. The reliability of a dendrochronological dating is based on these repeated agreements and mutual controls during the building of a chronology and, as much as possible, with each dating.

---

In other words, this shows how the science corrects for the problems of just using simple matches, as was done in your intentionally misleading "detectingdesign.com" link. It tells you why the system is a reliable method.Now, are you going to address the correlations or play more games?Enjoy.

Your error has already been pointed out. But, while somewhat OT, you obviously don't realize that radioactive decay is an "umbrella term" for three very different mechanism, mediated by the most fundamental properties of the Universe, and the many sub-types of the three types. Blithe invocation of changes in decay rates must be accompanied by a proposed mechanism for all these many different types changing in concert so as to maintain the consilience between different dating methods (got a little on-topic there!) and not leaving any of the expected evidence that changes to such fundamental aspects of the Universe would leave.A few quick examples: if radioactive decay were accelerated enough to be consistent with a 6,000-ish year old Earth, among the subtle signs that would be left would be a molten Earth, all life killed twice over by heat and radiation, and even if Noah built a solid lead Ark he'd be killed from the radiation of the potassium-40 in his body. (The RATE group was forced to acknowledge these obvious facts while trying to minimize them: RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems.)Changes of many fewer orders of magnitude are also ruled out by measurements of many different phenomena that would be affected. Brief descriptions and references for further reading may be found at The Constancy of Constants and The Constancy of Constants, Part 2 both by the eminently qualified Steve Carlip.So, please, no more claims about inconstant decay rates until you've done the math and provided a formal explanation for all the relevant observations.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Hi Jzyehoshua ''' misrepresentation of dendrochronology. Try using a scientific article instead of one from a lawyer creationist who doesn't know truth from fiction. Ah the fallacy of public appeal. Unfortunately, for you, we are talking about science and not popularity.Curiously the last time I checked 441,000>34,900 ... by an order of magnitude.Google RAZD ... About 2,000,000 results ... not all of which are me of course.Google scholar dendrochronology About 18,900 results
Google scholar "tree rings" About 36,800 results
Google scholar Jzyehoshua 1 result ... having to do with voter deception, not with science.
Google scholar RAZD EvC About 23 results, the first four being me, and the third having to do with this thread ...Of course an informed individual knows that regular google is influenced by the number of posts a person makes, not necessarily on people looking it up. It is also influenced by being on posts on sites like this. All you have shown is that you are prolific, not correct or popular. NONE of which explains the 99.5% accuracy between four independent chronologies, from different locations, from different ecologies, from different species. ALL of which are controlled for in proper scientific processes, as detailed in the articles about how scientists to the work. Do you not understand that sources of error are actually discussed by the scientists along with ways and means to control their effect in the overall results?Your "detectingdesign" link is giving you misinformation deliberately to fool gullible people. All people like this need to do is look up the scientific process, go to where sources of error are discussed, then replicate those errors intentionally and claim that they have found a problem with the method while failing to mention the means used to control the error.Your complete lack of skepticism for websites like this is astounding for someone who claims to be a skeptic that checks all their sources.Enjoy.

And only 2830 results for "giraffes are mammals". Those biologists clearly have a long way to go to persuade people that they aren't some kind of fish. However, I get a whole order of magnitude more results --- 21,200 --- for the phrase "creationism is bullshit", showing that the idea that creationism is bullshit has earned ~7.5 times as much public acceptance as the idea that giraffes are mammals.Either that, or you've discovered a whole new kind of worthless argument.---With reference to your link to the creationwiki, I should point out that the moderators disapprove of argument by link. This rule is an especially good one when it comes to the creationwiki, which was written by liars and fools. If there is anything in their disgusting stew of nonsense that you think is actually true, please put it in your own words and support it by reference to the scientific literature rather than the blunders and deceits of mendacious halfwits.

Your responses are failing to show a grasp of the radiocarbon method, but a firm grasp of creation "science."See my post on "what-ifs."

Hi JzyehoshuaDo you know what a correlation is? It does not appear that you do, as you have not discussed them at all.

quote:

---

correlation -- n
1. a mutual or reciprocal relationship between two or more things
2. the act or process of correlating or the state of being correlated
3. statistics the extent of correspondence between the ordering of two variables. Correlation is positive or direct when two variables move in the same direction and negative or inverse when they move in opposite directions

---

What do you think the probability of two independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and climate for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?What do you think the probability of three independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and climate for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?What do you think the probability of four independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and climate for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?What do you think the probability of two independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and 14C/12C ratios for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?What do you think the probability of three independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and 14C/12C ratios for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?What do you think the probability of four independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age and 14C/12C ratios for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?What do you think the probability of four independent dendrochronologies agreeing on age, climate and 14C/12C ratios for 8,000 years with an error of less than 0.5%?It should be stunningly obvious that the methodology is both accurate and consistently so when done properly. I'm glad you said one of the best ... because it isn't very good for you:

quote:

---

A literal understanding of the biblical chronologies places the Flood no earlier than about 2,500 B.C. and the creation no earlier than about 6,000 B.C. (Allowance for unlisted names in the biblical chronologies pushes back these dates, but not much). Yet the Bristlecone Pine (hereafter BCP) long chronology, comprised of hundreds of live and dead trees, is over 8,000 years long. The presence of fossiliferous sediment under the BCPs rules out any of them being pre-Flood. So, unless we choose to push the Flood back many thousands of years, effectively disregarding biblical chronologies, how can the conflicting chronologies be reconciled?

​

Conclusions

​

The 8,000-year-long BCP chronology appears to be correctly crossmatched, and there is no evidence that bristlecone pines can put on more than one ring per year. The best approach for collapsing this chronology, one that takes into the account the evidence from C-14 dates, is one that factors the existence of migrating ring-disturbing events. Much more must be learned about this phenomenon before this hypothesis can be developed further.

---

They have to make up "migrating ring-disturbing events" ... and then hypothesize thousands of them occurring even though there is no evidence of them not being accounted for in the scientific analysis. There analysis is bogus, and one way for you to see this is their claim re 14C ages

quote:

---

... It too allows for the march-in-step of BCP chronology with C-14 dates, which were artificially old to a greater-and-greater extent ...

---

The 14C dates are actually younger than the tree ring dates, not older, and the tree rings are being used to calibrate the 14C dates, not the other way around. If you are truly a skeptical investigator then this should raise big red flags about the accuracy of their information. Which is not the case here. Which is accounted for when they do the cross-matching. the changes in SIZE of the tree rings does not change the COUNT of the rings, and the patterns of climate are the same even though one tree produces thicker rings in general than another tree (ie due to age and ecological factors). It is the pattern not the absolute thickness. ... you still cannot explain the correlations.Enjoy.

All this means is that dendrochronologies are accurate for dating the last 8,000 years. This is a far cry from proving the earth is 4.56 billion years old.