Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-28-2017 4:28 AM
111 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 109 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,131 Year: 13,737/21,208 Month: 3,219/3,605 Week: 5/556 Day: 5/54 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234567
8
Author Topic:   Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 106 of 119 (713241)
12-11-2013 6:44 AM


Edited.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 73 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 107 of 119 (713242)
12-11-2013 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
12-10-2013 6:15 PM


Re: SUMMARY -- reply 3a: Lake Suigetsu pt 1
What I have said is that there are two alterrnating layers, clay and diatoms; that the clay particles are suspended colloids, and I demonstrated with Stoke's Law that the settling velocity was on the order of 15 inches per day. Thus in a 100 ft deep lake a particle would take about 80 days to settle from the surface to the bottom -- almost 3 months. By contrast the diatoms settle in days, so multiple blooms would not have a clay layer between them until there was a period of months between diatom deposits. This is not a difficult concept -- it IS the basic physics of sedimentary processes for the particles involved, and these don't change

Your own link claimed that the dust settled regularly over the whole year. I don't see the relevance of the settling velocity for your argument, if the dust sinks slowly or fast, there is a regular amount of dust settling on the lake floor during the entire year. The only factor that changes the sediment density on the lake floor is the diatom die-offs because the dust is constant. We seem to be in agreement on this.

Of course. Dust that settles slowly out of the air would drop like rocks in the water eh? Big dust storms regularly blow over and drop tons of dust ... oh wait, wind is limited.

The volcanic tuffs were noted before -- and that they actually demonstrate intervals of time in between eruptions ...

And the leaves and twigs are not blanketing the bottom or the correlation curve would be a solid line instead of points ..

So we are left with dust, pollen and the clay that makes it in from the Lake Mikata ... which all settle slowly

No problem with this, it all suits my argument.

Yes, indeed ... when there are environmental causes for blooms (large influx of nutrients) and die-offs (massive toxic conditions).

Neither of which have been documented in this location. Do you have evidence of this occurring at this location or are you just grabbing at straws again?

Got any EVIDENCE?

Yes, in low lying coastal regions the water table is dominated by salt water from the ocean. In spring tides, this would affect all lakes close to the ocean. This would kill freshwater diatoms who die when exposed to salt water. I have presented my evidence in earlier posts. I need your evidence that freshwater diatoms definitely CANNOT be affected by the rising salt water table in a lake next to the sea. I do not see that as a possibility, please tell me how its possible for the deepest freshwater algae during an algae bloom in Lake Suigetsu to survive regular influxes of salt water.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2013 6:15 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2013 3:57 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 73 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 108 of 119 (713251)
12-11-2013 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD
12-10-2013 9:03 PM


Consilience - again..
Again, it either is or it isn't. And if it LOOKS like consilience but isn't you have to explain WITH EVIDENCE why.

If you are going to argue that each item in consilience is actually a random occurrence then you have that problem with "vanishingly small" probability of this happening.

If you are going to argue that each item is wrong but just happen to match then you need to show how this magic match occurs.

You can't change the varves with the things you think change the tree rings and vice versa.

So why do they match with such accuracy?

Please provide examples and demonstrate that they are as suitable as Lake Suigetsu. You can chase this straw grabbing rabbit hole.

Like I said before, its the very uniqueness of the locations used that are damning for evolutionary timeframes.

ANY location would be better than Suigetsu. They did not take into account that diatoms have regular die-offs that are not always annual. Any study on Lake Suigetsu which claims that the lake shows annual layering should have gone into great depth to explain away the fact that algae does not often have just one annual die-off.

Because Suigetsu is not a conclusive location, nearly anywhere else is a better location. Nearly every river on earth with a wide catchment area flows into a lake or the sea. There would be recognizable annual sedimentation layers in thousands of locations across earth .....and yet of all these locations the only places that seem to have consilience are ones with a strange set of circumstances like Lake Suigetsu. The rareness of the consilience is ridiculous.

It would be fascinating to dig down into nearly every lake on the planet, I predict you would find a strong trend that organic matter in annual layers in other lakes have way too little carbon for the annual layers in which they lie. Thus I predict that a definite 3500 year old layer in most lakes would show a 30 000 plus carbon date in a location that has more definite annual layers than the dodgy dates of Suigetsu.

Oh too bad, guess we'll just chuck the whole thing, eh? Or you could look at climate patterns and see if it should have made a deposition rather than just make it up?

I don't follow your point here, kindly explain further.

But you would also need to reduce the age for those volcanos by a factor of 11, or are only some parts of the world affected by the magic mysterious factor and not others? How do you know?

Yes the carbon dates after about 1800 bp would have to be recalibrated. The recent historical dates are recorded in Japanese literature and need no adjustment whatsoever.

Looks like hundreds of points of virtual agreement between Cariaco Basin varves (which we have yet to discuss), plus strong correlation to Lake Suigetsu for the period of triple overlap.

These overlaps are established by wiggle-matching ... essentially the same process as used to form the dendrochronologies except that they use 14C/12C levels instead of ring widths. With the same high degree of accuracy:

Note that Fig 1 shows how the floating varve chronology was tethered to the German Preboral pine chronology, and the accuracy (r=0.989, where r=1 would be an exact match). In note 20 of the paper it talks about the accuracy and precision of this match:

quote
20. The floating German pine chronology was itself anchored to the absolute oak dendrochrology primarily through wiggle-matching 14C variations, but also through matching ring-width patterns. Uncertainty in the absolute pine age is reported conservatively at +/-20 years to account for the relatively short period of overlap (

Haha the floating German pine chronology? Matched through carbon dating?? And you want to use it to corroborate carbon dating... hehe

Recognise the circular reasoning????? Oh well.....rather just keep to the so-called absolute oak dendrochronology from now.

Every spot on earth receives seasonal weather patterns. Its damning to carbon dating that only a few locations corroborate carbon dating. Even if you had 20 this would be damning. If you had about 10 000 locations this would make a convincing case. I don't find your consilience argument strong at all, in fact the dearth of corroborating locations and the need to find a strange set of circumstances before there is consilience is in fact embarrassing.

The varves in Cariaco basin are created by....... guess what....... algae/diatoms. But the uniqueness of this location is that its a uniquely anoxic ocean, and these are anoxic diatoms. Their die-off are caused by nitrate and silicon cycles.
http://www.geol.sc.edu/...Page/Thunell%20et%20al.%202008.pdf

As for tree ring chronologies, the older "floating chronologies" are anchored to "known dates". How else would they date a floating chronology?? These known dates are nearly always related to carbon or Th-Ur dating. (frost rings of known volcanic eruptions). When the older chronologies are joined to earlier chronologies it is with unreliable techniques using low probability matching sequences. Even these low probability sequences show up as 99.5% matching according to their techniques which show that the percentages themselves are unreliable.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2013 9:03 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2013 5:50 PM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2013 6:41 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18472
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(7)
Message 109 of 119 (713291)
12-11-2013 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by mindspawn
12-11-2013 2:28 AM


Re: SUMMARY -- regrouping
You are scattering your replies among many posts. This point should logically be included in your answer to my point G of my message 92. I will reply to this point when I reply to that point.

This is because your 'summary' was scattered and disjointed, filled with misinformation, mistakes and misunderstanding ... each requiring some detail to answer properly. Fairly typical creationist fare, complete with supposition in place of actual evidence for any claim.

Your latest posts are even worse.

If you want short concise replies start dealing with the issues in a concise and focused approach. So far all you are doing is repeating arguments while ignoring the evidence that invalidates it and then jump on every new piece of information to twist it some other way, grab another straw, run down another rabbit hole. This is not productive in reaching a resolution, it is avoiding the issue (cognitive dissonance behavior).

So lets do some short(er) reviews to recap where we are in this debate, one issue at a time, starting with tree rings.

One thing you could do would be to -- briefly -- list your mechanisms for altering the time scales, one by one, and explaining where these 'errors' occur in the chronologies, why they occur, and the objective empirical evidence that they did occur.

This is what science and objective empirical evidence says:

  1. Bristlecone pine -- anchored annual tree ring count chronologies:
    1. the 'old' chronology (Methuselah, White Mountains), anchored by living trees to 1953 CE and extending 8,653 years to 6,700 BCE,
    2. a 'new' chronology (Campito Mountain), anchored by living trees to 1971 CE with 5,403 annual values extending to 3,433 BCE, (corrected to 5,405 years to 3,435 BCE see below),
    3. no extra ring growth has been recorded in either chronology, even when climate was favorable for a stress ring
    4. frost rings were recorded in both chronologies
    5. one missing ring was found in some tree samples during the first 18 years of the Campito chronology
    6. it is very probable that low sample size could result in failing to identify a missing ring in all of the samples
    7. the overlap period is 5,397 years long from 1962 CE to 3,435 BCE with only two errors,
    8. one missing ring was found in all samples of the Campito chronology at (8000-5859M=) 2,141 BCE, and this matches a narrow ring in Methuselah chronology, and
    9. a second missing ring was found in all samples of the Campito chronology at (8000-5320M=) 2,680 BCE, and this matches a narrow ring in Methuselah chronology,
    10. there is a 100% match of rings from 1962 CE to 2140 BCE,
    11. there is a 100% match of rings from 2142 BCE to 2679 BCE with the Campito rings shifted 1 year older at 2141 BCE,
    12. there is a 100% match of rings from 2681 BCE to 3435 BCE with the Campito rings shifted another year older at 2680 BCE,
    13. inserting a zero width band into the Campito chronology for the missing rings at these two locations then matches two narrow rings in the Methuselah chronology and results in a consolidated chronology extending 8,671 years from 1971 CE to 6700 BCE,
    14. an error of 2 rings between 1962 CE and 3435 BCE, in a 5397 year period, is an error of 0.037% so overall there is 99.963% match on all rings between chronologies, very high precision and accuracy.
    15. the probability of matching of 5395 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 5397 year period is "vanishingly small" ...

  2. European oak -- anchored annual tree ring count chronologies:
    1. the Irish oak chronology, anchored by living trees at 1971 CE and extending 9,951 years to 7980 BCE
    2. the German oak chronology, anchored to living trees at 2002 CE and extending 10,482 years to 8,480 BCE
    3. combining these two chronologies together results in a consolidated chronology extending 10,482 years from 2002 CE to 8,480 BCE
    4. the documented error between these two chronologies when compared statistically is <10 years, or +/-5 years from the average values
    5. laboratory precision accounted for almost all variability between the data sets
    6. unfortunately where in the overlap these errors occur is not documented, but this is an error of only 0.102%
    7. the overlap period is 9,951 years long from 1971 CE to 7,980 BCE with <10 years difference
    8. the probability of matching of 9,941 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 9,951 year period is also "vanishingly small" ...

  3. Crossdating -- between the consolidated Bristlecone pine chronology and the consolidated European oak chronology:
    1. the documented error between these two consolidated chronologies is 37+/-6 years
    2. the overlap period is 8,671 years long from 1971 CE to 6700 BCE with 37 years difference, an error of 0.43%
    3. the Bristlecone pine chronology was shorter, too young, by 37 years at the end of the overlap,
    4. there is a high probability that this error is due to missing rings at the ancient end of the chronology when sample numbers are small
    5. the probability of matching of 8,634 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 8,671 year period is also "vanishingly small" and this is compounded by the "vanishingly small" probability for each of these consolidated chronologies being composed of randomly assembled bands ... so I say it is "vanishingly small squared" ... ?

  4. German preboral pine -- a tethered annual tree ring count chronology:
    1. the German pine chronology is tethered to the German oak chronology at 7942 BCE to 8,480 BCE and extends to 10,461 BCE
    2. the overlap period between the German pine chronology and the German oak chronology is 538 years long from 7942 BCE to 8,480 BCE
    3. the dendrochronological crossdating resulted in a difference of only 8 yr with respect to the published 14C wiggle-match position used for IntCal98 ... t=4.3 so it is a strong correlation
    4. the documented error between these two chronologies when compared statistically was reported conservatively at +/-20 years to account for the relatively short period of overlap, an error of +/-3.7%
    5. the consolidated oak and pine chronology extends 12,463 years from 2002 CE to 10,461 BCE
    6. total error for oaks and pines would be +/-5 plus +/-20 = +/-25 years in 12,463 years, or +/-0.20%
    7. the probability of matching of 518 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 538 year period is very small.

  5. Other correlations -- with measured 14C/12C quantities
    1. the measured 14C/12C quantities are what exists in the tree rings today, they are objective empirical data
    2. measurements of 14C and 12C quantities in samples are highly accurate and precise
    3. 14C decays over time so older samples will have less 14C than younger samples, all things being equal, and
    4. samples of the same actual calendar age will have decayed by the same amount so they will have the same levels today
    5. the decay pattern follows an exponential curve

    6. measured 14C/12C levels can also be quantified by mathematically converting them to a "14C age" by a simple exponential formula for linear comparison to calendar age
      (14C/12C level today) = (14C/12C standardized level) x (1/2)^("14C age"/5730)

      • this formula assumes a constant 14C/12C atmospheric level that has been standardized for these age calculations, but
      • 14C/12C atmospheric levels are not constant, so
      • results will need to be corrected to account for atmospheric level changes over time, however
      • uncorrected values can be compared against chronological data sets, like tree ring chronologies and
      • this comparison provides the information needed to correct the results for greater accuracy

    7. correlating each dendrochronology's calendar age to measured 14C/12C levels quantitified as "14C age" has been done

    8. the consilience from all chronologies for the "14C age" to dendrochronological calendar age correlations being virtually identical provides extremely high confidence in the accuracy and precision of these ages.
    9. Note ... IF Libby's complaint, which you are so inordinately fond of (1963? really?), about the Bristlecone pines were true then:
      • it applies equally to ALL the dendrochronologies (and other chronologies) because they show the same pattern, and
      • IF TRUE would only take ~8% out of the age of the earth at 10,000 years ... it would still be easily over 11,476 years old based on just the tree rings ... it isn't a 'get out of jail free' card ...


  6. Minimum 2013 age of the earth is:
    8,713 years old, possibly 37+/-6 years older, by Bristlecone pines
    10,493 years old +/-10 years, by European oaks
    12,474 years old +/-30 years, by European oaks and pines

If this list is too much then start with just the Bristlecone pines.

I'm not going to reply to your other posts at this point -- I want you to concentrate on just these aspects of chronological measurements before we move on to the varves. You can revisit your comments when we get there.

I'm also going to expect you to not reply to any of my unanswered posts to date for the same reason.

This is the only way I see to keep the posting under control

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : added images

Edited by RAZD, : Libby


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 2:28 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by mindspawn, posted 12-12-2013 7:28 AM RAZD has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 73 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 110 of 119 (713333)
12-12-2013 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by RAZD
12-11-2013 5:51 PM


Re: SUMMARY -- regrouping
If you want short concise replies start dealing with the issues in a concise and focused approach. So far all you are doing is repeating arguments while ignoring the evidence that invalidates it and then jump on every new piece of information to twist it some other way, grab another straw, run down another rabbit hole. This is not productive in reaching a resolution, it is avoiding the issue (cognitive dissonance behavior).

We are both repeating ourselves therefore its time to conclude this debate. Of course I believe the cognitive dissonance is yours, you will see that my main points have not changed, and you still have not confronted them. Instead you repeat old arguments:

Bristlecone pine -- anchored annual tree ring count chronologies:
the 'old' chronology (Methuselah, White Mountains), anchored by living trees to 1953 CE and extending 8,653 years to 6,700 BCE,
a 'new' chronology (Campito Mountain), anchored by living trees to 1971 CE with 5,403 annual values extending to 3,433 BCE, (corrected to 5,405 years to 3,435 BCE see below),
no extra ring growth has been recorded in either chronology, even when climate was favorable for a stress ring
frost rings were recorded in both chronologies
one missing ring was found in some tree samples during the first 18 years of the Campito chronology
it is very probable that low sample size could result in failing to identify a missing ring in all of the samples
the overlap period is 5,397 years long from 1962 CE to 3,435 BCE with only two errors,
one missing ring was found in all samples of the Campito chronology at (8000-5859M=) 2,141 BCE, and this matches a narrow ring in Methuselah chronology, and
a second missing ring was found in all samples of the Campito chronology at (8000-5320M=) 2,680 BCE, and this matches a narrow ring in Methuselah chronology,
there is a 100% match of rings from 1962 CE to 2140 BCE,
there is a 100% match of rings from 2142 BCE to 2679 BCE with the Campito rings shifted 1 year older at 2141 BCE,
there is a 100% match of rings from 2681 BCE to 3435 BCE with the Campito rings shifted another year older at 2680 BCE,
inserting a zero width band into the Campito chronology for the missing rings at these two locations then matches two narrow rings in the Methuselah chronology and results in a consolidated chronology extending 8,671 years from 1971 CE to 6700 BCE,
an error of 2 rings between 1962 CE and 3435 BCE, in a 5397 year period, is an error of 0.037% so overall there is 99.963% match on all rings between chronologies, very high precision and accuracy.
the probability of matching of 5395 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 5397 year period is "vanishingly small" ...

European oak -- anchored annual tree ring count chronologies:
the Irish oak chronology, anchored by living trees at 1971 CE and extending 9,951 years to 7980 BCE
the German oak chronology, anchored to living trees at 2002 CE and extending 10,482 years to 8,480 BCE
combining these two chronologies together results in a consolidated chronology extending 10,482 years from 2002 CE to 8,480 BCE
the documented error between these two chronologies when compared statistically is

I am repeating my main points because you just have not faced them, instead you produce long repetitive posts:

1) Tree rings: We differ in the accuracy of the cross-matching
Your post above is repetitive. I showed you that the methodology is wrong when establishing these chronologies, and the methodology will show matches even when there is no match. You still have not showed me how they corrected the methodology in the above chronologies to get greater accuracy. Under current methods any sequences , even incorrect matches, regularly match each other with over 99% accuracy, which makes a mockery of the percentages that you so easily throw around.

2) Consilience
You seem proud of the consilience. I would be ashamed of the lack of consilience, that only strange and unique locations have consilience. (Lake Siguetsu, Cariaco Basin). The consilience with tree ring sequences is based on anchoring to so-called known dates and doubtful matching techniques..

3) Lake Suigetsu
You still have not explained how those freshwater algae blooms manage to escape the regular spring tide influx of salt water from the adjacent saltwater lake. If river water can flow through the water table and land bridge of Lake Suigetsu to reach the sea, surely sea water can flow through the land bridge and water table to reach the Lake during spring tides. You have not faced this.

4) Radiocarbon dating/ radiometric dating:
Its only logical that if slight increases in solar penetration cause slight drops in decay, then a large decrease in solar penetration would result in a large increase in decay rates. The ~10% adjusted calibration for carbon dates is only for atmospheric production of carbon during strong magnetic fields, you also need to take into account increased decay rates and the exponential effect this has on the half-life during periods of strong magnetic fields. This concept applies to both carbon dating and Th-Ur dating. You need to face this fact:

PENETRATION OF THE SOLAR WIND:
Slight increase = slight drop in decay rates
Major decrease = major INCREASE in decay rates
a 50% increase in the magnetic field strength prior to 200AD will produce a major decrease in the penetration of the solar wind AND cosmic rays.

Conclusion:
Carbon dates and Th-UR dates are incorrect by the same proportions prior to 200AD due to the strong magnetic field prior to 200AD and therefore higher decay rates (based on the solar penetration/decay rate relationship).

These dates are used to anchor the older tree ring chronologies. Any tree rings of approximately correct carbon dates can be used to fill in the gaps between anchored dates due to bad cross-matching techniques as showed in this thread. Result: consilience through unreliable dates.

Only unique locations are used for annual sediment layer consilience, other locations are possibly not used because of the lack of confidence in the annual nature of the layers due to carbon discrepancies. The ash layers at these locations would obviously be consilient with frost rings and th-ur dating and carbon dating, because these are all dated based on current decay rates. End result: circular reasoning: thousands of locations on earth have annual deposition and yet only a few locations have consilience, each of the consilient locations having doubtful annual layers.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2013 5:51 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2013 10:11 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2013 11:55 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18472
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(6)
Message 111 of 119 (713347)
12-12-2013 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by mindspawn
12-12-2013 7:28 AM


Re: SUMMARY -- regrouping
We are both repeating ourselves therefore its time to conclude this debate. Of course I believe the cognitive dissonance is yours, you will see that my main points have not changed, and you still have not confronted them. Instead you repeat old arguments:

Cognitive dissonance is not caused by a lack of evidence ...

I keep repeating the objective empirical evidence that refutes your claims. You keep repeating your falsified claims with more assertion and obstinate persistence, and grab at straws and run off to chase rabbit holes rather than deal with the issues. That is cognitive dissonance behavior.

1) Tree rings: We differ in the accuracy of the cross-matching
Your post above is repetitive. I showed you that the methodology is wrong when establishing these chronologies, and the methodology will show matches even when there is no match. You still have not showed me how they corrected the methodology in the above chronologies to get greater accuracy. ...

You showed me one paper that suggest that care should be taken in assembling individual chronologies because errors of alignment and questionable matches could occur.

You have not demonstrated that such errors did occur in the published dendrochronologies. Curiously I know of one and how it was questioned at the time and then determined to be inaccurate ... by dendrochronologists.

Dendrochronologists know this -- it is what they study, mindspawn. The paper was written by a dendrochronologist. They look for this kind of error and replicate as much as possible to be able to ensure it doesn't happen.

That paper also showed how to obtain accurate matches when multiple matches showed up in the data.

The problem you face is that dendrochronologies are not built with one stick matched to a second stick which is matched to a third stick, etc etc etc ...

Chronologies are build from 30 plus sample for every band of the assembled chronology if they can be found. This is so that they can identify false matches and also check for extra or missing rings.

Do you really think a mismatch of this type would be found in 30 samples ... each one actually a random match?

This is HOW the missing rings were found in the first 18 years of the Campito chronology.

When the number of rings gets low due to the small number of samples available, the dendrochronologist deal with it as tentative possibilities and look for tertiary evidence -- a parallel chronology made from entirely different samples assembled into a chronology. When you compare independent chronologies you are testing the assembly of each against the other.

That is HOW the later 2 missing rings were found in the more ancient part of the Campito chronology.

But please note that other than two missing rings the two chronologies were exactly precisely accurately the same ... 100% identical in fact.

You just cannot get that kind of match with poorly assembled chronologies, because any mistakes will be made in different locations with a probability of match from random assembly being 1 in 4 x 10 to the power 3009 (3009 zeros).

... Under current methods any sequences , even incorrect matches, regularly match each other with over 99% accuracy, which makes a mockery of the percentages that you so easily throw around.

This can occur if one is not careful. So you learn to be careful and you learn to check for multiple matches and you learn to weed through the evidence to find a single proper match ... as demonstrated in the paper.

But finding a match in a short sequence is not finding it for the whole length of a 5,395 ring chronology overlap.

The Bristlecone pine was 100% matched in three sections with a one ring gap in the Campito chronology matched to a narrow ring in the Methuselah chronology in two places ...

quote:
  1. there is a 100% match of rings from 1962 CE to 2141 BCE,
  2. there is a 100% match of rings from 2143 BCE to 2670 BCE with the Campito rings shifted 1 year older at 2142 BCE,
  3. there is a 100% match of rings from 2672 BCE to 3435 BCE with the Campito rings shifted another year older at 2671 BCE,
  4. inserting a zero width band into the Campito chronology for the missing rings at these two locations then matches two narrow rings in the Methuselah chronology and results in a consolidated chronology extending 8,671 years from 1971 CE to 6700 BCE,
  5. an error of 2 rings between 1962 CE and 3435 BCE, in a 5397 year period, is an error of 0.037% so overall there is 99.963% match on all rings between chronologies, very high precision and accuracy.
  6. the probability of matching of 5395 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 5397 year period is "vanishingly small" ...

Replication is how you (1) find errors, (2) correct errors, (3) build confidence in the accuracy and precision.

If you build two independent chronologies and they DON'T match, THEN you know one or both are wrong.

When TWO chronologies match with 99.963% then this is objective empirical evidence that both are most likely 99.963% correct.
When THREE chronologies match with 99.5% accuracy then this is objective empirical evidence that both are most likely 99.5% correct. 3x the confidence of one pair matching ...
When FOUR chronologies match with 99.5% accuracy then this is objective empirical evidence that both are most likely 99.5% correct. 6x the confidence of one pair matching ...

In addition we KNOW these four dendrochronologies are accurate for:

  • 1884 CE evidence for volcanic eruption of krakatoa in 1882 CE
  • 1816 CE evidence for volcanic eruption of Tambora in 1816 CE
  • 536 CE evidence for volcanic eruption in 534 CE
  • 44 BCE evidence for volcanic eruption of Mt Etna in 44 BCE
  • 2626 +/-10 years BCE evidence cross correlated from Egyptian tomb archaeologically dated to 2626 BCE

And there is no major visible change in tree ring widths for more ancient dates ...

This isn't fantasy it is objective evidence

And you keep failing to provide any real evidence to support your position, you just assert and assume.

quote:
One thing you could do would be to -- briefly -- list your mechanisms for altering the time scales, one by one, and explaining where these 'errors' occur in the chronologies, why they occur, and the objective empirical evidence that they did occur.

  1. list your mechanism ... rampant misalignment due to ineptitude and ignorance ... except that you don't have evidence that this is the fact ... the number of peer reviewed papers is strong evidence that this is not the case ...
  2. explain where these errors occur ... not done
  3. explain why they occurred (and were not detected) ... because dendrochronologists are bumbling idiots that can't see the forest for the trees ... ... except you don't have evidence that this is the fact ... and the number of peer reviewed papers is strong evidence that this is not the case ...
  4. provide objective empirical evidence that they did occur (in the chronologies) ... not done.

So other than wild assumption and grasping at straws, what do you have?

  1. How do you know that the Bristlecone pine chronology is wrong
  2. Where specifically does the Bristlecone pine chronology go wrong
  3. What is your evidence that the Bristlecone pine chronology is actually wrong
  4. What specifically was the cause for it being wrong
  5. How wrong is it ... 1 year? 10 years? 37 years?
  6. What is the correction that needs to be made
  7. Where specifically should corrections be made
  8. What is your evidence that this will result in correct ages

There is no point in chasing the rest of your points until you make a basic effort to deal with this issue. We can get to them WHEN you have finished with the Bristlecone pine chronology in particular and dendrochronologies in general to the level required for rational understanding:

Be specific, support your assertions with evidence, tell me why the chronology needs to be corrected, and demonstrate how to correct the chronology.

Just saying 'maybe they are wrong' is not a strong argument.

Until you can provide this, the objective empirical evidence shows that the dendrochronologies are indeed correct and your denial of this is

de•lu•sion -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)

  1. a. The act or process of deluding.
    b. The state of being deluded.
  2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
  3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, cherry picking and idée fixes, are not the tools of an open-mind or an honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion.

Common delusion (def #2), like ignorance, is curable by learning ...

In closing let me suggest that if you cannot actually demonstrate that the Bristlecone pine chronology is actually wrong -- and by demonstrate I mean show evidence of the errors -- then you should in all honesty concede that you cannot demonstrate that the Bristlecone pine chronology is in error, regardless of what you believe.

Likewise if you cannot actually demonstrate that the European oak chronology is actually wrong -- and by demonstrate I mean show evidence of the errors -- then you should in all honesty concede that you cannot demonstrate that the European oak chronology is in error, regardless of what you believe.

And if you cannot actually demonstrate that the Preboral pine chronology is actually wrong -- and by demonstrate I mean show evidence of the errors -- then you should in all honesty concede that you cannot demonstrate that the Preboral pine chronology is in error, regardless of what you believe.

Concede this and we can move on to the varves.

Enjoy.

..

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : historical data

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : end comment

Edited by RAZD, : M dates corrected


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by mindspawn, posted 12-12-2013 7:28 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18472
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 112 of 119 (713677)
12-15-2013 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by mindspawn
12-12-2013 7:28 AM


Moving on -- Varves ?
If you want to let the dendrochronology rest for a while, perhaps we can move on to varves ...

Message 107

Your own link claimed that the dust settled regularly over the whole year. I don't see the relevance of the settling velocity for your argument, if the dust sinks slowly or fast, there is a regular amount of dust settling on the lake floor during the entire year. The only factor that changes the sediment density on the lake floor is the diatom die-offs because the dust is constant. We seem to be in agreement on this.

Yes, in low lying coastal regions the water table is dominated by salt water from the ocean. In spring tides, this would affect all lakes close to the ocean. This would kill freshwater diatoms who die when exposed to salt water. I have presented my evidence in earlier posts. I need your evidence that freshwater diatoms definitely CANNOT be affected by the rising salt water table in a lake next to the sea. I do not see that as a possibility, please tell me how its possible for the deepest freshwater algae during an algae bloom in Lake Suigetsu to survive regular influxes of salt water.

Message 108

Like I said before, its the very uniqueness of the locations used that are damning for evolutionary timeframes.

ANY location would be better than Suigetsu. They did not take into account that diatoms have regular die-offs that are not always annual. Any study on Lake Suigetsu which claims that the lake shows annual layering should have gone into great depth to explain away the fact that algae does not often have just one annual die-off.

Because Suigetsu is not a conclusive location, nearly anywhere else is a better location. Nearly every river on earth with a wide catchment area flows into a lake or the sea. There would be recognizable annual sedimentation layers in thousands of locations across earth .....and yet of all these locations the only places that seem to have consilience are ones with a strange set of circumstances like Lake Suigetsu. The rareness of the consilience is ridiculous.

It would be fascinating to dig down into nearly every lake on the planet, I predict you would find a strong trend that organic matter in annual layers in other lakes have way too little carbon for the annual layers in which they lie. Thus I predict that a definite 3500 year old layer in most lakes would show a 30 000 plus carbon date in a location that has more definite annual layers than the dodgy dates of Suigetsu.

The varves in Cariaco basin are created by....... guess what....... algae/diatoms. But the uniqueness of this location is that its a uniquely anoxic ocean, and these are anoxic diatoms. Their die-off are caused by nitrate and silicon cycles.
http://www.geol.sc.edu/...Page/Thunell%20et%20al.%202008.pdf

Message 112

3) Lake Suigetsu
You still have not explained how those freshwater algae blooms manage to escape the regular spring tide influx of salt water from the adjacent saltwater lake. If river water can flow through the water table and land bridge of Lake Suigetsu to reach the sea, surely sea water can flow through the land bridge and water table to reach the Lake during spring tides. You have not faced this.

Is that a fair summary of your current stand on Lake Suigetsu?

First I would like to discuss the Cariaco Basin varves and then compare them to the Lake Suigetsu varves.

You were hot to discuss these with Coyote ... so are we done with tree rings?

We can start the discussion by reviewing what varves are (some of this has been presented before), and what they aren't:

Lake and Marine Varve Basics

Rhythmites(1)

quote:
A rhythmite consists of layers of sediment or sedimentary rock which are laid down with an obvious periodicity and regularity. They may be created by annual processes such as seasonally varying deposits reflecting variations in the runoff cycle, by shorter term processes such as tides, or by longer term processes such as periodic floods.

Varves(2)

quote:
A varve is an annual layer of sediment or sedimentary rock.

Of the many rhythmites found in the geological record, varves are one of the most important and illuminating to studies of past climate change. Varves are amongst the smallest-scale events recognised in stratigraphy.

Varves form in a variety of marine and lacustrine depositional environments from seasonal variation in clastic, biological, and chemical sedimentary processes.

The classic varve archetype is a light / dark coloured couplet deposited in a glacial lake. The light layer usually comprises a coarser laminaset of silt and fine sand deposited under higher energy conditions when meltwater introduces sediment load into the lake water. During winter months, when meltwater and associated suspended sediment input is reduced, and often when the lake surface freezes, fine clay-size sediment is deposited forming a dark coloured laminaset.


The difference between a rhythmite and a varve is that the rhythmite can have any periodicity, even be variable, but the varve is strictly an annual layering process. Varves can vary from barely distinguishable to dramatic contrast.

One of the ways to ensure you have an annual varve system is to look for a cycle of life and death in organisms that are present in one half of the varve (growing season) but are absent in the other half of the varve (non-growing season). Seasonal markers like diatom shells and foraminifera shells have been used, forming a white layer in contrast to a dark sediment layer.

Synchroneity of Tropical and High-Latitude Atlantic Temperatures over the Last Glacial Termination(3)


Varved sediments from Cariaco Basin core PL07-39PC

With a well marked layering system, such as is shown above, the layers can be counted, just like tree rings, to form a chronology.

Not all deposits are varves or rhytmites, as there can be many deposits that occur in random sequences with no discernable pattern or regularity.

The geological principle of superposition applies to varves, rhythmites and other sedimentary deposits:

Principle of Superposition(4)

quote:
The law of superposition (or the principle of superposition) is a key axiom based on observations of natural history that is a foundational principle of sedimentary stratigraphy and so of other geology dependent natural sciences:

Sedimentary layers are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top.

Varves and rhythmites provide a means to identify different layers accurately and varves in particular can be used to provide dates for the layers. Rhymthites and other sedimentary layering do provide relative dating and other means are needed to provide actual ages. Similarly such other means for dating sediments can be used to validate and confirm a varve system. The sediments in Lake Lisan, for instance are not varves and they used radiometric dating of aragonites matched with the sediment levels:

Calibration of the 14C time scale to 440 ka by 234U–230Th dating of Lake Lisan sediments (last glacial Dead Sea) (abstract)(5)

quote:
A new comparison of 14C dates with 234U-230Th ages is presented of aragonites from Lake Lisan, the last Glacial Dead Sea, between ∼20 - 52 cal-ka-BP. The Lisan data are coincident with the coral based 14C-calendar age calibration through the continuous portion of the curve to 23.5 cal-ka-BP, and with the additional ‘checkpoints’ at ∼30 and ∼40 cal-ka-BP. The agreement with the corals provides evidence for the accuracy of the U-Th and 14C ages, and indicates that Lisan aragonites can potentially be used to generate a nearly continuous record of the atmospheric 14C variations through this crucial time interval. ...

Radiometric dating will be discussed later.

Because varves are an annual time-sequence deposition process, a core taken in a lake with varves will have new layers on top and old layers on the bottom. As with tree rings, individual cores can be cross-checked with others taken from different locations to account for false layers or missing layers. Cores can only be taken in sections due to the physical limitations of the equipment, so cores need to be taken in a manner to overlap ends of sections to ensure continuity of the data.

Like tree rings there can be floating chronologies and absolute chronologies. If an artifact in a floating chronology can be absolutely dated, then the chronology can be tetherred by the artifact age. If markers in a floating chronology can be matched to markers in an absolute chronology, then the floating chronology can be tethered to the absolute chronology.

Organic artifacts (leafs, twigs, insect bodies, etc) and inorganic artifacts (volcanic tuff, flood rubble, etc) can be deposited in the lake, and then be buried by later layers, so their location in the cores provides direct evidence of their age. Because they contain carbon that was taken up when living they will have both 14C and 12C. The 14C decays over time (along an exponential curve), and thus the ratio of 14C/12C in a sample changes with age and these samples can be used as markers to tether a floating chronology to an absolute chronology (like the tree rings).

Care needs to be taken in choosing core sites to avoid taking cores near inlets where false layers from storm runoff and the like would be common.

Like tree rings there can be variation from year to year in the thickness of the varves, but unlike tree rings the older layers can become compressed by the weight of the other layers and become thin and harder to distinguish. This also means that absolute thickness at one depth cannot be simply compared to absolute thickness at a different depth to indicate climate changes, but the compression must be taken into account.

Because these layers are annual they can have high precision and accuracy in the measured lengths of their chronologies, and errors should be similar to tree ring chronologies, producing high confidence in their results.

One of the things that affects rhythmite and varve formation is particle size, and varves can have different layers with different size particles, some that settle faster than others:

Settling Velocity and Suspension Velocity(6)

quote:
Every material has its own suspension and settling velocity. The suspension velocity is the speed of water above which the water will pick up the material and hold it in suspension. The settling velocity is the speed below which the material will be dropped out of suspension and will settle out of the water.

The relative sizes of gravel, sand, silt, and clay particles are shown below:

Sand and gravel are both large and dense. In addition, they have a small surface area per unit volume since they are roughly spherical. So these types of particles have a high suspension velocity.


13.6 Colloids(7)

quote:
When finely divided clay particles are dispersed throughout water, they do not remain suspended but eventually settle out of the water because of the gravitational pull. The dispersed clay particles are much larger than molecules and consist of many thousands or even millions of atoms.

Particle Size Analysis Lab(8)

quote:
The connection between particle size and settling rate is expressed by Stoke's Law. This relationship shows that small particles, those exposing high specific surface area (m2 g-1), produce more resistance to settling through the surrounding solution than large particles and, hence, settle at slower velocities

Stoke's Law :

V = (D^2g(d1-d2)/(18n)

The formula shows that the settling velocity, V, is directly proportional to the square of the particle's effective diameter, D; the acceleration of gravity, g; and the difference between the density of the particle, d1, and density of the liquid, d2; but inversely proportional to the viscosity (resistance to flow) of the liquid, n. The density of water and its viscosity both change in a manner so that particles settle faster with increased temperature. Hence, it may be necessary to apply temperature correction factors as explained with the procedure.

Stoke's Law can be condensed to V=kD^2 by assuming constant values for all components except the effective diameter of soil particles. Then, for conditions at 30 degrees C, k=11241. For particles size values in centimeters, the formula yields settling velocity, V, in centimeters per second. Because soil particles do not meet the requirements of being smooth spheres, exact conformance to Stoke's Law is not realized.


Soil Colloids(9)

quote:
The colloidal state refers to a two-phase system in which one material in a very finely divided state is dispersed through second phase.

The examples are:

Solid in liquid - Clay in water (dispersion of clay in water)
Liquid in gas -Fog or clouds in atmosphere

The clay fraction of the soil contains particles less than 0.002 mm in size. Particles less than 0.001 mm size possess colloidal properties and are known as soil colloids.


If we use 0.002 mm (0.0002 cm) for clay in the above formula we get

V = 11241(0.0002)^2 = 0.00044964 cm/s
= 1.62 cm/hr = 38.8 cm/day
= 15.3 in/day.

As you can see the theoretical settling velocity of clay according to Stoke's Law would be very, very slowly. In a 100 ft deep lake a new clay particle deposited at the surface would theoretically take ~80 days to reach the bottom. Actual times are longer due to the interaction of charged clay particles with water, and because the clay particles are not spherical, but it would take days if not weeks or months for new clay from rainstorms to settle to the bottom. This is especially true in the center of the lake as the new inflow must take time to mix with the lake water and get dispersed sufficiently to reach the center area. This means that a lake can act as a buffer to average out all the clay sediment being introduced to the lake by the inflow: even large variations in inflow will have little effect on the amount of clay settling to the bottom at the center of the lake.

This means that clay layers in varves are strong indicators of annual events, as they have to occur over many months with no other depositions or disturbances.

Enjoy.



References
  1. Wikipedia.com, Rhythmite, [2013, November 29]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythmite
  2. Wikipedia.com, Varves, [2013, November 29]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varve
  3. Lea, D.W., Pak, D.K., Peterson, L.C., Hughen, K.A., Synchroneity of Tropical and High-Latitude Atlantic Temperatures over the Last Glacial Termination, Science Vol 301, Nr 5638, p 1361-1364, 5 September 2003 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/lea2003/ (abstract)
  4. Wikipedia.com, Principle of Superposition, [2013, November 29]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_superposition
  5. Schramm, A., Stein, M., Goldstein, S.L., Calibration of the 14C time scale to 440 ka by 234U–230Th dating of Lake Lisan sediments (last glacial Dead Sea), Earth and Planetary Science Letters vol 175, 2000 p 27–40 (abstract) http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0012821X99002794
  6. Cooke, R., Settling Velocity and Suspension Velocity, Mountain Empire Community College.© 2013 [2013, December 2] http://water.me.vccs.edu/concepts/velocitysusp.htm
  7. Prenhall.com, 13.6 Colloids, Chemistry, Prentice Hall, Pearson Education © 2002 [2013, December 2] http://wps.prenhall.com/...objects/3312/3391718/blb1306.html
  8. Farrel, P., Particle Size Analysis Lab, Soil, Water, and Climate Dept, University of Minnesota, © 2010-2013 [2013, December 2] http://www.d.umn.edu/~pfarrell/lab_8.htm
  9. AgriInfo.in, Soil Colloids, Introduction to Soil Science, AgriInfo.in © 2011 [2013, December 2] http://www.agriinfo.in/default.aspx?page=topic&superid=4&...

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added

Edited by RAZD, : added basic varve information for later use

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by mindspawn, posted 12-12-2013 7:28 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18472
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 113 of 119 (714321)
12-21-2013 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by mindspawn
12-11-2013 4:22 AM


Re: SUMMARY reply 2a - dendrochronology pt 1
It's been 9 days since your last post.

I hear your point, you are saying there is observed consilience, I am saying yes the figures do match, and they are out by the same percentage due to to two main factors:

So you are going with amazing coincidence instead of actual consilience.

1) Uniqueness of location, most deposition locations on earth should show some annual sedimentation patterns and layering, instead of using many normal locations, only the most unique of locations are chosen for radiocarbon consilience, and each of the chosen locations have doubtful annual patterns.

There are thousands of tree ring chronologies around the world, but only three anchored chronologies that extend back over 8,000 years.

The locations are not chosen at random, nor are they chosen for remoteness, they are chosen because they have a strong annual signal, wherever that is found, and they are chosen for the length of record for anchored tree ring chronologies.

Nor are they chosen for radiocarbon consilience, that is just plain absurd. How would you know what the radiocarbon levels in the organic samples would be until they are tested -- after they have been recorded for layer age?

Or are you saying that scientists discard information that doesn't fit their conspiracy?

2) Circular reasoning: reliance on carbon dating or Th-Ur dating of the location, and/or reliance of the location's consilience with other carbon dated/Th-Ur dated events (volcanoes/ash layers/frost rings)

So you don't know what circular reasoning is, in addition to not understanding consilience and making false statements that show your failure to understand what has been presented.

Measuring tree rings for annual calendar dates and then finding out what 14C/12C levels are in the rings and comparing those to calendar dates is not circular reasoning, it is scientific data collection.

Comparing three such chronologies for age and climate is not circular reasoning, it is finding out how well they match in their data.

If the correlations are in error, then it would show up with such comparisons, which is why the comparisons are made: it is a scientific test of the replicability of the results.

Comparing three such chronologies for age and 14C/12C levels is not circular reasoning, it is finding out how well they match in their data.

If the correlations are in error they would show up with such comparisons. That no significant problems are found is validation of the techniques used, the care and precision of the scientists involve and the accuracy of the data.

The fact that three such chronologies show highly similar correlations with climate and highly similar correlations with 14C/12C levels is not circular reasoning, it is consilience of two different sets of data that have similar results -- that is what consilience means.

Your logic does not ring true, if carbon dating was generally out, why then would Libby pick out the oldest bristlecone pine trees as showing carbon dating discrepancies and not other trees? He found fault specifically with the older trees, which is my claim too.

umm -- because that was the first test of his method? Back when they first started doing radiocarbon dating, and using an old value of half-life that is shorter than what we know today? Before the other chronologies were completed?

Would you like to actually quote what Libby actually said from an actual paper on that issue? I'm betting it doesn't say what you claim -- so you have an opportunity to prove me wrong.

Again let me remind you that its those trees that are in the harshest conditions that are showing the oldest ages, this is counter intuitive... frankly its illogical. Why would the trees with a little less moisture and a little more cold that are higher up the slopes in one of the dryest areas on earth live longer than the rest AND show carbon dating discrepancies?

Curiously it doesn't matter what you think, what matters are the facts shown by the evidence:

(1) when compared to the two independent oak chronologies the (Methuselah) Bristlecone pine chronology was shown to be missing ~37 annual rings compared to the oaks.

(2) a second independent Bristlecone pine chronology showed that missing rings were common in Bristlecone pines, with one occurring in 18 years in some of the samples, that NO extra rings were observed, and two more missing rings were found in ~5000 years of common record.

(3) that growth begins in July during the early part of the season and shuts down in August when temperatures get too cold.

... this is counter intuitive... frankly its illogical.

However that bit of opinion is still unable to alter reality. A lot of scientific knowledge is counter intuitive, but that alone is no reason to reject it. That you find it illogical just means you have false precepts in your logic, not that reality is different.

This is why science TESTS concepts rather than just make assumptions based on intuition and logic.

A simpler explanation would be that these particular trees have multiple rings due to the harshness of the location, and this is why Libby specifically picked up discrepancies there, and this would then explain why trees seem older in the harsh locations.

Again, it doesn't really matter what Libby said (if he actually did) because the rings have been tested by comparison with other chronologies and found to be missing ~37 annual rings in 7600 years of record rather than have multiple rings.

The simplest explanation is that all the tree rings do in fact show annual growth and that they are accurate and precise and that the difference between them and the 14C/12C levels is due to changes in atmospheric 14C over time ... amazingly a fact we are already aware of and can document.

"The closest thing we have to absolute certainty in dendrochronology is the assignment of calendar year dates to annual tree rings by an experienced tree-ring scientist using some accepted method of crossdating (e.g., Huber1943;Douglass1946;Ghent1952; Stokes and Smiley1968;Baillie and Pilcher1973; Heikkenen1984;Wigleyet al.1987;Schweingruber et al.1990; Yamaguchi1991;Yamaguchi and Allen1992; Fowler1998). Without this foundation, dendrochronology ceases to exist as a legitimate science."

Are you aware of the concept of quote mining?

Science is NEVER absolutely certain about anything.

Indeed cross-dating is a method that can be misused or done somewhat haphazardly if one is not careful, and there are some documented instances of this happening, but when that occurs they can (and have been) be discovered by comparisons with other chronologies and finding discrepancies.

And what is the result of Yamaguchi's study? Did he conclude that in fact dendrochronology ceased to exist as a legitimate science?

Or did he discuss ways and means to ensure that mistakes were not made.

Further I note that you have supplied absolutely no information that this kind of error actually occurred in the three dendrochronologies we have discussed.

Could have happened does not mean did happen, possible careless errors are not an argument that the whole caboodle is wrong in any way.

Could you explain to me why you call him a shyster? He is quoted as an "experienced tree-ring scientist".
He didn't trick the system, he found that the system was unreliable because it could give high matches to tree ring sequences that in reality had no match. Its standard to check your methodology, he checked it and found it to be faulty. Because of the tendency of sequences to be able to match in multiple places, its then good to cross check the dendrochronology to make sure the sequence is matched in the correct place. Cross-checks can be done with carbon dating the tree rings, or matching frost rings in the tree with volcanic eruptions that have been Th-Ur dated. In this way everything appears correct, and the consilience is obtained.

He is another scientist in a long line of scientists that have been misquoted, misrtepresented and misportrayed by shyster creationist sites that don't tell the whole story and quote mine statements to pretend that science is full of errors and mistakes.

If the system were unreliable then the three chronologies would not have the consilience they have in both climate and 14C correlations.

Cross-checking was done by comparing chronologies based on climate data and intentionally did NOT use 14C/12C levels until after that was completed so that it would NOT be forced to fit the 14C/12C -- and yes I have provided you with the links to this information.

But underlying all this cross checking is circular reasoning based on carbon or thorium dating and using low T-values instead of high T-values. Only high T-values should be used, but then we would not have long chronologies because these long chronologies are based on low T-values.

Another false statement. Neither carbon or thorium dating were used to build the chronologies.

And curiously you opinion over what t-values should be used is rather irrelevant, as you are not a dendrochronologist with practical experience in the process or knowledge of the checks made to validate matches.

The only thing used in making each independent tree ring chronology is the matching of tree rings by the climate information -- the difference in ring thicknesses. Nor were the chronologies built comparing only two sticks at a time, they used many samples that all showed the same climate patterns.

Cross-checking is then done to compare independent chronologies. This is a test of the chronologies made, and if they compare with minimal error below the level of significance for the errors found (inside the margin of error) then it just doesn't matter how low the t-values were, because the tests validate the results.

Exactly, if you start with a matching ring, a sequence of four rings will match any tree every 64 years. These are the type of figures I was claiming in an earlier post. You can take a sequence of any four rings and match it against another random tree and you should average a perfect match every 256 tree rings (years). A tree 768 years old will show 3 matching sequences of four rings with any other tree even if they are not from the same timeframe whatsoever. This is called a low T-value, a few rings at the end of one chronology matched with a few rings at the beginning of a new chronology, cross checked with carbon or thorium dating and we have a huge assumption based on circular reasoning. Only high T-values should be used. (value of 1 or 2)

Aside from missing the actual point of probability calculations ...

This was a grossly simplified example of ring matching to show you how improbable it was for two independent chronologies to match accurately and precisely for over 5000 years of record.

It seems you missed that part, so let me be a little clearer: actual tree ring widths are used rather than bundled widths as I did in the example. Bundled widths would have much much higher match rates than using the actual widths.

Think of using 10 width bundles instead of four:

Take all the thicknesses recorded and order them from thinnest to thickest and let

  1. = the thicknesses of the first one tenth of the data with the thinnest thicknesses
  2. = the thicknesses of the second one tenth of the data with the next thinnest thicknesses
  3. = the thicknesses of the third one tenth of the data with the next thinnest thicknesses
  4. = the thicknesses of the fourth one tenth of the data with the next thinnest thicknesses
  5. = the thicknesses of the fifth one tenth of the data with the next thinnest thicknesses
  6. = the thicknesses of the sixth one tenth of the data with the next thinnest thicknesses
  7. = the thicknesses of the seventh one tenth of the data with the next thinnest thicknesses
  8. = the thicknesses of the eighth one tenth of the data with the next thinnest thicknesses
  9. = the thicknesses of the ninth one tenth of the data with the next thinnest thicknesses
  10. = the last set of thicknesses, the thickest one tenth of the thicknesses in the data

Thus A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J are equally probable at any one ring picked.

Do this with two independent chronologies, (A1, B1, C1, D1 ... ) from chronology 1, and (A2, B2, C2, D2 ... ) from chronology 2.

You can pick any ring on either, so let's say it is an A ring, you match A1 to A2 ... obviously you could do this with 1/10th of the rings on the second chronology ...

Now the probability that the next rings will also match is 1 in 10 ... if they are completely random and unrelated sequences ... 10% ... so you will still be able to find a number of such cross correlations. This would happen about 1/100th of the times on average ...

The probability that the next ring will match is (1/10)x(1/10) or 1 in 100 ... 1% ... and you can still likely find some such instances, though now it is on the order of 1 in a thousand times ...

The probability that the fourth ring will match is (1/10)^3 or 1 in 1000 ... 0.1% ... and your likelihood of finding matches is getting smaller, significantly smaller ... you are now down to 1 in 10,000 probability of a match and this is with only 4 rings ...

For two chronologies over 5000 years long to match ring widths over their entire length -- as was demonstrated by Lamarche for Bristlecone pines -- with these bundled thicknesses, the probability of this occurring by random error is:

p = (1/10)^(5000) = 1 in 1x10^5000

Thus it would be mind boggling amazing for these two chronologies to match over such an extended period of time ... if it were not for the probability that they are actually measuring the same thing, where the probability expected would be 1 or close enough to be in the margin of error.

If you had three people independently measuring the time between two passages of the earth between the sun and Arcturus, would you be amazed if they came in with results within a second or two of each other?

LOL! good in theory, but if they did this in practice, we would only ever have T-values of 1. In practice they are satisfied with T-values of 4 or more to connect a chronology! You need to show me that they used large overlaps of tree rings through the entire 5000 year sequence. If even one of the overlaps between the end of one tree ring sequence and the beginning of the next involved five or less matching rings, then there is a high statistical probability that the entire chronology is inaccurate.

Amazingly that is just what Lamarche did with his independent chronology of Bristlecone pines compared to the Methuselah chronology, the first 18 rings of his chronology were for the years after the Methuselah chronology was made, the rest of it match actual annual values (not bundled values) for the whole length except in two places - places where there was a thin ring in the Methuselah record and the chronologies matched 100% of the time when zero width rings (missing rings) were counted in the Campito Mountain chronology -- a precise and accurate duplication of annual ring sequences for 5,385 rings.

So you see, what scientists are satisfied with is in practice sufficient to obtain accurate and precise results, regardless of your opinion.

If you are unable to illustrate an entire sequence, then your argument is based on hope not fact. ...

The accuracy and precision is demonstrated by the consilience between all four independent chronologies. That you don't/can't/won't understand this is not the fault of the data, science or results.

If you are unable to document any actual errors in the sequences of either of the four chronologies we have discussed then your argument is based on hope not fact. And you need to demonstrate not just errors in one chronology, but matching errors in the other three. Hand waving possible errors is not documenting actual errors.

... This is a point we will never agree on, because dendrochronologists seem satisfied with low T-values ...

They are satisfied with t-values that have been demonstrated to produce accurately replicatable results. They are satisfied that four independent chronologies do in fact demonstrate the accuracy and precision of the methods used.

... and cross checks with carbon or Thorium dating, this system is faulty if carbon dating is faulty.

Again this is a fantasy you have made up, not reality.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrrty

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 4:22 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18472
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 114 of 119 (714323)
12-21-2013 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by mindspawn
12-11-2013 4:55 AM


Re: SUMMARY reply 2b - dendrochronology pt 2
continuing ...

You didn't deal with my actual point here. Please explain why trees survive longer in one of the harshest environments on earth. Why do the more elevated White Mountain Bristlecone Pines with LESS moisture and LESS warmth survive longer than the rest that are just down the slope in easier conditions?

Why not?

It doesn't really matter why, what matters is that they do exist and as such they provide valuable information that helps demonstrate the earth is old.

The fact that these trees have evolved a way to live there should not surprise anyone -- they live near the tree line because the tree line is marked by the edge of where trees do in fact live.

That they live a long time is not a big surprise if they live in a place where they have no predators or diseases, so that their only challenge is living another year -- a challenge that does not depend on the age of the tree but on it's ability to live near the tree line, an ability that is demonstrated by trees living near the tree line.

I have no problem with the concept of carbon dating, my only problems are with applying modern measurements of decay to a time when the magnetic field was stronger. They did correct the difference in carbon production in the stronger magnetic field, however I believe they did not correct for increases in carbon decay rates (and uranium/thorium) earlier than 200AD.

What you believe has no effect on reality. You need to provide evidence not make assumptions.

For instance you could present evidence of the magnetic field strength along with the correlations of 14C to chronological age. This was made by JonF:

The laboratory studies do not help with establishing old decay rates, because they were under modern magnetic field conditions.

And ...?

There has also been demonstrated no change in decay rates under vastly higher magnetic fields, so no, that is not an invalidation of the measured decay rates.

Unless you can provide an actual mechanism to change the decay rates dramatically and permanently this is a non-argument.

?? No new information here, its just confirming what I am saying, they ANCHOR the trees to known dates, and then fill in the gaps with other trees. If the non-anchored trees EVER have less than five matching rings with eachother, then it makes a farce of the whole procedure, its just guesswork with a high statistical chance of failure.

Sadly, for you, what is demonstrated is the lengths scientists go to validate results. They don't just "fill in the gaps with other trees" they test the results with independent chronologies. That these tests have demonstrated accuracy and precision of over 99% means that you frantically waving this argument again and again is pointless -- those errors did not occur, in plain fact, because the consilience would not have occurred. They tested for this error and did not find it.

You cognitive dissonance lies in your failure to recognize that Libby only picked up carbon dating discrepancies with the oldest bristlecone pine trees. He did not pick up a general problem, he picked up a specific problem which you are just not facing.

If my cognitive dissonance is only due to the probably misquoted statements of a scientist made in the 1960's when I am using up-to-date information, and not accepting his word as the word of god, then color me guilty.

Meanwhile, how about you provide evidence that Libby -- as quoted -- was correct?

You do realize, I hope, that using Libby means that you are arguing that 14C dating is 100% correct ...

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 4:55 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18472
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 115 of 119 (714325)
12-21-2013 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by mindspawn
12-11-2013 5:23 AM


Re: SUMMARY reply 2c - dendrochronology pt 3
I didn't realize you had moved onto a discussion about Permanent wilting points, sorry for missing this. I believe permanent wilting points are irrelevant to our discussion (your strawman argument).

Let me repeat my actual point from post 92:
" In your Message 80, your quote stated: "it can be seen that at the field site where soil moisture was measured, moisture levels on dolomite were below the wilting coefficient on only two dates"
Wilting coefficient is defined as the minimal point of soil moisture the plant requires not to wilt.

Bristlecone Pines in very dry soils can reach the wilting coefficient repeatedly during the growing season. This means that despite still respiring and photosynthesizing, they stop growing and start wilting.

So you don't understand wilting point.

It doesn't matter -- because study of the actual growing pattern shows growth only during the early part of the short season and that by the time the wilting point was reached (for only the top 8" of soil) the trees had already started the process of going into dormancy for the year. They did not respond to late rainfall in the area, a response that would be expected if they were actually at the actual wilting point AND moisture controlled.

Your point is invalidated by actual measurement of actual growth patterns.

My argument has been very clear all along, in especially elevated and dry White Mountain conditions, some Bristlecone pine trees can develop multiple rings. This is the reason Libby picked up carbon dating discrepancies with these oldest trees, and this explains why the trees in the worst growing conditions appear older when its illogical that the worst conditions would favor longevity. (maybe we should try that, maybe humans could live longer with regular frost and starvation, hahaha).

Agreed, you have very clearly and repeatedly said the same false information and bogus arguments. The fact that you don't understand that your arguments are invalidated doesn't seem to stop you from clearly repeating them in the pointless hope that your opinion is worth more than facts and reality. It isn't.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 5:23 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18472
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 116 of 119 (714332)
12-21-2013 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by mindspawn
12-11-2013 5:50 AM


Re: SUMMARY reply 2d - dendrochronology pt 4 quote mines and creationists
The paper itself just confirms what I have been saying. Discussion page 51 says the following:
http://www.treeringsociety.org/TRBTRR/TRBvol46_47-54.pdf
"Tree ring studies whose conclusions rest on "significant" cross-correlation coefficients are therefore suspect. One example is the extensive use of CROS to date floating oak chronologies in Western Europe (Baillie et al. 1885) because chronologies from this region show strong autocorrelation."

ie if the rings are generally similar every year, the computer will easily find false overlaps, and this data is not to be trusted.

His solution:
One way to circumvent this problem is to fit autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models

Haha, this is the "best-fit" approach. When the data is so dodgy that it throws out many dates, then slide the two timelines over eachother until you get the best fit between the two chronologies. This still does not solve the possibility that there is no actual historical overlap. Its all guesswork. That method will be highly useful if you have outside verification that there is actually some overlap between the two chronologies, but will just throw out an incorrect overlap if there is no actual historical overlap.

The laughter of ignorance does not affect reality.

Once again it appears that you do not understand what the paper said.

Sliding one timeline over the other until you find matches is the first level of comparison, this is the normal process. When it produces numerous results then you look for reasons, and those were discussed.

Now you can compare curves based on data on 1st level matches and you can then take derivatives of the curves and compare them again for matches, which is similar to what Yamaguchi did.

Then he found only one match.

I read it, and its conclusions agree with mine, many tree ring chronologies are suspect. His solution is to find a "best fit" date using ARIMA. This still does not solve the problem that there may not even be a fit between the two chronologies. He does not say if the ARIMA approach has even been applied to modern dendrochronology, kindly show me that evidence of ARIMA being used in your consilient tree ring chronologies, but even if you do, this still does not help you.

Curiously I cannot find that statement in his paper ... because you made it up.

And this still does not solve your problem of 100% match between two independent Bristlecone pine chronologies over 5,000 years long overlap, the 99.9% match between two independent oak chronologies and the 99.5% match between the oaks and bristlecone pines.

Wave this around as much as you like, but it still fails to provide any evidence of actual errors having been made. You still fail to deal with this from Message 109:

This is what science and objective empirical evidence says:

  1. Bristlecone pine -- anchored annual tree ring count chronologies:
    1. the 'old' chronology (Methuselah, White Mountains), anchored by living trees to 1953 CE and extending 8,653 years to 6,700 BCE,
    2. a 'new' chronology (Campito Mountain), anchored by living trees to 1971 CE with 5,403 annual values extending to 3,433 BCE, (corrected to 5,405 years to 3,435 BCE see below),
    3. no extra ring growth has been recorded in either chronology, even when climate was favorable for a stress ring
    4. frost rings were recorded in both chronologies
    5. one missing ring was found in some tree samples during the first 18 years of the Campito chronology
    6. it is very probable that low sample size could result in failing to identify a missing ring in all of the samples
    7. the overlap period is 5,397 years long from 1962 CE to 3,435 BCE with only two errors,
    8. one missing ring was found in all samples of the Campito chronology at (8000-5859M=) 2,141 BCE, and this matches a narrow ring in Methuselah chronology, and
    9. a second missing ring was found in all samples of the Campito chronology at (8000-5320M=) 2,680 BCE, and this matches a narrow ring in Methuselah chronology,
    10. there is a 100% match of rings from 1962 CE to 2140 BCE,
    11. there is a 100% match of rings from 2142 BCE to 2679 BCE with the Campito rings shifted 1 year older at 2141 BCE,
    12. there is a 100% match of rings from 2681 BCE to 3435 BCE with the Campito rings shifted another year older at 2680 BCE,
    13. inserting a zero width band into the Campito chronology for the missing rings at these two locations then matches two narrow rings in the Methuselah chronology and results in a consolidated chronology extending 8,671 years from 1971 CE to 6700 BCE,
    14. an error of 2 rings between 1962 CE and 3435 BCE, in a 5397 year period, is an error of 0.037% so overall there is 99.963% match on all rings between chronologies, very high precision and accuracy.
    15. the probability of matching of 5395 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 5397 year period is "vanishingly small" ...

  2. European oak -- anchored annual tree ring count chronologies:
    1. the Irish oak chronology, anchored by living trees at 1971 CE and extending 9,951 years to 7980 BCE
    2. the German oak chronology, anchored to living trees at 2002 CE and extending 10,482 years to 8,480 BCE
    3. combining these two chronologies together results in a consolidated chronology extending 10,482 years from 2002 CE to 8,480 BCE
    4. the documented error between these two chronologies when compared statistically is <10 years, or +/-5 years from the average values
    5. laboratory precision accounted for almost all variability between the data sets
    6. unfortunately where in the overlap these errors occur is not documented, but this is an error of only 0.102%
    7. the overlap period is 9,951 years long from 1971 CE to 7,980 BCE with <10 years difference
    8. the probability of matching of 9,941 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 9,951 year period is also "vanishingly small" ...

  3. Crossdating -- between the consolidated Bristlecone pine chronology and the consolidated European oak chronology:
    1. the documented error between these two consolidated chronologies is 37+/-6 years
    2. the overlap period is 8,671 years long from 1971 CE to 6700 BCE with 37 years difference, an error of 0.43%
    3. the Bristlecone pine chronology was shorter, too young, by 37 years at the end of the overlap,
    4. there is a high probability that this error is due to missing rings at the ancient end of the chronology when sample numbers are small
    5. the probability of matching of 8,634 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 8,671 year period is also "vanishingly small" and this is compounded by the "vanishingly small" probability for each of these consolidated chronologies being composed of randomly assembled bands ... so I say it is "vanishingly small squared" ... ?

  4. German preboral pine -- a tethered annual tree ring count chronology:
    1. the German pine chronology is tethered to the German oak chronology at 7942 BCE to 8,480 BCE and extends to 10,461 BCE
    2. the overlap period between the German pine chronology and the German oak chronology is 538 years long from 7942 BCE to 8,480 BCE
    3. the dendrochronological crossdating resulted in a difference of only 8 yr with respect to the published 14C wiggle-match position used for IntCal98 ... t=4.3 so it is a strong correlation
    4. the documented error between these two chronologies when compared statistically was reported conservatively at +/-20 years to account for the relatively short period of overlap, an error of +/-3.7%
    5. the consolidated oak and pine chronology extends 12,463 years from 2002 CE to 10,461 BCE
    6. total error for oaks and pines would be +/-5 plus +/-20 = +/-25 years in 12,463 years, or +/-0.20%
    7. the probability of matching of 518 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 538 year period is very small.

  5. Other correlations -- with measured 14C/12C quantities
    1. the measured 14C/12C quantities are what exists in the tree rings today, they are objective empirical data
    2. measurements of 14C and 12C quantities in samples are highly accurate and precise
    3. 14C decays over time so older samples will have less 14C than younger samples, all things being equal, and
    4. samples of the same actual calendar age will have decayed by the same amount so they will have the same levels today
    5. the decay pattern follows an exponential curve

    6. measured 14C/12C levels can also be quantified by mathematically converting them to a "14C age" by a simple exponential formula for linear comparison to calendar age
      (14C/12C level today) = (14C/12C standardized level) x (1/2)^("14C age"/5730)

      • this formula assumes a constant 14C/12C atmospheric level that has been standardized for these age calculations, but
      • 14C/12C atmospheric levels are not constant, so
      • results will need to be corrected to account for atmospheric level changes over time, however
      • uncorrected values can be compared against chronological data sets, like tree ring chronologies and
      • this comparison provides the information needed to correct the results for greater accuracy

    7. correlating each dendrochronology's calendar age to measured 14C/12C levels quantitified as "14C age" has been done

    8. the consilience from all chronologies for the "14C age" to dendrochronological calendar age correlations being virtually identical provides extremely high confidence in the accuracy and precision of these ages.
    9. Note ... IF Libby's complaint, which you are so inordinately fond of (1963? really?), about the Bristlecone pines were true then:
      • it applies equally to ALL the dendrochronologies (and other chronologies) because they show the same pattern, and
      • IF TRUE would only take ~8% out of the age of the earth at 10,000 years ... it would still be easily over 11,476 years old based on just the tree rings ... it isn't a 'get out of jail free' card ...


  6. Minimum 2013 age of the earth is:
    8,713 years old, possibly 37+/-6 years older, by Bristlecone pines
    10,493 years old +/-10 years, by European oaks
    12,474 years old +/-30 years, by European oaks and pines

One thing you could do would be to -- briefly -- list your mechanisms for altering the time scales, one by one, and explaining where these 'errors' occur in the chronologies, why they occur, and the objective empirical evidence that they did occur.

You haven't done this. At best you have suggested a mechanism based on sloppy and naive work that would likely result in wildly different results in the four chronologies, and as this doesn't match the facts can be rationally ignored as the flailings of desperation based on belief rather than evidence.

As such I consider the topic of dendrochronology concluded -- that you have failed to show any rational reason to question the results of age being determined accurately and precisely from annual tree ring counting.

Now we can move on to varves, with the caveat that -- as you have not demonstrated that the tree ring chronologies are in any way invalid -- the result of dendrochronology can be used in further arguments.

RAZD: volumes of objective empirical evidence provided that demonstrates the validity of dendrochronology in general and the four chronologies discussed in particular.

mindspawn: no objective empirical evidence presented that actually invalidates them.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 5:50 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18472
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 117 of 119 (714342)
12-21-2013 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by mindspawn
12-11-2013 6:49 AM


Re: SUMMARY -- reply 3a: Lake Suigetsu pt 1
Your own link claimed that the dust settled regularly over the whole year. I don't see the relevance of the settling velocity for your argument, if the dust sinks slowly or fast, there is a regular amount of dust settling on the lake floor during the entire year. The only factor that changes the sediment density on the lake floor is the diatom die-offs because the dust is constant. We seem to be in agreement on this.

Dust and clay layers between layers that are predominantly diatom shells, layers that took time to accumulate, so there is a distinct identifiable annual pattern.

So we are left with dust, pollen and the clay that makes it in from the Lake Mikata ... which all settle slowly

No problem with this, it all suits my argument.

So there is an annual pattern of deposition.

Yes, in low lying coastal regions the water table is dominated by salt water from the ocean. In spring tides, this would affect all lakes close to the ocean. This would kill freshwater diatoms who die when exposed to salt water. I have presented my evidence in earlier posts. I need your evidence that freshwater diatoms definitely CANNOT be affected by the rising salt water table in a lake next to the sea. I do not see that as a possibility, please tell me how its possible for the deepest freshwater algae during an algae bloom in Lake Suigetsu to survive regular influxes of salt water.

First you provide evidence that these purported mechanisms actually work the way you claim and show that salt water did in fact actually enter Lake Suigetsu.

Without such evidence this is just fantasy conjecture based on hope.

Note three things:

(1) salt water is denser than fresh water and so it would be at the bottom of the lake if it entered from the groundwater table -- where it would be under the freshwater lens (which is why islands in the oceans can have fresh water wells). This is basic hydrology, information used by engineers to find fresh water aquifers near oceans.

(2) salt water combines with clay to form large fast settling flocs that lock the sodium in the flocks: no sodium has been found in the varves. This is basic soil chemistry.

(3) until recent times the level of the ocean was significantly lower:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

quote:
Global sea level has fluctuated widely in the recent geologic past. It stood 4-6 meters above the present during the last interglacial period, 125,000 years ago, but was 120 m lower at the peak of the last ice age, around 20,000 years ago. A study of past sea level fluctuations provides a longer-term geologic context, which can help us better anticipate future trends.

Figure at right: Generalized curve of sea level rise since the last ice age. Abbreviations: MWP = meltwater pulse. MWP-1A0, c. 19,000 years ago, MWP-1A, 14,600 to 13,500 years ago, MWP-1B, 11,500-11,000 years ago, MWP-1C, ~8,200-7,600 years ago.

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/...level-rise-graphs

quote:
Here’s a graph of sea level since the last ice age. As the ice from the last ice age was melting, sea levels rose by some 120 metres over the course of about 8000 years, before it flattened out ~6000 years ago. On the top right, I drew a black line with an approximate slope of 3 mm/year, which is the current rate of sea level rise (over the past 20 years or so). This is much faster than the relatively stable sea level during the ~6000 years before, though not as fast as the sea level rise at the end of the last ice age.

Let’s zoom in on the last 9000 years (covering most of the Holocene epoch). The strong sea level rise at the end of the last ice age is still visible on the left hand side, slowing down 7000 years ago and even more so 4000 years ago. Until recently: Current sea level rise represents a clear increase. For the future, most recent estimates of sea level rise fall between 0.5 and 1.5 metres in 2100. It won’t stop thereafter, since there’s a lot of inertia involved in warming up the oceans and in melting (parts of) the large ice sheets (Greenland and Antarctica).

Clearly at ~8,000 years ago when the Lake Suigetsu varve chronology starts the lake was ~15 meters above sea level and at ~12,000 years ago when the Preboral pine chronology ends it was ~60 meters above sea level and at ~15,000 years and older the lake was at least 100 meters above sea level.

These three things combined make it rational to conclude that sea water had absolutely no effect on the diatom/clay cycle no matter how often the moon went around the earth.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 6:49 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18472
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 118 of 119 (714369)
12-21-2013 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by mindspawn
12-11-2013 10:03 AM


Re: Consilience - again..
Like I said before, its the very uniqueness of the locations used that are damning for evolutionary timeframes.

ANY location would be better than Suigetsu. They did not take into account that diatoms have regular die-offs that are not always annual. Any study on Lake Suigetsu which claims that the lake shows annual layering should have gone into great depth to explain away the fact that algae does not often have just one annual die-off.

Because Suigetsu is not a conclusive location, nearly anywhere else is a better location. Nearly every river on earth with a wide catchment area flows into a lake or the sea. There would be recognizable annual sedimentation layers in thousands of locations across earth .....and yet of all these locations the only places that seem to have consilience are ones with a strange set of circumstances like Lake Suigetsu. The rareness of the consilience is ridiculous.

Curiously I find this argument to be completely unsupported by facts, and desperately clutching at straws, hardly worth a reply.

Uniqueness of location would still have no effect on the data. This is a backwards post hoc ergo propter hoc type fallacy claiming that because they went to that unique location that therefore the data is false?

And as I have already demonstrated there could be multiple die-offs of the diatoms and there would be no clay layer between them due to lack of time.

Anyone who makes a claim of multiple die-offs causing false layers has the onus of proof to demonstrate that such actually occurs.

The reason Lake Suigetsu was chosen was because it had a strong annual deposition.

It would be fascinating to dig down into nearly every lake on the planet, I predict you would find a strong trend that organic matter in annual layers in other lakes have way too little carbon for the annual layers in which they lie. Thus I predict that a definite 3500 year old layer in most lakes would show a 30 000 plus carbon date in a location that has more definite annual layers than the dodgy dates of Suigetsu.

So go do it.

My prediction is that you won't be able to discern one year from the next.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1171/html/cores.htm

quote:

Cesium-137, a by-product of nuclear testing, was used to date sections of reservoir sediment from the core.

Age-dating of core sediments was done by analysis of their cesium-137 content. Cesium-137 is a by-product of nuclear weapons testing. It first occurred in the atmosphere in about 1952 and peaked during 1963-64. It adsorbs strongly to fine-grained sediments and therefore can be used to determine the time of deposition of sediments that have been exposed to atmospheric fallout. Cesium-137 first was detected in White Rock Lake core sediments at a depth of 60 to 63 centimeters (1952) and peaked at a depth of 48 to 51 centimeters (1963). The depth of the interface between pre-reservoir and reservoir sediment, 136 centimeters, corresponds to the reservoir construction date (1912), and the top of the core corresponds to the sampling date (July 1994).


Curiously no annual cores detected even though this is a fairly recent reservoir ... how could they have missed those easy to see layers ...

http://polarfield.com/blog/tag/lake-cores/

quote:
Back in the lab, the team is examining cores for organic content (preserved vegetation can be used for radiocarbon dating) and for volcanic ash layers, which can be chemically dated and correlated to other Alaskan lake cores.

Again they failed to see the annual layers that would have made dating the cores so easy ... how did they miss that common information?

Perhaps you should contact these people and volunteer to help them with their dating techniques ...

3) Recent volcanic eruptions with historically verified dates like Towado and Aso do NOT have a decent match with Lake Suigetsu (no ash layers indicated),

Oh too bad, guess we'll just chuck the whole thing, eh? Or you could look at climate patterns and see if it should have made a deposition rather than just make it up?

I don't follow your point here, kindly explain further.

Sure, there is no reason to expect every volcanic eruption to deposit ash in Lake Suigetsu, especially if the prevailing winds were going a different direction.

You also need to demonstrate that these eruptions produced ash - not all do - during the periods of the varves

http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/towada.html

quote:
The only historic eruption of Towada volcano began on 17 August 915 AD from Ogura-yama lava dome near the Goshikiiwa cone on the NE rim of Nakanoumi caldera wall. The eruptions produced widespread ashfalls and pyroclastic flows.

So that would not be in the cores (too recent)

http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/aso.html

quote:
The 24-km-wide Aso caldera was formed during four major explosive eruptions from 300,000 to 90,000 years ago. These produced voluminous pyroclastic flows that covered much of Kyushu. ...

So that would not be in the cores (too long ago) and not historical documentation ...

... . It was the location of Japan's first documented historical eruption in 553 AD. ...

So that would not be in the cores (too recent).

You can't just pick layers and say it must be 'x' volcano -- you need evidence that is consistent with that claim -- each volcano has different elements in it that act like a signature that identifies the volcanoes.

Curiously, moving the varves to arbitrarily match one of these volcano eruptions with a tephra deposit (typical creation science approach?) would still not affect the slope of the curve and thus would not have a significant effect on dates ... it does not change the slope of the curve.

Yes the carbon dates after about 1800 bp would have to be recalibrated. The recent historical dates are recorded in Japanese literature and need no adjustment whatsoever.

Ah yes bogus assumed correlations based on an absence of actual objective empirical evidence and a lot of wishful thinking are better than science any day ...

Curiously your dates would not mean that "carbon dates after about 1800 bp would have to be recalibrated" because your proposed preposterous assignment of two tephra layers to post AD eruptions would mean 14C would be invalid for those dates ...

... we KNOW this is not the case from the other volcano data and the tree rings (you known those rings you could not show any error in their process and AGREED with their historical agreement).

So no, this is not any valid criticism, it is just made up fantasy.

quote
20. The floating German pine chronology was itself anchored to the absolute oak dendrochrology primarily through wiggle-matching 14C variations, but also through matching ring-width patterns. Uncertainty in the absolute pine age is reported conservatively at +/-20 years to account for the relatively short period of overlap (

Haha the floating German pine chronology? Matched through carbon dating?? ...

Recognise the circular reasoning????? Oh well.....rather just keep to the so-called absolute oak dendrochronology from now.

Through both matching ring widths and 14C variations for the period of the overlap. Note that this is not using 14C ages but the actual levels of 14C in the samples, the levels they have today. Curiously this is objective empirical evidence that has nothing to do with 14C age, it is no different than recording the 14C levels in the atmosphere today.

And again you don't understand circular reasoning.

For times A to B we have annual rings from the oak chronology, for times B to C we have a period of overlap of oak annual rings and pine annual rings, for times C to D we have annual rings from the pine chronology, so we use the annual rings from A to C from the oak chronologies to match 14C data against and then we have the annual rings from the pine chronology from C to D to match 14C data against ...

Where is the circle?

And why is there such a good match for the period B to C? if it were just a random match at one end why would the other end match at all?

And you want to use it to corroborate carbon dating... hehe

Nope.

The fact that you fail to understand what is going on does not make the science invalid, it just demonstrates your ignorance and misunderstanding of fairly simple concepts.

Every spot on earth receives seasonal weather patterns. Its damning to carbon dating that only a few locations corroborate carbon dating. Even if you had 20 this would be damning. If you had about 10 000 locations this would make a convincing case. I don't find your consilience argument strong at all, in fact the dearth of corroborating locations and the need to find a strange set of circumstances before there is consilience is in fact embarrassing.

Again, you are free to provide evidence of all these other locations. Just making them up is not evidence, you need to document it. Can you give me a link to one -- especially one that does not match the current ones I have extensively documented?

If you are going to assert something the onus is on you to provide evidence.

Currently I see absolutely no reason to think that there is anything wrong with the annual tree rings and the annual varves discussed to date, as you have failed to present any evidence of error or mistakes.

The varves in Cariaco basin are created by....... guess what....... algae/diatoms. But the uniqueness of this location is that its a uniquely anoxic ocean, and these are anoxic diatoms. Their die-off are caused by nitrate and silicon cycles.
http://www.geol.sc.edu/...Page/Thunell%20et%20al.%202008.pdf

Ah, no. The layers used in Cariaco Basin are alternating layers of foraminifera and sediment ... so once again you provide irrelevant information.

As for tree ring chronologies, the older "floating chronologies" are anchored to "known dates". How else would they date a floating chronology?? These known dates are nearly always related to carbon or Th-Ur dating. (frost rings of known volcanic eruptions). ...

No. Really you should read the information provided so you don't make foolish statements. Ignorance is not amusing.

An anchored chronology is anchored by a known date, in the case of tree rings they start with the date a core is taken from a living tree. That date is the anchor.

When a floating chronology is tethered to an anchored chronology then there is a degree of uncertainty in the match no matter how good it is, because the absolute chronology can be modified by new information (see the change to the German chronology with the beetle infestation) and the floating chronology would move with any corrections to the anchored chronology. It could also be fine tuned by additional information in the floating chronology. This happened with the Preboral pine chronology.

Your continued assertions regarding U/Th dating is curious because the margin of error in U/TH is much greater than the margin of error for tree rings and they only serve to show that the tree ring dates are in the right ball park rather than correct the dendrochronology.

... When the older chronologies are joined to earlier chronologies it is with unreliable techniques using low probability matching sequences. Even these low probability sequences show up as 99.5% matching according to their techniques which show that the percentages themselves are unreliable.

Again, all you have is innuendo based on a sketchy knowledge of the field, you fail to see that multiple samples are used not just one on one matches and thus your criticism is irrelevant. This is demonstrated by the multiple agreement of dendrochronologies over thousands of years.

And which fails to invalidate the consilience between different systems coming to the same results ... again ...

Message 113: Thus it would be mind boggling amazing for these two chronologies to match over such an extended period of time ... if it were not for the probability that they are actually measuring the same thing, where the probability expected would be 1 or close enough to be in the margin of error ...

If you had three people independently measuring the time between two passages of the earth between the sun and Arcturus, would you be amazed if they came in with results within a second or two of each other?

If they use different watches should the results vary? Each watch can have different accuracy and precision ... should the results fall within the margins of error or should they vary wildly?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 10:03 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18472
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 119 of 119 (714370)
12-21-2013 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by mindspawn
12-11-2013 10:03 AM


Cariaco Basin Varves
The varves in Cariaco basin are created by....... guess what....... algae/diatoms. But the uniqueness of this location is that its a uniquely anoxic ocean, and these are anoxic diatoms. Their die-off are caused by nitrate and silicon cycles.
http://www.geol.sc.edu/...Page/Thunell%20et%20al.%202008.pdf

Which curiously shows an annual pattern ... but that is still not the foraminifera layer information ...

... I trust you won't argue that these are due to spring tides flooding the basin.

The Cariaco basin varves have been used to make a floating marine varve chronology, with diatoms alternating with sediments in an strongly discernable annual deposition pattern. These sediments were used in developing calibration curves for IntCal98 and IntCal04:

IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 CAL KYR BP(1)

quote:
This paper focuses on the IntCal04 calibration data set for 14C ages of Northern Hemisphere terrestrial samples. However, because 14C measurements of foraminifera from the Cariaco Basin varved sediments and U-series-dated coral are the basis for the terrestrial calibration data set beyond the beginning of the tree rings at 12.4 kyr, we will discuss marine data in brief. ...

... The most significant changes (Figure 3c–e) are of course due to the extension of the German dendrochronology from 11.4 to 12.4 cal kyr BP (Friedrich et al., this issue), the new high-resolution Cariaco Basin data set from 10.5 to 14.7 cal kyr BP (Hughen et al., this issue b; Hughen et al. 2000), ...


Not much about the varves, but we can look at the 2000 paper referenced for more information:

(full PDF) or on-line at Synchronous radiocarbon and climate shifts during the last deglaciation(2)

quote:
... Here we present 14C data from Cariaco Basin core PL07-58PC (hereafter 58PC), providing 10- to 15-year resolution through most of deglaciation. The new calibration data demonstrate conclusively that Δ14C changes were synchronous with climate shifts during the Younger Dryas. Calculated Δ14C is strongly correlated to climate proxy data throughout early deglaciation (r = 0.81). Comparing Δ14C and 10Be records leads us to conclude that ocean circulation changes, not solar variability, must be the primary mechanism for both14C and climate changes during the Younger Dryas.

Cariaco Basin core 58PC (10°40.60′N, 64°57.70′W; 820 m depth) has an average sedimentation rate (70 cm/kyr) more than 25% higher than core 56PC (10°41.22′N, 64°58.07′W; 810 m depth) (13, 14), and shares similar hydrographic conditions. Restricted deep circulation and high surface productivity in the Cariaco Basin off the coast of Venezuela create an anoxic water column below 300 m. The climatic cycle of a dry, windy season with coastal upwelling, followed by a nonwindy, rainy season, results in distinctly laminated sediment couplets of light-colored, organic-rich plankton tests and dark-colored mineral grains from local river runoff (13). It has been demonstrated previously that the laminae couplets are annually deposited varves and that light laminae thickness, sediment reflectance (gray scale), and abundance of the foraminifer Globigerina bulloides are all sensitive proxies for surface productivity, upwelling, and trade wind strength (14, 15). Nearly identical patterns, timing, and duration of abrupt changes in Cariaco Basin upwelling compared with surface temperatures in the high-latitude North Atlantic region at 1- to 10-year resolution during the past 110 years and the last deglaciation (7, 14, 15) provide evidence that rapid climate shifts in the two regions were synchronous. A likely mechanism for this linkage is the response of North Atlantic trade winds to the equator-pole temperature gradient forced by changes in high-latitude North Atlantic temperature (16).

The hydrography of the Cariaco Basin provides excellent conditions for 14C dating (17). The shallow sills (146 m depth) constrain water entering the basin to the surface layer, well equilibrated with atmospheric CO2. Despite anoxic conditions, the deep waters of the Cariaco Basin have a brief residence time, as little as 100 years (17). Two radiocarbon dates on G. bulloides of known recent calendar age gave the same surface water-atmospheric 14C difference (reservoir age) as the open Atlantic Ocean (7). Good agreement during the early Holocene and Younger Dryas between Cariaco Basin and terrestrial 14C dates, including German pines and plant macrofossils from lake sediments (1, 9, 11, 18) (Fig. 1), suggests that Cariaco Basin reservoir age does not change measurably as a response to increased local upwelling (i.e., during the Younger Dryas) (19). Planktonic foraminiferal abundance permits continuous sampling at 1.5-cm increments, providing 10- to 15-calendar-year resolution throughout most of deglaciation.


Figure 1: Correlation of variations in 14C compared with calendar age for Cariaco Basin core PL07-58PC and German pines (1). Thick gray line, German pine data set; thin black line and solid circles, Cariaco Basin data. The German pine data set has been revised recently with the addition of 40 years at 11,330 cal yr B.P. (39). The Cariaco and pine 14C data sets were interpolated and resampled at even 5-year increments and were correlated within a moving 1370-year window. The window was shifted in 5-year steps through time lags of +/-300 years. The moving correlation yielded a single point of maximum agreement, r = 0.989 (inset), fixing the beginning of the floating Cariaco Basin varve chronology at 10,490 cal yr B.P. The gray bar shows the timing of the abrupt warming at the transition from Younger Dryas (YD) to Preboreal (PB) conditions in both chronologies. The YD transition was determined by ring widths in the German pines and by gray scale in the Cariaco Basin. 14C uncertainties are shown at 1σ.

For this work, the varve chronology is largely the same as that used for core 56PC (7). Varves have been re-counted during periods of particular importance, such as the overlap with tree rings and the onset of the Younger Dryas, as well as the deepest, oldest laminations that are less distinct. ...

The anchored Cariaco Basin varve chronology provides radiocarbon calibration at high resolution from ∼14.8 to 10.5 cal kyr B.P. (Fig. 2) (21). The abrupt beginning and end of the large drop in 14C age during the Younger Dryas onset are shown to be sharp changes in slope rather than gradual transitions. A 14C plateau can be discerned at 11.7 to 11.8 14C kyr B.P., lasting about 250 calendar years. The oldest part of the record is characterized by another plateau at 12.514C kyr B.P., extending beyond (18) the Glacial/Bølling boundary where the Cariaco Basin laminations begin. A decrease in 14C age at the Younger Dryas onset of the same amplitude as core 58PC is also seen in coral and Lake Suigetsu data (Fig. 2). ...


Figure 2 Radiocarbon calibration data set from Cariaco Basin core PL07-58PC compared with those from coral U/Th dates and varved lake sediments. Thin black line and solid circles, Cariaco Basin data; thin gray line, German pine data (1); ... and open circles, varves from Lake Suigetsu, Japan (18). Climatic period abbreviations are as follows: Preboreal, PB; Younger Dryas, YD; Bølling/Allerød, B/A; and Glacial, GL. Gray bars indicate timing of the Glacial-Bølling transition and the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas based on Cariaco Basin gray scale. 14C and U/Th uncertainties are shown at 1σ.

Atmospheric 14C concentrations calculated from 58PC calibration data reveal large variations throughout the deglacial period (Fig. 3). The most distinct features are the sharp rise and increased Δ14C during the early Younger Dryas, between 13 and 11.5 cal kyr B.P. Elevated Δ14C during the Younger Dryas has been reported previously (4, 7, 9, 12), but the pattern and timing of change is revealed here in greater detail. In only 200 calendar years, Δ14C rose 70 +/- 10‰ (22), with abrupt transitions at the beginning and end of the increase. The record also shows century-scale oscillations of 20 to 30‰ occurring between 15 and 13 cal kyr B.P. A rapid rise in Δ14C (25‰ in 15 years) occurs at 14.1 cal kyr B.P., followed by a brief period of elevated Δ14C that lasted ∼40 years before declining. More gradual Δ14C increases of ∼30‰ can be seen at 13.5 and 13.3 cal kyr B.P. (Fig. 3).


Figure 3: Atmospheric radiocarbon concentration (Δ14C) calculated from Cariaco Basin and tree ring data sets. Solid circles and thin black line, Cariaco Basin core PL07-58PC data; thick gray line, German pine data (1) spliced to the end of the INTCAL98 data set (2). Dashed line is a linear model approximating geomagnetic field intensity used to detrend the raw Cariaco Basin Δ14C data for comparison to other cosmogenic and paleoclimatic data sets. Error bars are 1σ uncertainty calculated by taking into account 14C uncertainties only. The wide gray swath shows total Δ14C uncertainty, including the uncertainty contributed by calendar age error (22).

To facilitate comparison to other climatic and cosmogenic production records, we subtracted a linear trend from Δ14C (Fig. 3). The trend is intended to represent the decline in atmospheric Δ14C arising from gradually increasing geomagnetic field intensity over the interval of deglaciation (23). ...

We conclude that the largest of the concurrent changes in climate and atmospheric Δ14C during deglaciation were predominantly of ocean origin, although we cannot eliminate the possibility that some of these events were triggered by the sun. New data here allow for little or no time lag between the initial rise in Δ14C and the associated Younger Dryas climate reversal. ...


Note that Fig 1 shows how the floating varve chronology was tethered to the German Preboral pine chronology using 14C/12C levels as markers (see Message 112 re tethering with markers), and that the match is very accurate (r=0.989, where r=1 would be an exact match). In note 20 of the paper it talks about the accuracy and precision of this match in greater detail:

quote:
20. The floating German pine chronology was itself anchored to the absolute oak dendrochrology primarily through wiggle-matching 14C variations, but also through matching ring-width patterns. Uncertainty in the absolute pine age is reported conservatively at +/-20 years to account for the relatively short period of overlap (<400 years), unequal spacing of 14C dates, and potential missing rings (1). The Cariaco-pine overlap is 1370 years, and the high resolution of the two records provides a unique time lag of maximum correlation, rather than a range of lags with equally high correlation values. Due to the 10-year sampling resolution of both chronologies, we estimate an uncertainty of +/-10 years in the wiggle match for a total Cariaco Basin uncertainty in the anchoring of +/-30 years.

The error at the end of the combined European oak chronology is +/-5 years (there is a 10 year difference between the German and Irish chronologies). So the German pine chronology is tethered to the German oak with a maximum error of +/-(5+20) years at ~11,900 calendar years or +/-0.21% error, and the maximum error of the Cariaco Basin chronology is +/-(5+20+10) years, or +/-35 years.

Note as well how this information correlates with climate changes, as shown by the tree chronologies before. The reference to magnetic field strength is applicable as this affects the production of 14C, as we shall see later.

The chronology was updated in 2004 with improved matches to the dendrochronologies and some revisions to the varve chronology:

Cariaco Basin calibration update: revisions to calendar and 14C chronologies for core(3)

quote:
...Tree-ring chronologies provide high-resolution calibration back to ~12,400 cal BP (Friedrich et al., this issue), but dendrochronologies beyond that age are currently “floating” and not anchored in absolute age (Kromer et al., this issue). For the previous IntCal98 data set (Stuiver et al. 1998), high-resolution calibration data older than tree rings were provided by Cariaco Basin piston core PL07-PC56 (Hughen et al. 1998). Core 56PC was selected for 14C dating from a suite of 4 adjacent piston cores, mostly due to the quality of its high-resolution grayscale record. The core was sampled every 10 cm, yielding approximately 100- to 200-yr resolution. Cariaco piston core PL07-58PC, on the other hand, has a ~25% higher deposition rate than 56PC (Peterson et al. 1990). Core 58PC was sampled every 1.5 cm, providing 14C calibration at 10–15-yr resolution throughout the period of deglaciation, ~10,500 - 14,700 cal BP (Hughen et al. 2000). ... Here, we present the updated anchoring of the floating Cariaco varve chronology to the revised and extended German pine chronology (Friedrich et al., this issue). In addition, we detail the changes made to the calendar age varve chronology between the publication of the 56PC and 58PC 14C calibrations, ...

... The original 1998 varve chronology (Hughen et al. 1998) was counted using both thin sections and digital images where the laminations were thick and distinct (Figure 1). However, approximately one-third of the sediment sequence contains darker-colored sediments with thinner, relatively indistinct laminae (Figure 2). ...

For the high-resolution 14C calibration from Cariaco PL07-58PC (Hughen et al. 2000), the entire sequence of sediment thin sections and digital photomicrographs was re-examined. Image enhancement of the digital images provided increased contrast and magnification to aid identification of laminations wherever they were thinner or less distinct. During reanalysis, many of the indistinct sections originally thought to have been bioturbated were found to have subtle laminations that could be traced across the thin section, more consistent with minimal bioturbation (Figure 2, top). ...

As a result of this reinterpretation, intervals of the varve chronology containing these faintly laminated sections were expanded as numerous thin varves were counted and added to the chronology. The majority of the chronology was unaffected; however, there were substantial changes in 2 discrete intervals (Figure 3). The earliest Bølling -- a period where thick, distinct varves gradually transition from massive, bioturbated sediments of the Last Glacial -- was extended with the result that the Bølling period grew by 25%, from 634 to 790 yr. Similarly, during the onset of the Younger Dryas, a large number of additional years lengthened the transition by 33%, from 150 yr to 200 yr. Differences in calendar ages for climate shifts between the 1998 and 2000 varve chronologies resulted from a combination of these discrete additions to the varve chronology as well as the match anchoring Cariaco to tree rings. The 2000 match to tree rings, using much higher resolution Cariaco data than in 1998, resulted in the Cariaco curve shifting to younger ages by ~85 yr. ... There is no evidence to support substantial changes in Cariaco sedimentation during the Younger Dryas, such as deposition of 4 couplets per year rather than two. Therefore, it is unlikely that the length of the Younger Dryas event measured in Cariaco Basin sediments can be much shorter than reported here.

The new 2004 match to a revised and extended tree-ring chronology (this work -- described below) has shifted the Cariaco chronology back older by 14 yr, but there are no other changes relative to the 2000 varve chronology. The age of the Younger Dryas/Preboreal transition is now placed in the Cariaco chronology at 11,580 cal BP.

The local Cariaco marine 14C reservoir age was determined by dating 2 samples of pre-bomb forams of known calendar age from box core PL07-BC81 (Hughen et al. 1996). The calendar ages for the samples are 15 and 40 BP, constrained by varve counts, 210Pb ages, and historical dates for 2 large earthquakes in the region that resulted in distinct turbidites in the upper 25 cm (Hughen et al. 1996). The 14C ages measured for the samples are 490 +/- 60 and 460 +/- 50 BP, whereas the marine model from IntCal98 (Stuiver et al. 1998) yields marine ages of 462 and 450 BP, respectively. This results in ∆R values of +28 and +10, for an average of about +20 yr. On this basis, we assigned a Cariaco reservoir age of 420 yr. An alternate reservoir age determination uses the weighted mean difference of Cariaco and tree-ring 14C ages between 10.5 and 12.5 cal kyr BP (Hughen et al., this issue). The mean of the differences, weighted by error, gives the average reservoir age, and the square root of the variance gives the uncertainty. This resulted in a reservoir age of 430 +/- 30 yr, close to the original value as expected, since the Cariaco calendar age was determined by wiggle-matching the reservoir-corrected data to IntCal04 tree rings. However, the reservoir uncertainty of +/-30 yr is robust and is adopted in Table 1. The reservoir age is assumed to have remained constant through the last deglaciation, and has been used to convert Cariaco marine 14C ages to atmospheric values. The best evidence for a constant local Cariaco reservoir age is seen in the close agreement between Cariaco and tree-ring 14C ages across the abrupt Younger Dryas termination (Figure 5). There is no discernible offset between terrestrial and marine 14C despite strongly increased Cariaco upwelling during the Younger Dryas period. This agrees with evidence for a short residence time of carbon in the deep basin, ~100 yr (Holman and Rooth 1990), suggesting that increased upwelling does not result in significantly “older” water reaching the surface.


This chronology runs from 10,490 BP to 14,673 BP (last data point in data table 1), and is tethered to the Preboral pine chronology from 10,490 BP to 12,410 BP, or an overlap of 1,920 years with 375 data points listed in table 1.

Now it may seem that the consilience between the dendrochronology and the Cariaco Basin varves is forced by intentionally matching one to the other, and this argument would be valid if there were only one or two points used for matching them up ... but there are hundreds of points from the Cariaco Basin varves that match the wiggle patterns of the German pine chronology and the wiggles matched are not linear: there are small wiggles imposed on a larger wiggle pattern. Matching both the large and small scale wiggles with this number of points would be unexpected if they didn't measure the same thing -- actual 14C levels for those ages. This is a longer and better match than the original, where the match had an r value of 0.989. This updated match is shown in Fig 5 above, demonstrating what would be astonishing accuracy if they were totally independent random sequences that just happened to correlate: this consilence is strong validation that these two methods measure the same thing -- annual calendar age.

14C activity and global carbon cycle changes over the past 50,000 years(4)

quote:
... Here, we present a calibration and reconstruction of Δ14C back to 50 cal. ka B.P. on the basis of the correlation of 14C data from Cariaco Basin sediments with the annual-layer time scale of the GISP2 Greenland ice core (12). Similarity between reconstructed Δ14C and variations in 14C production rate estimated from independent paleomagnetic and geochronologic data suggests that the calibration and Δ14C reconstruction are accurate despite the lack of in situ calendric age control. ...

... Our prior studies of Cariaco Basin sediments made use of annual varve counts to compare timing of abrupt changes in upwelling proxies to calendrically dated instrumental and proxy temperature records in the high-latitude North Atlantic region and indicated that correlative climate changes occurred within 1 year during the past 110 years (15) and within 1 decade during the last deglaciation (13, 16). Laminations are not present continuously, however, across the longer interval of the current study (17). Therefore, calendar age estimates for the new composite 14C record were derived by transferring ages from the GISP2 ice core to Cariaco Basin site 1002 sediments ...

Precision of the calendar time scale derived in this way has two sources of uncertainty, one pertaining to derivation of the GISP2 time scale itself and another related to correlation between records. Annual layer counts in the GISP2 ice core were used back to about 40 cal. ka B.P. ...

Accuracy of the GISP2 layer-counting chronology is supported by radiometric dating of correlative records. Calcite δ18O from Hulu Cave in eastern China (20) and δ13C from Villars Cave in southwest France (21) show distinct millennial-scale events during the last glacial period that can be reliably correlated with the GISP2 record. U/Th dates for both caves agree within errors with GISP2 layer counts for the interval from 10 to 40 cal. ka B.P. (20, 21). In addition, records of cosmogenic nuclide flux in GISP2 and Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) ice cores show large peaks in 10Be and 36Cl (22) that occurred at ~41 cal. ka B.P. and ~34 cal. ka B.P., according to the GISP2 age model. These have been correlated with marine sedimentary evidence of geomagnetic field intensity minima identified as the Laschamp and Mono Lake excursions, respectively (23). ... recent Ar-Ar dates on Laschamp-correlative tephras yielded ages of 39.4 +/- 0.1 (25) and 41.1 +/- 2.1 cal. ka B.P. (24), in closer agreement with the GISP2 age. ...


This chronology runs from 10,490 BP to 14,673 BP, and is tethered to the Preboral pine chronology between 10,490 BP and 12,410 BP, or an overlap of 1,920 years with 375 data points, and the overall maximum error from the modern end of the European oak chronology in 2002 to the ancient end of the Cariaco Basin in varve chronology in is +/-35 years in 14,725 years of annual records, an error of +/-0.24%.

This extends our knowledge of the age of the earth based on annual counting mechanisms from 12,410 BP (10,460 BCE) to 14,673 BP or 12,723 BCE, another 2,263 years with high accuracy and precision.

This also introduces ice cores, and radiometric dating systems, which will be discussed later, and the use of proxies to show climate and magnetic field fluctuation effects.

The earth is at least 14,736 years old (2013)

The minimum age for the earth is now at least 14,736 years old (2013), based on the highly accurate and precise varve counting system, strong correlation r-factor and with an error of 0.24%.

This also means that there was no major catastrophic event that would have disturbed or buried the varves or their process of deposition.

This is significantly older than many YEC models (6,000 years for those using Archbishop Usher's assumption filled calculations of a starting date of 4004 BCE).

And this is still only the start of annual counting methods.

Enjoy.



References
  1. Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Bertrand, C. J. H., Blackwell, P. G., Buck, C. E., Burr, G. S., Cutler, K. B., Damon, P. E., Edwards, R. L., Fairbanks, R. G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T. P., Hogg, A. G., Hughen, K. A., Kromer, B., McCormac, G., Manning, S., Ramsey, C. B., Reimer, R. W., Remmele, S., Southon, J. R., Stuiver, M., IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 CAL KYR BP, Radiocarbon, Vol 46, Nr 3, 2004, p 1029–1058 https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/4167/3592
  2. Hughen, K.A., Southon, J.R., Lehman, S.J., Overpeck, J.T.. Synchronous radiocarbon and climate shifts during the last deglaciation, Science vol 290, 2000, p 1951–1954. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/290/5498/1951.abstract (abstract) http://www.sciencemag.org/content/290/5498/1951.full (with sign-in)
  3. Hughen, K.A., Southon, J.R., Bertrand, C.J.H., Frantz, B., Zermeño, P., Cariaco Basin calibration update: revisions to calendar and 14C chronologies for core PL07-58PC. Radiocarbon, Vol 46, Nr 3, 2004, p 1161-1187 https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/4175/3600
  4. Hughen, K.A., Lehman, S., Southon, J., Overpeck, J., Marchal, O., Herring, C., Turnbull, J., 14C activity and global carbon cycle changes over the past 50,000 years. Science vol 303 (5655), 202–207., 9 Jan 2004 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/303/5655/202.full.pdf?s...

Edited by RAZD, : link

Edited by RAZD, : ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 10:03 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Prev1234567
8
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017