Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2017 4:19 AM
332 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (2 members, 330 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,266 Year: 23,872/21,208 Month: 1,837/2,468 Week: 346/822 Day: 6/66 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345678Next
Author Topic:   Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 1 of 119 (710691)
11-08-2013 9:05 PM


Mindspawn writes:

Coyote, you are welcome to start a one on one public discussion if you would like. I feel bad that this thread was started by you in response to my request and yet I haven't given it the attention it deserved. Other than the moderation problem there are just too many posts in these public forums for me to keep up with.

I'm proposing a Great Debate between Mindspawn and Coyote on the subject of radiocarbon dating.

I contend that radiocarbon dating is reasonably accurate (10% or better), and as such has disproved the young earth claim, as well as the claim of a global flood at about 4,350 years ago.

Evidence should be limited to accepted science, and not include numerous rabbit-holes which lead nowhere. "What-ifs" with no evidence supporting them should not be permitted.

This thread should be in the Science Forum.

If this thread is promoted, and Mindspawn agrees to participate, I will let Mindspawn have the first post.

Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add RAZD to topic title (He's subbing for Coyote)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by mindspawn, posted 11-11-2013 4:49 AM Coyote has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4753
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 119 (710693)
11-09-2013 1:29 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 3 of 119 (710785)
11-11-2013 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
11-08-2013 9:05 PM


I'm proposing a Great Debate between Mindspawn and Coyote on the subject of radiocarbon dating.

I contend that radiocarbon dating is reasonably accurate (10% or better), and as such has disproved the young earth claim, as well as the claim of a global flood at about 4,350 years ago.

Evidence should be limited to accepted science, and not include numerous rabbit-holes which lead nowhere. "What-ifs" with no evidence supporting them should not be permitted.

This thread should be in the Science Forum.

If this thread is promoted, and Mindspawn agrees to participate, I will let Mindspawn have the first post

Thanks for the thread.

My main problem with carbon dating is its calibration against tree ring chronology, which I feel is unreliable due to assumptions about the annual nature of rings. Tree growth is normally relative to moisture, and moisture cycles are not always annual:

http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/principles.htm
"As used in dendrochronology, this principle states that rates of plant processes are constrained by the primary environmental variable(s) that is most limiting. For example, precipitation is often the most limiting factor to plant growth in arid and semiarid areas. In these regions, tree growth cannot proceed faster than that allowed by the amount of precipitation, causing the width of the rings (i.e., the volume of wood produced) to be a function of precipitation. In some locations (for example, in higher latitudes and elevations), temperature is often the most limiting factor. For many forest trees, especially those growing in temperate and/or closed canopy conditions, climatic factors may not be most limiting. Instead, processes related to stand dynamics (especially competition for nutrients and light) may be most limiting to tree growth. In addition, the factor that is most limiting is often acted upon by other non-climatic factors. While precipitation may be limiting in semiarid regions, the effects of the low precipitation amounts may be compounded by well-drained (e.g. sandy) soils."

We see in the above quote that variation in precipitation is often the main cause of variation in tree growth. In areas with only rare rainfall and well drained soils, there is no reason to assume the rings would be annual. The rings in arid areas are precipitation sensitive, and this is compounded by well drained soils. So if a region receives sporadic rainfall, and this water completely drains out the soil until the next rainfall, this would cause rings that are not annual, but are sensitive to every significant rainfall. The growth occurs while the soil is wet, and stops when the soil drains out:
"While precipitation may be limiting in semiarid regions, the effects of the low precipitation amounts may be compounded by well-drained (e.g. sandy) soils"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 11-08-2013 9:05 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 11-11-2013 10:13 AM mindspawn has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


(4)
Message 4 of 119 (710807)
11-11-2013 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by mindspawn
11-11-2013 4:49 AM


Your objection is unfounded
My main problem with carbon dating is its calibration against tree ring chronology...

If that is the case, this will be a short thread, because this objection is easily dealt with!

Let's forget all about the tree ring chronology (even though as the Peanut Gallery post shows, your objection is unfounded).

We can go with the the glacial varve chronology, or the coral chronology instead. Or use spelothems.

But let's ignore those also and not do a calibration at all! What do we get then?

The idea of a calibration using tree rings or these other materials is to correct for atmospheric fluctuations in the levels of C14. So, let's not correct for atmospheric fluctuations (even though creationists are constantly telling us we have to make such corrections). What do we get without these corrections?

During the past 10,000 or so years the uncalibrated ages are off by about 10% at the most extreme. The error gets a little larger up around 30,000 years ago. This shows quite clearly on the calibration curve.

The calibration curve has been posted here many times, but I'll post it again:

What this shows is that even if we totally ignore the tree rings and other methods of establishing atmospheric fluctuations, and do no calibration, we still get old dates. What the calibration curve allows us to do is get more accurate dates, but the uncalibrated dates are enough to disprove the young-earth claim all by themselves.

So I have clearly shown that your main objection to carbon dating, the tree ring calibration, is unfounded.

I guess this thread is pretty much over then, eh?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mindspawn, posted 11-11-2013 4:49 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by mindspawn, posted 11-12-2013 4:58 AM Coyote has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 5 of 119 (710874)
11-12-2013 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote
11-11-2013 10:13 AM


Re: Your objection is unfounded
If that is the case, this will be a short thread, because this objection is easily dealt with!

Let's forget all about the tree ring chronology (even though as the Peanut Gallery post shows, your objection is unfounded).

Coyote I haven't got time to read up in the peanut gallery, and I wont be referring there often at all. This is a one on one debate, if you feel there are good points made there, could you kindly make those points here in this forum. At this stage you have given no argument to my point about tree rings.

We can go with the the glacial varve chronology, or the coral chronology instead. Or use spelothems

This too is no argument, could you kindly post links and I will look into each argument presented.

During the past 10,000 or so years the uncalibrated ages are off by about 10% at the most extreme. The error gets a little larger up around 30,000 years ago. This shows quite clearly on the calibration curve.

The calibration curve has been posted here many times, but I'll post it again:

The calibration curve you have presented is merely circular reasoning. Sure all of them present the same dates, but they use carbon dating to find the dates. You cannot use carbon dates to prove carbon dates, that is circular reasoning.

The consensus could easily be rainfall related and out by approximately a factor of twelve until the uncertainties of the 40 000 to 80 000 ya period, but I will have to look into it when you give me the background detail for the other studies. Lake Suigetsu is doubtful as discussed in the other thread, as follows:

1) Lake Suigetsu is so low lying and so near the coast that very high tides could cause mass Diatom die-offs creating diatom layers that are more frequent than annual. This is not fairytale what-ifs but a highly probable scenario given the lake's proximity to the sea. Diatoms form layers on the surface of the lake, as the salt water table rises this would kill off the lower freshwater diatoms. Someone speculated that the salt water would not rise high enough to kill off the lowest diatoms however this was mere speculation. No figures were actually presented (depth of lake/depth of diatom layer/depth of saltwater).

2) Lake Suigetsu is fed by the Hasu river. This is a small river with a small catchment area. Sediment flows into Lake Suigetsu would be affected by every large rainfall and not necessarily be perfectly seasonal.

http://naturalishistoria.files.wordpress.com/...etsu-map.png
Please see how close the lake is to the ocean, to believe the saltwater table would not effect freshwater diatoms in Lake Suigetsu is very naive:

Edited by mindspawn, : correcting the factor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 11-11-2013 10:13 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2013 8:36 AM mindspawn has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


(6)
Message 6 of 119 (710882)
11-12-2013 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by mindspawn
11-12-2013 4:58 AM


You missed the point entirely!
You missed the point entirely!

We are not talking about the calibration curve any longer. You objected to it, in fact it was your main objection to radiocarbon dating, so we'll just leave it out of the discussion entirely--forget all about it!

We will go with uncalibrated radiocarbon ages! They are not quite as accurate, but close enough.

The young earth belief is still falsified.

Your main objection to radiocarbon dating, that is, tree-rings, is out the window, gone, and radiocarbon dating still produces ages far in excess of what it would take to falsify your beliefs.

If I may add an editorial comment:

You don't understand how radiocarbon dating works, but you still know it's all wrong somehow. You're going through the internet literature looking for something--anything--that seems like a weak link, some thread that you can start pulling that will unravel the whole method. You have settled on tree-rings and lake varves, thinking that if you can cast doubt on those that everything comes apart.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong! I have tossed those two methods of calibrating radiocarbon ages out the window, and tossed calibration itself out the window, and your belief in a young earth is still falsified.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mindspawn, posted 11-12-2013 4:58 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by mindspawn, posted 11-13-2013 3:06 AM Coyote has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 7 of 119 (710934)
11-13-2013 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
11-12-2013 8:36 AM


Re: You missed the point entirely!
You missed the point entirely!
We are not talking about the calibration curve any longer. You objected to it, in fact it was your main objection to radiocarbon dating, so we'll just leave it out of the discussion entirely--forget all about it!

We will go with uncalibrated radiocarbon ages! They are not quite as accurate, but close enough.

The young earth belief is still falsified.

Your main objection to radiocarbon dating, that is, tree-rings, is out the window, gone, and radiocarbon dating still produces ages far in excess of what it would take to falsify your beliefs.

I didn't miss the point at all. My mention of tree rings was because you still stated "Let's forget all about the tree ring chronology (even though as the Peanut Gallery post shows, your objection is unfounded)." So you still brought up tree rings.

All you used to make your point is one graph with a few labels on it.
I challenged the Suigetsu dates on that graph, if you give me more information, I will challenge all the other dates on that graph.

for example the Bahamas Speleothem data is also assumed to be annual, but speleothems are formed through running water. In a cave where running water is consistent and fed by a large water table, obviously the speleothem growth will reflect seasonal/annual changes in average water flows.

However in a coastal region not fed by a large water table, growth patterns in speleothems would obviously relate to each torrential rainfall followed by a dry spell.

Four forms of radiocarbon consensus are all highly rainfall sensitive:
1) Tree rings from the arid White Mountain region
2) Lake varves from Lake Suigetsu (small catchment area)
3) Bahamas speleothems
4) Lake Lisan was in a dry region that is also precipitation sensitive, not necessarily sensitive to entire seasons.
http://www.tau.ac.il/...ublications/Lisan-levels-Machlus.pdf
The low stand of Lake Lisan during most of this period indicates relative dry climatic conditions in the region.

Its entirely possible that the consensus in radiocarbon dating is obtained merely through misunderstanding rainfall sensitive data as representing annual/seasonal data.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2013 8:36 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 11-13-2013 9:34 AM mindspawn has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 8 of 119 (710957)
11-13-2013 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by mindspawn
11-13-2013 3:06 AM


Re: You missed the point entirely! Again!!
You just don't understand radiocarbon dating enough to get the point I'm making. This is becoming frustrating!

What you are arguing is the various methods to establish a calibration curve may be flawed.

What I am saying is we can discard the idea of calibration entirely and just use the uncalibrated ("conventional") ages. This is where radiocarbon dating was in the 1950s, before it was realized that the effects of atmospheric fluctuation should be accounted for.

So we are no longer talking about tree-rings, varves, corals, or any of those other methods of establishing a calibration curve.

We are talking about "conventional" radiocarbon ages. These are the measured age as corrected for isotopic fractionation. No calibration is done at all.

These conventional ages still show that the young-earth belief is incorrect.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mindspawn, posted 11-13-2013 3:06 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mindspawn, posted 11-14-2013 1:49 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 10 by mindspawn, posted 11-14-2013 2:26 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 11 by mindspawn, posted 11-14-2013 5:03 AM Coyote has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 9 of 119 (711005)
11-14-2013 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
11-13-2013 9:34 AM


Re: You missed the point entirely! Again!!
You just don't understand radiocarbon dating enough to get the point I'm making. This is becoming frustrating!
What you are arguing is the various methods to establish a calibration curve may be flawed.

What I am saying is we can discard the idea of calibration entirely and just use the uncalibrated ("conventional") ages. This is where radiocarbon dating was in the 1950s, before it was realized that the effects of atmospheric fluctuation should be accounted for.

So we are no longer talking about tree-rings, varves, corals, or any of those other methods of establishing a calibration curve.

We are talking about "conventional" radiocarbon ages. These are the measured age as corrected for isotopic fractionation. No calibration is done at all.

These conventional ages still show that the young-earth belief is incorrect.

You are correct, I don't understand what you are talking about. I am not focusing on the calibration curve, my arguments have been clearly focused on the dates at those 7 locations. 4 locations are precipitation sensitive more than seasonally sensitive, 3 of those locations use uranium-thorium dating.

The only evidence that you have posted for your position has been a graph showing firstly radiocarbon dates of material at 7 locations on earth and secondly actual observations of annual layers at 4 locations that confirm the radiocarbon dates by counting the layers to get actual dates. The last 3 locations are dated according to uranium-thorium to determine their age.

On the surface of it your argument appears sound, but as you delve into each location, the assumption of annual layers appears doubtful because the layers at 4 of those 7 locations would more likely reflect strong precipitation than actual seasonal layers. ie the layers are formed from each and every significant rainfall, and are not formed annually.

This means that on the graph the carbon dates should be re-calibrated according to number of significant precipitations per year, and the actual dates should also be adjusted to reflect these multiple layers per year (of varves/tree rings/ice layers).

Hopefully you can understand my position and how it refutes your position, and yet also explains the consilience between the methods, this consilience due to various regions having approximately the same number of significant rainfalls in a year.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 11-13-2013 9:34 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 10 of 119 (711008)
11-14-2013 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
11-13-2013 9:34 AM


Re: You missed the point entirely! Again!!
Regarding the last 3 of the 7 locations referred to on your graph, it appears the Carico Basin and Papua New Guinea dates are established through comparing Uranium-Thorium dating with Radiocarbon dating. I am still looking into how they originally calibrated Uranium-Thorium dating , if they calibrated this according to carbon dating, this ruins the claimed consilience, and in the following link it appears this is what they actually do. They seem to assume radiocarbon dates are accurate , and then apply uranium-thorium methods to these dated coral samples. In this way they can establish a calibration curve for uranium-thorium dating which they can use for periods earlier than carbon dating can function. If radiocarbon dating gives out incorrect dates, this would mean so would uranium-thorium dating, their corroboration is meaningless if uranium-throrium dating is calibrated using radiocarbon dating.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/...s/30652880/Fairbanks_etal2005.pdf

Regarding the PS2644 (voecher et al) data, this is established from layers of ice. Once again these layers are more precipitation sensitive than seasonally sensitive (a layer forms when there is a large snowfall/rainfall)

Have you got any further evidence for the accuracy of radiocarbon dating?

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 11-13-2013 9:34 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 11 of 119 (711012)
11-14-2013 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
11-13-2013 9:34 AM


Re: You missed the point entirely! Again!!
You just don't understand radiocarbon dating enough to get the point I'm making. This is becoming frustrating!
What you are arguing is the various methods to establish a calibration curve may be flawed.

What I am saying is we can discard the idea of calibration entirely and just use the uncalibrated ("conventional") ages. This is where radiocarbon dating was in the 1950s, before it was realized that the effects of atmospheric fluctuation should be accounted for.

So we are no longer talking about tree-rings, varves, corals, or any of those other methods of establishing a calibration curve.

We are talking about "conventional" radiocarbon ages. These are the measured age as corrected for isotopic fractionation. No calibration is done at all.

These conventional ages still show that the young-earth belief is incorrect.

I've been thinking about what you have been saying, and realize where the misunderstanding could have come in. I think your graph distracted me because that is the only supporting evidence that you have posted and your graph was referring to various forms of corroboration, and comparing these to calibrated radiocarbon dates (dates that had been adjusted for variation of the magnetic field and calibrated according to other forms of dating).

To ignore calibration is naive, because this would assume that the amount of carbon produced during periods of strong magnetic field is the same as today's carbon production, when all parties know this is not true. The way to correct for this is to use various known dates of objects during periods of increased magnetic strength, and then re-calibrate the reduced carbon levels of the past according to the known dates.

The period during which there was increased magnetic field strength was earlier than 1800 years ago. This is where tree ring data , varve data, ice core data can help to establish the correct carbon ratio for each of these ages during periods of reduced atmospheric carbon production due to the strong magnetic field in the past. I am saying that true ages of these trees/varves/ice cores are over-estimated by possibly a factor of 11 or 12 and the calibration curve is therefore exponentially affected when projecting these incorrectly calibrated dates onto the uncalibrated period of 12 000 - 80 000 years bp.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 11-13-2013 9:34 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 11-14-2013 10:18 AM mindspawn has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 12 of 119 (711026)
11-14-2013 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by mindspawn
11-14-2013 5:03 AM


Re: You missed the point entirely! Again!! Still!!!
You are still missing the point entirely, and this is due to your lack of understanding of the radiocarbon method. You simply do not have the knowledge necessary to discuss this subject.

As a basic primer, here is some information for you.

When the laboratory does radiocarbon dating, they obtain a reading from the sample. This is the amount of carbon 14 that remains. This number is then converted to what is called the "measured age."

The measured age is adjusted for isotopic fractionation, as not all materials take up carbon 14 at the same rate. Carbon 14 is heavier than carbon 12. This adjustment is rarely more than a few hundred years. The resulting figure is called the "conventional radiocarbon age."

In order to obtain a little more accuracy, the conventional age is adjusted using the calibration curve. This corrects for fluctuations in atmospheric C14. During the past 10,000 years or so this change is not more than about 10%, and is usually much less.

What you have been arguing in this thread, and for months previously, is that the radiocarbon method is fatally flawed because of some perceived flaws in creating the calibration curve. This is where you are missing the point entirely. Again. And still.

The calibration curve was not designed as a device for corroborating the radiocarbon method itself, but a way to correct for the small fluctuations in atmospheric C14 levels.

It is a nice side benefit that all the research going into creating the calibration curve has allowed radiocarbon dating of thousands of items of known age, and thus has demonstrated the validity of the radiocarbon method (to everyone but young-earth creationists). But that is not what we are discussing. I have taken the calibration curve off the table for the time being, as that was where your primary objection to the radiocarbon method was.

So, do you have any objections to the radiocarbon method other than tree-rings and varves, etc., which are entirely incidental to the method itself?

(Incidentally, I would suggest that, before you make any more replies, you actually study the radiocarbon method. You're not doing very well so far.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mindspawn, posted 11-14-2013 5:03 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mindspawn, posted 11-14-2013 3:38 PM Coyote has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 13 of 119 (711056)
11-14-2013 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Coyote
11-14-2013 10:18 AM


Re: You missed the point entirely! Again!! Still!!!
So, do you have any objections to the radiocarbon method other than tree-rings and varves, etc., which are entirely incidental to the method itself?

Thanks for explaining in more detail. I do understand your point better now. My main objection to the radiocarbon method is what I believe to be the underestimation of the effect of the magnetic field from 1800bp and earlier. With a large increase in magnetic field strength, a small effect of 10% to radiocarbon dates is unrealistic. The magnetic field causes "significant variations to carbon-14 production rates"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
"Production rates vary because of changes to the cosmic ray flux incident, such as supernovae, and due to variations in the Earth's magnetic field. The latter can create significant variations in carbon-14 production rates, although the changes of the carbon cycle can make these effects difficult to tease out"

"The natural atmospheric yield of carbon-14 has been estimated to be about 22 000 atoms 14C per meter square of the surface of the earth per second, resulting in the global production rate of about 1 PBq/a.[11] Another estimate of the average production rate[12] gives a value of 20 500 atoms m−2s−1. Occasional spikes are possible; for example, there is evidence for an unusual 10-fold increase of the production rate in AD 774775.[13]"

A ten-fold increase was recorded in AD 774-775. Spikes are possible. The strength of the magnetic field causes significant variation. It appears that the conventional carbon dates require significant calibration to be an accurate reflection of true dates. The accuracy of carbon dating is entirely dependent on calibration with known dates.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 11-14-2013 10:18 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 11-14-2013 4:33 PM mindspawn has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 14 of 119 (711057)
11-14-2013 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by mindspawn
11-14-2013 3:38 PM


Another try?
Thanks for explaining in more detail. I do understand your point better now. My main objection to the radiocarbon method is what I believe to be the underestimation of the effect of the magnetic field from 1800bp and earlier. With a large increase in magnetic field strength, a small effect of 10% to radiocarbon dates is unrealistic. The magnetic field causes "significant variations to carbon-14 production rates"

A ten-fold increase was recorded in AD 774-775. Spikes are possible. The strength of the magnetic field causes significant variation. It appears that the conventional carbon dates require significant calibration to be an accurate reflection of true dates. The accuracy of carbon dating is entirely dependent on calibration with known dates.

It looks like you may be learning something finally! This is an entirely different objection than you started with. Or it is stated in a manner that is more readily understood.

Secular variation is something that has been recognized for over 50 years, and is readily accounted for. de Vries (1958) is one of the primary references for this.

In order to calibrate the conventional radiocarbon age, items with known dates were tested. This resulted in the calibration curve that I posted earlier, and the lengthy discussion that RAZD has provided in the Peanut Gallery thread. Your objection that "The accuracy of carbon dating is entirely dependent on calibration with known dates" is taken care of.

And your objection that cosmic rays/magnetic field can cause radiocarbon dates to vary wildly is unfounded. That is what the calibration curve does--it permits correction of the conventional radiocarbon ages for the effects of cosmic rays and the changing magnetic field. In other words, the variations in C14 levels in the atmosphere are accounted for! There goes your objection.

Unless you have some evidence to support your religiously-based belief that calibrated radiocarbon dates are not adequately corrected by the calibration curve, this discussion would seem to have come to a conclusion?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mindspawn, posted 11-14-2013 3:38 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mindspawn, posted 11-14-2013 5:00 PM Coyote has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 15 of 119 (711058)
11-14-2013 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Coyote
11-14-2013 4:33 PM


Re: Another try?
In order to calibrate the conventional radiocarbon age, items with known dates were tested. This resulted in the calibration curve that I posted earlier, and the lengthy discussion that RAZD has provided in the Peanut Gallery thread. Your objection that "The accuracy of carbon dating is entirely dependent on calibration with known dates" is taken care of.

I dealt with 7 of these "known dates". Your challenge is to show how the small catchment area leading into varves of Lake Suigetsu would not be rainfall dependent , and would be seasonal. I did mention tides before but I am currently focussed on precipitation causing regular sedimentation and varves in the lake.

Additionally please prove that layers from ice cores are not precipitation dependent, but are seasonal.

Additionally please prove that tree rings in arid conditions (bristlecone pines) are not rainfall dependent but are formed seasonally/annually.

The nature of each of these locations specifically favors layers caused by precipitation events rather than entire years/seasons. Its possible the nature of the locations have been overlooked because of the perceived consilience of these locations with existing radiocarbon dates.

Additionally please provide any other objects of known date which have been used to calibrate carbon dating so we can discuss the potential inaccuracy of those dates as well.

And your objection that cosmic rays/magnetic field can cause radiocarbon dates to vary wildly is unfounded. That is what the calibration curve does--it permits correction of the conventional radiocarbon ages for the effects of cosmic rays and the changing magnetic field. In other words, the variations in C14 levels in the atmosphere are accounted for! There goes your objection.

The wikipedia article made the claim that the magnetic field causes "significant variations to carbon-14 production rates". I never claimed that the magnetic field causes dates to "vary wildly". I believe a strong magnetic field over a long period of time, will cause a significant reduction of carbon over that period of time. The exact extent can be determined through checking carbon levels against correctly dated objects.

My problem is that the objects they are choosing to calibrate carbon levels have highly doubtful dates. If you can prove certainty of your dates, then my objection is dealt with, until then the calibration curve is based on dodgy dates and my objection remains valid.

Unless you have some evidence to support your religiously-based belief that calibrated radiocarbon dates are not adequately corrected by the calibration curve, this discussion would seem to have come to a conclusion?

I'm awaiting your evidence that the varves/ice cores/tree rings can only be interpreted as annual layers.

This resulted in the calibration curve that I posted earlier, and the lengthy discussion that RAZD has provided in the Peanut Gallery thread.

My discussion is with you only, you are welcome to re-post anything you feel is significant from the peanut gallery into this thread.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 11-14-2013 4:33 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 11-14-2013 5:21 PM mindspawn has responded

  
1
2345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017